Originally Posted by Pbrower

This is tricky. A college near the interchange of Interstate 69 and the Indiana Toll Road is close enough to some fine museums in Chicago, Detroit, and Toledo (the latter is a surprising gem, and I endorse it to anyone!). Much of the Great Plains isn't. But even with that caveat, here's a good source:

Originally Posted by TnT

REALLY??!! Gosh, I'd like to know the answer to THAT question!

Could you share it with us?

That's a Truth with a Capital T that could be very useful! We could, like, post it on billboards and run PSAs and stuff, get the word around, ya know ...

Hmmmm.... Seems like the interstate numbering convention gives you the truth while traveling there. Answer = sex. "Get your kicks while having sex on interstate 69" billboards.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

From MY favorite contribution to Wikipedia:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declin...nd_James_Burke

Yes, I wrote that. What I did not add was that Arnold Toynbee saw the Roman Empire as the decadent Universal State that encompasses an entire civilization (classical civilization once the Roman Republic conquered the Ptolemaic dynasty of Greek origin in Egypt), establishes uniform rule over that civilization, and stifles innovation in science and entrepreneurialism. The rot began in times of Republican Rome.

American neocons seek a globalized world that at the least consists of satellite states in all countries of undeniable Western culture, whether in the Americas, Europe, or the South Pacific (including the Philippines, Australia, and New Zealand), and has a profits-first economy (neoliberalism) in which brutal management operates with fear as its sole motivator. Human needs are to become a tool of exploitation.

The Right would stifle science in the service of (fundamentalist or evangelical) Christianity and transform competitive capitalism into crony capitalism in a plutocratic oligarchy. As the opposite of such (a political quiz defines me as an anarcho-syndicalist) I might soon want to find another country. America became an economic behemoth when small business prevailed, but now that giant entities have been squeezing small business into oblivion or into control through debt, it could become a monster. We go back to what we used to do well and justly, or we become the new Universal State.

Western Civilization has had its candidates for the "Universal State" -- Spain (complete with the Inquisition) between Columbus' discovery of the New World and the Spanish Armada, Napoleon's French Empire, Wilhelmine Germany, the demonic Third Reich, and Stalin's Hell-Frozen-Over. America's perverse equivalent with neoliberal economics, neoconservative foreign policy, and anti-rational fundamentalist Christianity is an inchoate monstrosity to be stopped -- here and now in America.

This article is consistent with my view of the world.

http://www.saintsandsceptics.org/sci...f-new-atheism/

… "For Galileo, Kepler, Boyle and Newton, “God-did-it” did not function as a “science stopper”, a phrase that explained away mysterious phenomena. The forerunners of science believed that theism explained why the universe was well ordered and structured. This order and structure was a necessary condition for scientific discovery. But they also knew that theistic belief alone could not tell us the exact form of the universe’s structure; it could not reveal how God had ordered the world. Observation, measurement and experiment were necessary for a thorough understanding of His creation. However, it remained equally true that science alone could not give a full, complete explanation of the universe. This is easily forgotten when we consider the achievements of modern science.”…

Originally Posted by radind

This article is consistent with my view of the world.

I have no problem with the existence of God. Ultimate reality exists even if it reduces to a law of categories, and the fundamental realities of mathematics and physics. Even such realities as the curve of binding energy



and the periodic law, if subtly different, make the Universe a very different environment in which life impossible. Allow zirconium to be at the high point, and planetary atmospheres fill with unrespirable krypton. Allow calcium to be the high point, and iron becomes extremely rare... and a planet the size of Earth cannot have a magnetic field... and animal life that depends upon iron-containing hemoglobin becomes practically impossible.

Allow four electrons in the 1s layer instead of two, and hydrogen and helium might not be the extremely-volatile gases that we know. Giant planets become the norm even if rocky. Chemistry becomes very different, and biochemistry becomes much trickier.

That's before I even discuss the laws of thermodynamics. Life depends upon a certain range of safe temperatures.

...Religious people rarely discuss this -- but this better explains a possible need for a God than does abject fear of a harsh and vindictive God punishing those who believe wrong.

Originally Posted by TnT

REALLY??!! Gosh, I'd like to know the answer to THAT question!

Could you share it with us?

