Lawrence Livermore discovers Heaviest element yet.

[Diogenes]

"Lawrence Livermore Laboratories has discovered the heaviest element yet known to science.

The new element, Governmentium (Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. 
These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.

Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert; however, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second, to take from 4 days to 4 years to complete.
 Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2 – 6 years. It does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.

In fact, Governmentium’s mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.
 This characteristic of morons promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.

When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons."


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2784899/posts

[Skipjack]

Brilliant!

[ladajo]

Where is that dang "Like" button???

[Giorgio]

I think Italy is one of the richest countries of the world for Governmentium...

Can someone tell me how can we make a buck out of it?

[KitemanSA]

I think Italy is one of the richest countries of the world for Governmentium...

I believe you will find something like the above quote scrawled in old Latin on the colosseum walls. Seems the ATOM theory got a bit further than usually thought.

[MSimon]

This is very old. I have seen variations of it around for at least 20 years. Maybe longer.

But the trouble D is that everyone has their pet program.

"I want smaller government except for....."

And pretty soon there is no moral ground to reject what the other guy wants. Such log rolling is why government never gets smaller no matter who is in charge. i.e. "You can have your Drug War if I can have medical aid for seniors."

Hardly anyone except for a few libertarian cranks is willing to really limit government and they rarely get elected.

Live Free Or Die.

[KitemanSA]

I suspect that if the voters were actually allowed to vote AGAINST those "dealers" (congressional deal makers, don't you know) then the practice would stop.

The way it works now is that the favor they by helps them at the polls but the disfavor they generate has no adverse effect.

Full Option Voting.

[MSimon]

I suspect that if the voters were actually allowed to vote AGAINST those "dealers" (congressional deal makers, don't you know) then the practice would stop.

The way it works now is that the favor they by helps them at the polls but the disfavor they generate has no adverse effect.

Full Option Voting.

I don't think so. The problem is not the deal makers. It is the voters. You have people who want medical aid for seniors so bad that they will put up with almost anything.

Really. The politicians are puppets and the people pull their strings. We are in fact getting the government we deserve. No kind of improved voting scheme can correct that. Ever. Oh. You might make some improvement at the margins. But the big deal is that no one wants to give up their pet project to save the Republic.

D is a prime example. He is OK with Med pot. But is he willing to even give up his pogrom on pot users he doesn't like to make it possible for sick people to get medicine? No.

As I said. We are getting the government we deserve. Until we become a better people we will keep getting what we have always gotten. But it was always thus.

[KitemanSA]

What percent of the people vote? Talk to those who don't and you'll be told, "why both. It doesn't do any good". Then ask them if they would like the ability to vote against their favorite villain. Plug your ears to prevent deafness from the yes.

Actually, most folks I've asked in general conversation have pondered it for a while and then given a soft smile.

[pdxpyro]

I suspect that if the voters were actually allowed to vote AGAINST those "dealers" (congressional deal makers, don't you know) then the practice would stop.

The way it works now is that the favor they by helps them at the polls but the disfavor they generate has no adverse effect.

Full Option Voting.

I don't think so. The problem is not the deal makers. It is the voters. You have people who want medical aid for seniors so bad that they will put up with almost anything.

Really. The politicians are puppets and the people pull their strings. We are in fact getting the government we deserve. No kind of improved voting scheme can correct that. Ever. Oh. You might make some improvement at the margins. But the big deal is that no one wants to give up their pet project to save the Republic.

D is a prime example. He is OK with Med pot. But is he willing to even give up his pogrom on pot users he doesn't like to make it possible for sick people to get medicine? No.

As I said. We are getting the government we deserve. Until we become a better people we will keep getting what we have always gotten. But it was always thus.

Indeed. I saw a quote recently, but it wasn't identified beyond "This quote came from the Czech Republic".

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting an inexperienced man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."

Now, taking the Obama-bashing part aside (sorry), this quote is more of an indictment on the general voting public. We do, unfortunately, get what we deserve.

[Diogenes]

I suspect that if the voters were actually allowed to vote AGAINST those "dealers" (congressional deal makers, don't you know) then the practice would stop.

The way it works now is that the favor they by helps them at the polls but the disfavor they generate has no adverse effect.

Full Option Voting.

I don't think so. The problem is not the deal makers. It is the voters. You have people who want medical aid for seniors so bad that they will put up with almost anything.

Really. The politicians are puppets and the people pull their strings. We are in fact getting the government we deserve. No kind of improved voting scheme can correct that. Ever. Oh. You might make some improvement at the margins. But the big deal is that no one wants to give up their pet project to save the Republic.

D is a prime example. He is OK with Med pot. But is he willing to even give up his pogrom on pot users he doesn't like to make it possible for sick people to get medicine? No.

As I said. We are getting the government we deserve. Until we become a better people we will keep getting what we have always gotten. But it was always thus.

Indeed. I saw a quote recently, but it wasn't identified beyond "This quote came from the Czech Republic".

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting an inexperienced man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."

Now, taking the Obama-bashing part aside (sorry), this quote is more of an indictment on the general voting public. We do, unfortunately, get what we deserve.

I would not apologize for pointing out the man is the stupidest person to ever inhabit the White House; a status heretofore held by the Second stupidest person to ever inhabit the White House, Jimmy Carter.

