If this post is not on subject, I apologize. But I don't know better where else to post it.

I refer to Thom's new book, The Crash of 2016.

On page 218, Thom wrote: “And most important, the Supreme Court was way beyond their constitutional authority” when “they created out of whole cloth (a) new legal doctrine,” like privacy in Roe v Wade. Come on, Thom, you don’t really believe that privacy is not a protected Constitutional right, do you?

On page 219, Thom wrote: “If the Supreme Court hadn’t decided Roe v Wade” … “then it would have been just a matter of a few years before Congress took care of it.” Once again, Thom, you don't really mean this, do you?? Not to mention, Congress can change its collective mind every day. And it surely would not pass THIS Congress nor any that we can imagine going forward.

When treason has become as deeply entrenched in the goverment as it has in the U.S. the only solution is USUALLY violent revolution. Let us hope and pray that it does not come to that, but I fear our version of the French revolution will happen very soon, in the few years I have left on this planet.

Palindromedary ~ Thanks for those links. I've been busy but I finally got a chance to look at them. The Demon baby was very cute. A friend of mine tells me that clip is everywhere--even on TV. Those interviews were quite convincing. The only problem I have is that they are all from the same source, the Sirius project. It's probably nothing but I always prefer to have such information collaborated between different sources. Nevertheless, the credentials of the interviewees are impeccable.

Just wondering if you caught this little local story in Colorado? Have you heard anything about this phenomenon? Quite regular and quite strange. Also reproduced by the TV stations own cameras. This is definitely authentic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Q-wppA9H4g

Quote sandlewould:She is agnostic...it's very simple...a mind, like a door only works if it can open, otherwise, one can't get out of the box...let alone think outside of it.

sandlewould ~ Very well put! When it comes down to the real truth we are all really agnostics. Anything else is self deception. What is occurring here is the playing out of a basic psychological need--to explain the unexplainable. We as a species do not like not knowing. Therefore we build up "explanations." From that comes legend, myth, religion, and science. All things considered different; yet, actually meant to do the same thing--explain the unexplainable.

All these "legends", "mythologies", "religions", and "sciences" provide explanations for creation; yet, none can be proven. They are all therefore equally relevant. Personally, I prefer scientific explanations simply because they are based on fact. However, scientific theories are nothing more than an extrapolated myth that fits that fact. Ancient legends, myths, and religions do exactly the same thing. They are the "theories based on known fact" of their day. Recently, I saw a documentary on TV where they went through myth and Bible stories and tried successfully to recreate so called "miracles" that occurred in legend using known scientific techniques. Every miracle examined had a scientific way to reproduce it. Of course, that doesn't prove the stories were true anymore than it proves that God is science.

I'm firmly convinced that the best approach is the one of the agnostic. It is healthy, and permits furthering the agenda of explaining the unexplainable without the mental obstacle of preconceived prejudices. I have found that with a broader knowledge and understanding of science and myth, one gets a better understanding of both. That is, not only can science help one understand the fundamentals of legend, but legend can also help one better understand science. However, it is important to keep in mind during our struggle to understand, that though our knowledge may very well improve drastically, it is not likely that we will ever be able to fully explain the unexplainable as fact.

That is a fact that we must accept in order to learn anything. It is important that the door on the box not only open; but, open both ways. Also, it is not necessarily a bad thing that we can never really know the truth about creation. Perhaps we might seriously regret having such knowledge. For instance, if we really knew it all, where would the motivation be to learn any more? That might be the reason that the universe does such a good job of concealing it's secrets in the first place.

treason |ˈtrēzən|
noun(also high treason )
the crime of betraying one's country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereignty or overthrow the government: they were convicted of treason.
• the action of betraying someone or something: doubt is the ultimate treason against faith.

Mac book dictionary

Also...Wikipedia goes into greater detail regarding treason and sovereignty... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_treason

Oxford, The crime of betraying one's country.