That's a Truth with a Capital T that could be very useful! We could, like, post it on billboards and run PSAs and stuff, get the word around, ya know ...

A life reduced to "sex&drugs&rock-n-roll" at the best makes one an insufferable bore.

People can live on primitive drives, but such drives offer only ephemeral and expensive delights while wrecking those who rely upon them in their rawest forms. Sugar? tooth decay and diabetes. Need I go further?

-----------------------------

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

A life reduced to "sex&drugs&rock-n-roll" at the best makes one an insufferable bore.

People can live on primitive drives, but such drives offer only ephemeral and expensive delights while wrecking those who rely upon them in their rawest forms. Sugar? tooth decay and diabetes. Need I go further?

Hey, I get what the "meaning of life" is NOT. The deliberate manufacture of misery abounds.

You were suggesting that a liberal education offers folks the knowledge of the meaning of life. Perhaps I've my tongue slightly in cheek, and yet, the "meaning of life" is a lot more elusive than anything available from a row of Good Books.

Originally Posted by TnT

Hey, I get what the "meaning of life" is NOT. The deliberate manufacture of misery abounds....

Now yer talkin', Tim!

"Life is too short to spend being miserable".


Prince

PS: In-Deed!

A good place to start on the "meaning of life" is Viktor Frankl's classic, Man's Search for Meaning. He describes road-testing personal spirituality in ways I've never seen done anyplace else.

Originally Posted by TnT

Hey, I get what the "meaning of life" is NOT. The deliberate manufacture of misery abounds.

That is the problem. Between the usual vices of greed, power-lust, sadism, free-ranging anger, wastefulness (i.e., "luxury"), and recklessness we have much of the pathology of our time. Some of the Seven Deadly Sins are still deadly.

I recognize how helpless some people are... and the Great Sin is to exploit such helplessness. We can surely all list methods of exploiting people -- like selling expensive and destructive non-solutions.

You were suggesting that a liberal education offers folks the knowledge of the meaning of life. Perhaps I've my tongue slightly in cheek, and yet, the "meaning of life" is a lot more elusive than anything available from a row of Good Books.

There's plenty of meaninglessness out there. We all know of tourist traps, questionable entertainment, and worse... like drugs and alcohol. Some ways of life might be profitable for an employer (obsessive-compulsive behavior?) but ensure a miserable life.

Fourteen states, somewhere between one fourth and one third, have been polled on how they are likely to choose between Hillary Clinton and potential Republican nominees (Bush, Christie, Huckabee, Paul, and Walker). I can show only four of my maps, so this time I will ignore Chris Christie (who isn't getting the attention that he recently did). To see all five maps, and I created them there, go here. This polling includes several pollsters, not all of whom have not polled anywhere near all fourteen states. A pattern in which Hillary Clinton will win a minimum of 300 electoral votes is emerging. The so-called Blue Firewall (it appears red on these maps) is solid if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. The only mystery is whether Hillary Clinton can gain anything in the states that used to give Democratic nominees for President a chance but rejected Barack Obama by a huge margin.

The state in which Scott Walker is Governor (Wisconsin) does not really like him (approval 43%, disapproval 52%), and against Hillary Clinton he is down 52-43%. Against other Republicans she is close to 50% and ahead by at least 6%.

Scott Walker does not have a favorite-son advantage over other Republicans in Wisconsin. Wisconsin is now at most on the fringe of contention for Republicans for President. Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee do better against Hillary than Bush or Christie (alleged Establishment candidates).

Indeed, both Joe Biden and Elizabeth Walker would hold leads, if within the margin of error, against Scott Walker in Wisconsin. If Walker is going to lose Wisconsin 53-47, then the only Rust Belt state that he can win is Indiana. Just look at the Ohio polls.

Wisconsin is split on the Right-to-Work legislation that the Wisconsin State legislature passed and Scott Walker signed by a 44-42 margin.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/p...e_WI_31015.pdf



Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush





Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee



Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul



Hillary Clinton vs. Scott Walker



Republican -- blue Democratic -- red

30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more
white -- tie

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Fourteen states, somewhere between one fourth and one third, have been polled on how they are likely to choose between Hillary Clinton and potential Republican nominees (Bush, Christie, Huckabee, Paul, and Walker). I can show only four of my maps, so this time I will ignore Chris Christie (who isn't getting the attention that he recently did). To see all five maps, and I created them there, go here. This polling includes several pollsters, not all of whom have not polled anywhere near all fourteen states. A pattern in which Hillary Clinton will win a minimum of 300 electoral votes is emerging. The so-called Blue Firewall (it appears red on these maps) is solid if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. The only mystery is whether Hillary Clinton can gain anything in the states that used to give Democratic nominees for President a chance but rejected Barack Obama by a huge margin.