Obama owes his windfall to the Affirmative Action mindset of his adoring media. Rather than inform the American people about the truth regarding him, they covered up any ugly information about him that came to light (by not reporting on it) and savaged his opponents mercilessly. I estimate they gave him the equivalent of a billion dollars worth of free advertising that his opponent couldn't even buy if he HAD a billion dollars.

[Diogenes]

I suspect that if the voters were actually allowed to vote AGAINST those "dealers" (congressional deal makers, don't you know) then the practice would stop.

The way it works now is that the favor they by helps them at the polls but the disfavor they generate has no adverse effect.

Full Option Voting.

I don't think so. The problem is not the deal makers. It is the voters. You have people who want medical aid for seniors so bad that they will put up with almost anything.

Really. The politicians are puppets and the people pull their strings. We are in fact getting the government we deserve. No kind of improved voting scheme can correct that. Ever. Oh. You might make some improvement at the margins. But the big deal is that no one wants to give up their pet project to save the Republic.

D is a prime example. He is OK with Med pot. But is he willing to even give up his pogrom on pot users he doesn't like to make it possible for sick people to get medicine? No.

Yes, my efforts are entirely for the purpose of depriving sick people of their medicine. I also kick puppies and want children to starve.

[MSimon]

I suspect that if the voters were actually allowed to vote AGAINST those "dealers" (congressional deal makers, don't you know) then the practice would stop.

The way it works now is that the favor they by helps them at the polls but the disfavor they generate has no adverse effect.

Full Option Voting.

I don't think so. The problem is not the deal makers. It is the voters. You have people who want medical aid for seniors so bad that they will put up with almost anything.

Really. The politicians are puppets and the people pull their strings. We are in fact getting the government we deserve. No kind of improved voting scheme can correct that. Ever. Oh. You might make some improvement at the margins. But the big deal is that no one wants to give up their pet project to save the Republic.

D is a prime example. He is OK with Med pot. But is he willing to even give up his pogrom on pot users he doesn't like to make it possible for sick people to get medicine? No.

Yes, my efforts are entirely for the purpose of depriving sick people of their medicine. I also kick puppies and want children to starve. :twisted:

That may not be your purpose. It is the net effect. Now you know better. Maybe you should figure a way to get what you want while helping people get their medicine.

Hundreds of law enforcement professionals including Denver’s U.S. District Judge John Kane have come together on a curious quest: Saying the drug war has failed, they want to legalize drugs.

Some are very nuts and bolts, saying coloradoindependent.com/90965/this-just-in-war-on-drugs-has-failed">the war on drugs has cost trillions of dollars while only making the problem worse. Others like Kane, while agreeing on that point, are more philosophical. “Our national drug policy is inconsistent with the nature of justice, abusive of the nature of authority, and ignorant of the compelling force of forgiveness,” he says on the web site of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.

http://washingtonindependent.com/112439 ... galization

Tony, who was a Denver police officer for more than 35 years, told The Colorado Independent that not only has the drug war been utterly ineffective but that it has also been counterproductive in many important ways. He says the war on drugs is the number one reason cops become corrupt. “It’s the money. These drug cartels don’t care who they kill. Even a good cop, faced with the choice of ‘take this money or we’ll kill you’ will often take the money. And it is getting worse. Drugs are a vicious business,” he said. Ryan, now retired, says he never worked in narcotics but that illegal drug trafficking puts every cop’s life at risk and puts every cop in the position of potentially being offered the take a bribe or die proposition.

[Diogenes]

I don't think so. The problem is not the deal makers. It is the voters. You have people who want medical aid for seniors so bad that they will put up with almost anything.

Really. The politicians are puppets and the people pull their strings. We are in fact getting the government we deserve. No kind of improved voting scheme can correct that. Ever. Oh. You might make some improvement at the margins. But the big deal is that no one wants to give up their pet project to save the Republic.

D is a prime example. He is OK with Med pot. But is he willing to even give up his pogrom on pot users he doesn't like to make it possible for sick people to get medicine? No.

Yes, my efforts are entirely for the purpose of depriving sick people of their medicine. I also kick puppies and want children to starve.

That may not be your purpose. It is the net effect. Now you know better. Maybe you should figure a way to get what you want while helping people get their medicine.

In a heat engine, some must be allowed to escape or it won't work. You can only convert as much as possible, but not more than is possible. In a social system, there will also be an ever present loss. In my mind it is unavoidable. The best we can hope for is to optimize the parameters and tolerate the losses. If you can convince me that your idea will have lower losses, I would embrace it. As of yet, I just don't see it.

[MSimon]

Well the choice is:

1. Drugs everywhere + criminal cartels

Or:

2. Drugs almost everywhere (regulation has some effect)

Salient fact: it is easier for KIDS to get illegal drugs than it is for them to get legal booze or legal tobacco. The numbers are consistent on this and have been for decades. They run in the 80% to 85% range.

And then of course your support for the nanny state gives others cover for their nanny state ambitions. And then as the cop states above: the Drug War has Federalized local police forces. That is not exactly what the founders had in mind.

And then there is the proliferation of Federal Crimes. Feathers. Wood, etc. All under the cover of the WODs precedent

And then there is the question of Liberty.

Live Free Or Die.

B. Franklin “Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security” And I might add will get neither. The Drug War is the beginning of a Police State. Did you know Gibson was raided by a SWAT team for illegal wood? Guns drawn for a wood violation? Is that the kind of country you want to live in? It is not one I like. The Drug War is the precedent.