Marc said about 3 hours later

That warning must be for most of my lineup... :(

GJ said about 11 hours later

Maybe I'll go slap winter tires on my car this year.

We're waiting to burn out the generals on the van. Last van we ran nokian nrws all the time, they were an awesome all-season tire (even tho they were a winter tire).

---

Geoff said about 12 hours later

Hey Steve, I need to get winter tires this year...and probably mount them come Thanksgiving (or earlier...depending on how soon the snow comes).

TireRack has the blizzaks for about $75 a pop. Are these something I should get, or can u recommend something else? I would need a 195/65HR15.

---

GJ said about 15 hours later

Blizzaks are pretty sweet. I prefer NRWs (thanks Steve) but they're harder to find. You'd be fine with Blizzak.

Of course, Steve's the expert. My expertise stops with these electronic gizmos. :)

---

Steve said about 24 hours later

Blizzaks are the best snow/ice tire, hands down. However, that performance comes with a big compromise. The tires are very squirmy in the dry. They also don't last long if you run them much in the dry, or drive too aggressively on them. Hakka's (aka Nokian Hakkapelitia, who made the NRW GJ refers to) are also awesome tires. Wish you asked this question a week ago, as Hakka is raising prices as of October 1st (tomorrow).

The Hakka NRW is no more. It's actually a few iterations old. The Hakka on Mom and Dad's Monte Carlo was the successor to the NRW, and it has now been replaced with the WR AWP tire. It's touted as an all season tire, and the only all season tire to qualify as a severe service tire (meaning it gets the snowflake on the side, which indicates it is a snow tire).

I've had Dunlop Graspics before, they were only so-so (squirmy like Blizzaks, not as good in snow and ice as Blizzaks, but cheaper). The past couple of years I have had Goodyear Ultra Grip Ice tires, and I liked those quite a bit (not as squirmy as Blizzaks or Graspics, but down a little on ice and snow capability versus the Blizzaks. Still very good though). I just picked up a set of Hakka 1's, which will be used on my older Neon for the winter.

I'd be real tempted to try out the Pirelli Winter Carving tire, saving yourself $36 over the Blizzaks at the same time. You can even stud those, if that's legal in NY. The Pirelli should be similar to a Hakka - not quite as good in snow and ice (but still pretty awesome), but better for dry handling, and wear better.

---

Geoff said 2 days later

Hey Steve, I'm interested in those Hakkas. I contact an online dealer...tirefactory.net

Still waiting to hear back from them...but was wondering if you had any contacts with purchasing them. I'm curious how much they cost compared to the Perelli's vs. performance. I drove the monte and I loved the tires on there. I would want a snow tire though , rather than all weathers as I have my summer tires. Rochester doesn't get a ton of snow, so dry pavement performance during the winter is almost as important as snow...so the Blizzak's are out. Let me know.

---

Steve said 3 days later

The only "all season" tires I would ever consider for use in the snow would be ones with the snowflake mark on the outside, like the Hakka has (and that Hakka is the ONLY "all season" tire to meet that requirement).

Don't expect a bargain price for Hakkas, they will probably cost more than the Pirellis.

The only people I can recommend Blizzaks to are those that live in areas where snow is on the ground 75% of the time.

---

GJ said 3 days later

Go with the Hakkas. They are an incredible dry and snow tires, and perform rather well in the wet, too.

When we put the NRWs on the old Venture, it handled better, too! Can't beat that. When we sold it, they had 40K miles on them and probably would have made another 20k miles before replacement. They're expensive, but tires are a critical part of your car's safety system. Don't go cheap on them!

---

Geoff said 3 days later

Welp, they Hakka's aren't cheap. They are actually more expensive than my summer tires...priced at $109.99 from tirefactory.net

Compared to the Pirelli's or Blizzaks..they are almost twice the price. Steve, your familiar with prices of these tires...does this sound right?

---

Steve said 4 days later

I'll let you know how much I can get the Hakkas for shortly. Which model did they quote you? WR? RSI? Nordman 1?

---

Geoff said 4 days later

Nokian Hakkas 2

http://www.tirefactory.net/Hakkapeliitta%202.htm

there is the link. That is what he recommended for me.

---

Steve said 4 days later

I can get you Hakka 2's for $104 per tire, WRs for $103 per tire, and RSis for $106 per tire. That price includes shipping.

The WR is the all season tire. It's what Mom and Dad have on the Monte Carlo. It's the successor to the NRW, the tire GJ liked so much.