The state in which Scott Walker is Governor (Wisconsin) does not really like him (approval 43%, disapproval 52%), and against Hillary Clinton he is down 52-43%. Against other Republicans she is close to 50% and ahead by at least 6%.

Scott Walker does not have a favorite-son advantage over other Republicans in Wisconsin. Wisconsin is now at most on the fringe of contention for Republicans for President. Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee do better against Hillary than Bush or Christie (alleged Establishment candidates).

Indeed, both Joe Biden and Elizabeth Walker would hold leads, if within the margin of error, against Scott Walker in Wisconsin. If Walker is going to lose Wisconsin 53-47, then the only Rust Belt state that he can win is Indiana. Just look at the Ohio polls.

Wisconsin is split on the Right-to-Work legislation that the Wisconsin State legislature passed and Scott Walker signed by a 44-42 margin.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/p...e_WI_31015.pdf



Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush





Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee



Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul



Hillary Clinton vs. Scott Walker



Republican -- blue Democratic -- red

30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more
white -- tie

Team Clinton are doing well to burn out the email "issue" (which is nothing) in the media now. It will be forgotten soon. Clinton is going to win it.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Fourteen states,...

It's early and it could be more about name recognition (exception being Bush, but that's a bad thing ), but I sure like those maps.

Just wish you could switch the Blue/Red around - it nearly stops my heart each time until I read the fine print!

Another twitter trending is #Jebya -

https://twitter.com/hashtag/Jebya?src=hash

If that sticks, he's toast.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Team Clinton are doing well to burn out the email "issue" (which is nothing) in the media now. It will be forgotten soon. Clinton is going to win it.

I'm wondering where the point of recognition will occur and the establishment GOPer (and donors) start thinking of the post Nov 2016 deep crap they're going to be in with the non-forgiving in-power Clinton machine. They need a miracle and it ain't gonna be an e-mail server.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Team Clinton are doing well to burn out the email "issue" (which is nothing) in the media now. It will be forgotten soon. Clinton is going to win it.

Using a private e-mail for government business is troublesome only if there is some question of personal corruption such as making decisions for personal or family gain or for coordinating with controversial interests. If the receiving end of the e-mails has kept them intact, then it is no harm and no foul.

I concur. I see big weaknesses in the potential Republican nominees. Ted Cruz is a nut; Rick Perry is around the low end intellectually for a national leader. The shine is off Chris Christie. Jeb Bush has much the same advisers as his brother did, which would not be so troubling except that his brother was one of the worst Presidents of the United States. Mike Huckabee is a strong regional candidate, but outside that region he wins only states that never, ever vote for a Democratic nominee for President. Rand Paul is a libertarian on economics but an authoritarian on all else. Ben Carson has no experience in elective office, and his type typically melts down early. Scott Walker is a reliable stooge of the Koch family.

.....................

I waited until the Wisconsin poll to draw national conclusions. I wanted to see whether Scott Walker had a chance with promises of "There will be jobs, but they will not pay well". It apparently does not work. I thought that he would be a disaster as President, and this poll suggests that we will be spared having to find out the hard way.

The "blue firewall" (which shows as deep red on my maps, in view of their origin) that has been consistently with Democratic nominees for President beginning in 1992 is intact. The only New England state that has ever voted for a Republican nominee for President since 1992, New Hampshire, will go for Clinton, as will all other New England states. If Wisconsin is near 50% for Clinton against everyone and shows a 6% lead for her this early, then Republicans can forget Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, and Minnesota. Ohio seems outside the margin of error -- and a Republican nominee is not going to win the Presidency without Ohio. Indiana probably goes for the Republican nominee until I see polling that indicates something to the contrary, but Democrats typically win the Presidency when losing Indiana by less than 11%. The West Coast, except for Alaska, isn't going for any Republican nominee for a couple of decades. Nevada and New Mexico are probably gone for the Republican nominee.