Google:

trea·sonˈtrēzən/nounnoun: high treason1.the crime of betraying one's country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government."they were convicted of treason"

treachery, disloyalty, betrayal, faithlessness;More

Cambridge ...if one considers multinatioal corporations 'enemies' of the people which, in some cases they clearly are

high treason

/ˈhɑɪ ˈtri·zən/ n [U] › the crime of making war against the government of your country, or attempting to help an enemy take control of your country
Interesting to note that my old hard cover Cambridge says, "the crime of making war against one's own country" whereas the online version has been edited to say "...against the government" ..Hmmm. How much longer are we going to turn a blind eye to this corporate coup? It is what it is. I have no solution other than to keep raising my voice. As for what Thom does and doesn't like, I would prefer you let him speak for himself...we are all entitled to our own opinions. I respect yours...Thanks..

High Treason is defined as any action which jeopardizes the soverignty of one’s state or seeks to overthrow it's government. Since the W. Bush Coup, I have increasingly come to believe that US multinationals have indeed, overthrown our government. Now, these OILigarchs, posing as our elected representatives, are poised to destroy our sovereignty. Obama was elected, true...but under utterly false pretenses. This is the point at which Candidate Obama and President Obama would, if in 2 bodies, wage war with one another. We the People have been deceived and it would appear, Treason is being committed against us. With the deployment and militarization of drones and law enforcement, our government will be poised to wage war against us...indeed, by creating an impoverished Nation, then stealing from our Nations poor to give to the rich, the war is already being waged.

She is agnostic...it's very simple...a mind, like a door only works if it can open, otherwise, one can't get out of the box...let alone think outside of it. Speaking for myself, I see the theory of evolution as the most likely one...but scientific methodology demands physical irrefutable proof...which as of yet, we do not absolutely have.

Sandlewould: You are right, of course, all I can do is speculate based on what I have read.

Quote Sandlewould:The problem my geneticist partner has with the theory of evolution is that it is promoted as fact, not theory ...

If your partner is religious, or believes in a God or Supreme Being..no matter what they call it...would your partner consider those "facts" or just "theories"?

Those things are always promoted as "facts" in the religious realm. Your partner, "an MD, geneticist and microbiologist" certainly must know a lot about science...at least in those fields of science....very important fields indeed but I find it rather odd that someone with such knowledge puts up such a fight against what most other scientists accept as the most logical scenario...ie: that evolution has been proven sufficiently to be considered a fact.

From hypothesis to theory to fact is the normal path to accumulated knowledge... knowledge that proves to be highly reliable. When theories have continually mounting evidence over many, many years and are falsifiable with repeated evidence, or experimentation, supporting the validity of that theory...it is generally accepted as fact.

Some people, however, if they are not struggling from within over counter-veiling ideas (but maybe they are?) they can juggle them in a way where they can believe both scenarios. They can keep their professional knowledge at bay in order for their faith to survive. The unfortunate thing is that "misery loves company" and they often try to drag others into their abyss..ie: proselytize....if for no other reason than for the psychological kick they get when they convince others to accept their nonsense....it serves as a kind of reinforcement mechanism...an ego booster...and a kind of control over others.

Aliceinwonderland: you're welcome!

Hello Thom,

I have wanted you to run for president since the first year I started listening to you. And I still want you to run! For the simple fact that the economy is the most important piece of our government and you seem to have an excelent grasp on what that entails.

If every one worked our government could afford all the safety net programs, healthcare, social Security, infrastructure, and foreign aid programs and still reduce our budget deficit. The Republicans have killed every jobs program that President Obama has proposed because they cannot allow a black Democratic President to succeed. they do not care what damage they cause our courtry as long as they can claim President Obama failed.

Aside from the fact that Republicans would like to put everyone who earns less than $100,000/year into slave labor camps we all know that their healthcare program is "Don't get sick. If you do get sick, die quickly." unless you're over the earning threshold, then you should be pampered and waited on by your slaves.

While reading the online comments on the budget deal just signed by congress today someone said that giving money to those out of work would add to inflation, which gave me a thought. Corporate taxes should be tied to the amount of profit. If a corporation is making 100% profit (doubling the amount spent to produce their product) they should pay 35% of that in taxes and every 10% more should increase their taxes by 10% (if they make 110% they pay 45% in taxes) an on up. And management salaries should not be deductable or included in the cost of producing the product, It would seem that this formula would de-incentivise raising prices for the product and at least help to de-incentivise the income disparity between CEOs and workers.