The RSi is the latest and greatest from Hakkapelitia. Probably my choice.

The Hakka 2 is a tried and true excellent snow tire.

I've asked my buddy, who is a Hakka distributor, to make a recommendation. I'll pass that on to you. Also, his prices are only good for another week, as they apparently pushed the price increase back a week. After that, prices go up, though he doesn't think it will be too much.

---

Geoff said 4 days later

Great let me know what he says

---

Steve said 5 days later

Here's the reply from the tire distributor:

Steve,

Both the 2 and the RSi are very soft. That is how they work in cold
conditions. I don't think they are as mushy as Blizzaks but they are
still very soft. Aggressive driving on dry or abrasive roads will wear
them out quickly. They are specifically designed to work in wintry
conditions.

The RSi is the best ice tire. If your brother wants to maximize ice
traction this is the one to choose. The Hakka 2 gives up a little ice
traction to be better in deep snow. Personally, I suggest the 2 unless
ice traction is the overriding factor.

Scott

OK, that said, maybe the 2 is the better tire. I'll let you decide, you know better if you will be able to control yourself driving on these tires (as in slowing down for corners to reasonable speeds or not). Beleive me, these tires are NOT fun to drive in dry conditions, so you won't be tempted to drive fast in the dry. They will be very tempting to go out and play with when it snows though. :)

There's also the Pirelli and the Continental, don't forget to consider those. Let me know if you want the Hakkas. I can have them shipped home to you, or I can deliver them at Thanksgiving, if that is acceptable to you. Your call.

---

Geoff said 5 days later

Hey Steve...forget Ice...deep snow is where its at. I've got a 45 degree incline up my driveway...and last year i had to back up, and hit the driveway going about 15mph to make it up it...or else i'd slide right back down (no joke...I'd stop traffic temparilly...I even backed up into my neighbors driveway across the street a few times to get a head start.

Now...dry pavement is also important. We have snow on the ground maybe 50% of the time. So if they suck in dry pavement, I don't want em. Now I don't plan to be going crazy or anything, but perhaps the pernelli might be a better choice? Might not be as good in the snow as the hakkas...but better in dry you think? Nothing can be any worse than my all seasons in the snow...boy those suck. Lemme know.

---

Steve said 6 days later

Hmmm. Any of these tires will do quite well in the snow. Hakka 2 would be best in snow. It also will probably be on of the best in the dry (as far as winter tires go).

I've never tried a Pirelli, so I have no idea how it would perform.

Whatever you pick, I'm sure you will be thrilled with the snow performance. Just keep in mind, it's not possible to design one tire that is good at everything. That's why you don't like all season tires, remember? Snow tires are just that - snow tires. They will perform reasonable in the dry, but they are not summer tires.

---

Geoff said 6 days later

Yeah thats fine, I don't expect them to perform like summer tires...i'll dry out the perelli's...and save myself about $120. Thanks for the help!

Steve said about 8 hours later

Schweeet!! I've been bugging my computer dude at work for the past year trying to get a laptop. Since I spend my winters in Arizona, having a computer down there that is mine sure would be nice.

Greg, Sr. said 20 minutes later

Hey Steve, good looking set of wheels!!! Good luck with your new SRT4!!

---

Geoff said about 1 hour later

Sweet! I got a little something today too. 17" Mac PowerBook...biggest darn laptop screen around baby!

I want a ride come Thanksgiving...and it better not be snowing!

---

Geoff said about 1 hour later

---

Marc said about 1 hour later

Sweet mother of mercy.

That is simply beautiful. I call shotgun!

You deserve it Steve!

---

Greg, Sr. said about 3 hours later

Sorry to disappoint you younger guys, but Steve told me he would be putting the new wheels away before the snow flies, so you may need to wait for your ride until next spring!!

---

Geoff said about 4 hours later

Boo! Wimp! Boo! It may be cool, but it's still a Neon lol jk.

---

Steve said about 23 hours later

I'll see what the weather is like in November, but if there's a hint of snow I'm not driving that thing home. Take a look at the tires - they wouldn't do so good in the snow. None of the 50+ tires I currently own will fit on the car, except for the race tires I use on my red car, and maybe a set of drag radials. Like they would be any better in the snow....

---

GJ said 1 day later

Thanks, Steve. Now I gotta go get me an intercooler, take out all the seats save mine, strip the car of all the interior goodies, do a few more tweaks to the engine....and probably still not be able to keep up. :)

Congrats--looks schweet!