Jeb Bush is close in Virginia and Florida -- but behind in both. Colorado is iffy in Colorado for Paul and Walker -- but they are both behind. Neither state is so iffy with anyone else. Choose your Republican and choose how to lose. Huckabee ties in North Carolina but loses Colorado, Florida, Ohio, and Virginia.

At this point the states most in question are those that Republicans won in 2012. Hillary Clinton will need none of those.

Originally Posted by playwrite

It's early and it could be more about name recognition (exception being Bush, but that's a bad thing ), but I sure like those maps.

Just wish you could switch the Blue/Red around - it nearly stops my heart each time until I read the fine print!

It's possible by replacing the "1" with a "2", and vice-versa -- but that is tricky. I make enough mistakes as it is. But the site that uses that color scheme sticks to an old color scheme in which red typically meant left-leaning (as in liberal, socialist, or communist) and in which blue meant right-leaning (as in conservative, reactionary, monarchist, or fascist). I create maps there base on their color scheme, and it is easier for me to take them over to this site.

It troubles me that the Republicans adopted the color red as they began taking baby steps toward totalitarianism (and which have recently accelerated). The Bolsheviks loved the color red, and so did the Nazis (whose demonic flag is mostly red).

The source of the color scheme is Leip's Election Atlas, and it uses 'red' for Democrats and 'blue' for Republicans because such was the norm until at least the 1980s. I post heavily there and I use their appointed color scheme. Their mapping scheme works well here, and it can be used for subjects other than Presidential elections. It allows shades of color (red, blue, green, yellow, and orange -- surprisingly not purple) that can be used for other issues.

It is useful for elections back to the 1790s (Washington was really appointed in 1789), and for showing such matters as same-sex marriage, living conditions, levels of taxes, etc.

For example, here's a map on how heavily states tax cigarettes:

The federal excise tax on cigarettes is $1.01, which is not included in the rates shown (below).
Several municipalities, such as New York City, Chicago, and Anchorage also have a cigarette tax, which is not included in any of the rates shown above.
Most states charge a sales tax on top of the retail price and the excise taxes. A few municipalities levy a local sales tax in addition to the state tax. None of the rates shown above take sales taxes into account.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigare..._United_States



90% saturation -- under 30¢ per pack (Missouri 17¢)
80% saturation -- 30¢ to 68¢ per pack
70% saturation -- 79¢ to $1.25 per pack
60% saturation -- $1.339 to $1.70 per pack
50% saturation -- $1.98 to $2.00 per pack
40% saturation -- $2.50 to $2.70 per pack
30% saturation -- $3.025 to $3.20 per pack
20% saturation -- $3.40 to $3.51 per pack
10% saturation -- $4.35 per pack (New York)

(To be sure, it's all a matter of judgment on whether one prefers cheap smokes or to have fewer people smoking. But from one of the most selfish standpoints possible, I would rather live in arch-conservative Utah
than Kentucky on one matter alone: in Utah, such taxes as I would pay would go less into the medical costs of cancerweed users as I would pay in Kentucky. Utah residents are by far the lightest smokers in the US and Kentucky residents are the heaviest smokers. Utah revenues can be spent on such things as roads, education, and public parks. Even if I am not a Mormon I at least have Mormon lungs and a nice liver for someone near 60 -- you know about what I refer. I figure that I could do a lot of hiking in some places of spectacular scenery, which would be good for cutting back on weight.

Another twitter trending is #Jebya -

https://twitter.com/hashtag/Jebya?src=hash

If that sticks, he's toast.

Just like his brother... just like his brother... just like his brother.

The "John McSame" meme worked well against Senator John McCain.

Here's how the t-baggers' hatred of Obamacare kills off the GOP as a national political force -

https://medium.com/@CommonwealthFund...l-88907f633c5a

The Day After King v. Burwell

Here’s What Will Happen If 7.5 Million People Lose Health Insurance Subsidies

...In Florida, about 1.6 million people who picked a plan on the federal site were eligible for financial assistance, according to the new report. In Texas, more than one million were eligible; in North Carolina, more than 550,000; and in Pennsylvania, more than 430,000