Sincerely,

William Manners

Sandlewould: The big key is time and external infuences...and changes that organisms make in order to adapt to survive.

Quote Sandlewould: "Since Pasteur discovered the microbe, no single celled organism has ever been observed to evolve into a multi-celled organism."

Quote Sandlewould:"..it is impossible for DNA to change what it codes for spontaneously in an organized fashion, i.e. from a single-celled organism to a multi-celled one if it originates as a single celled organism."

The key words there are 'spontaneously' and 'organized' . Evolution of a species takes a very long time and nothing is 'spontaneous' or 'organized' about evolution of a species except for possibly the mutations from errant cell replications.

It is more on the order of chaotic mutations that occur over many thousands or millions of years and the passing on of those traits to offspring that pass them on to theirs eventually branching off to form a new species.

Apoptosis is the term they use to describe programmed cell death which is necessary to weed out genetic coding 'errors' from mutations perhaps caused by an extra burst of gamma rays from the sun, or the stress of constantly trying to evade predators, for example. When apoptosis fails to occur, and doen't correct the problem, then a permanent mutation ensues. It might be, or might not be a cancerous mutation that cause death of the host. Those that aren't mortally cancerous, thereby not killing the host, lets that host survive to possibly pass on the "defective" genes to offspring.

Quote National Science Foundation article:January 16, 2012

More than 500 million years ago, single-celled organisms on Earth's surface began forming multi-cellular clusters that ultimately became plants and animals.

Just how that happened is a question that has eluded evolutionary biologists.

Now scientists have replicated that key step in the laboratory using common Brewer's yeast, a single-celled organism.

The yeast "evolved" into multi-cellular clusters that work together cooperatively, reproduce and adapt to their environment--in essence, they became precursors to life on Earth as it is today.

The results are published in this week's issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=122828

It's been many years since I bought and read much of a great book called Molecular Biology of THE CELL-Third Edition... too many authors to list here...but Watson* was one of them. It has really nice color drawings and diagrams. So, anyway, I am somewhat knowledgeable about how a cell replicates and the regulatory proteins involved.

A lot of people differ on what they consider 'chaos' or 'random' and what they consider 'ordered' which implies a 'creator' which gets into some pretty deep cosmological implications that is not likely to ever be resolved especially among people who still believe in myths and that the universe is only 5 or 6 thousand years old. Just can't reason with scientifically challenged people like that. And then, there are the scientifically knowledgeable few who have also been brainwashed from childhood to accept contradictory mythical creation stories that they stubbornly refuse to shake off.

Some people resort to what I like to call Ontological Onanism and circular reasoning and of course they just go in circles.

Quote wikipedia:"The evolution of multicellularity from unicellular ancestors has been replicated in the laboratory, in evolution experiments using predation as the selective pressure.[4]"

"...the evolutionary transition from unicellular to multicellular organization. The first evidence of this transition comes from fossils of prokaryotic filamentous and mat-forming Cyanobacteria-like organisms, dating back 3 to 3.5 billion years.."

* James D. Watson one of the authors of the book I mentioned..also author of The Double Helix and others and who in 1929 "co-discovered the double helix structure of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) at age 25, was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1962, along with Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkinsmany" and many other accolades too numerous to mention here said this:

Quote James D. Watson:"The biggest advantage to believing in God is you don't have to understand anything, no physics, no biology. I wanted to understand" (The Vindicator, Dec. 2, 2003).

“Every time you understand something, religion becomes less likely. Only with the discovery of the double helix and the ensuing genetic revolution have we had grounds for thinking that the powers held traditionally to be the exclusive property of the gods might one day be ours. . . .

[As a young man ] I came to the conclusion that the church was just a bunch of fascists that supported Franco. I stopped going on Sunday mornings and watched the birds with my father instead.”

https://ffrf.org/news/day/dayitems/item/14283-james-d-watson