---

Geoff said 1 day later

GJ, I think you'd be better off buying a charger...theres a nice Daytona version in my parking lot...orange with black pinstripes. Quite nice.

---

Steve said 1 day later

Chrargers are quick, one almost rearended me when I missed second gear. We were pulling onto VERY BUSY 55 mph road from a side road, and we had been waiting about 5 minutes, so when an opening presented itself, I put the pedal to the metal, and we was right behind me. I went for second, and just totally missed it (darn new cars...so different from my car). I glance in the rear view and all I can see is his grill lol.

GJ said about 10 hours later

It could be the first signs of an evolutionary step in our species--socialization could be changing drastically as a result of the computer world.

Too much computer socialization in place of in-person socialization could be a bad thing--especially if in-person social interactions are not going away. They require different skills, and because we do so much non-verbal communication with our facial expressions and body language, I do not believe electronic communication will ever fully replace in-person socialization. So, total immersion in the computer socialization is a bad thing.

No computer socialization--also very bad. One of the spectres of online communication is miscommunication. This is due to the lack of body language I mentioned earlier--too often, emails and chats are construed to say one thing, and mean another. All too often, they are misinterpreted and people's feelings get inadvertantly squashed. Bingo--instant email flame war. I think exposing kids to this early will help them learn to adapt to these situations--and perhaps learn from them. This is a key skill in the new information age.

---

Greg, Sr. said about 24 hours later

I agree with what GJ said, kids do need to spend time with other kids doing things that require communication skills - and also excercise some physical skills that are also needed! For example, playing hockey for all you guys provided some of both in regular quantities and over an extended period of time. Learning to play together, work together, win together, lose together, and just plain talk, joke, laugh, etc., helps you become a more rounded person. It doesn't have to be hockey, but some sport or other activity that allows the child to interact makes for a happier and more well rounded child (and adult!) Computers, while serving many purposes, do not provide too much of these experiences because of their "individual" operation.

---

Geoff said 1 day later

Hockey rocks...I start back up in about 2 weeks, can't wait! Too bad Marc won't be back to play until next season, I enjoyed brawling with him hahaha ;)

---

Greg, Sr. said 2 days later

GJ said about 3 hours later

It finds virus "fragments," meant to lead you to thinking it found a virus your software didn't find. Do you really want a piece of web-based software searching your hdd?

I've actually used it in the past--it's ok, but not spectacular. Want a good free one? Try Avast. It's free, fast, and auto updates. Gotta love it!!

---

Geoff said about 3 hours later

Well I didn't mean for you to use it in place of a virus scan system on your computer, just in addition to. You can never be too careful.

I'll take a look into this Avast....wonder if it supports Macs...as trend micro doesn't.

---

Marc said about 10 hours later

Housecall is especially handy if you're having trouble with you virus scanner on your computer due to a virus kicking it's butt.

It has saved RIT students more than once, and further more it tends to pickup new viruses more quickly than some others (McAfee, Norton, etc. Never tried Avast though).

Like Geoff said, never should be your only virus scanner. Mostly because a good virus will kill your internet connection and/or browser. Technically I would call that an "ok" virus. Good viruses tend to completely rock your BIOS like that ridiculous Chernobyl one that killed our old Acer.

---

GJ said about 18 hours later

Nah, good viruses are the ones you never find. They sit in the background and either steal your info, or recruit your machine to join a drone army bent on a DOS attack or similar.

Ones like Chernobyl are just like the escapee from the mental institute who kills a bunch of folks on a weekend spree--it's sensational, but the overall impact isn't that great. Compare that to insidious corporate crime--often hard to detect, yet far more destructive in the long term. Spyware viruses are their electronic cousins, and most people today still don't realize their system is clogged with them.

Kristen said about 2 hours later

Do aliens exist?

Yes. Whether they are just ameobas or more intelligent than us is hard to say. I don't think they've been abducting humans. I doubt if they've ever even entered our atmosphere. I buy it that they may have sent some sort of survelliance here.

I don't worry about them coming here to colonize. There's too many of us and we're too much of a pain in the butt to be worth it. But they may want our water. I just hope if they do come that we don't nuke them on their way in.

Cause that may be like killing one bee if you're within reach of the hive---the rest will come at you with a vengeance.

---

Steve said about 5 hours later

When you look up at night and see the stars, and figure there are probably several planets associated with each star, and possibly several moons associated with each planet, I think you gotta beleive there is someone/thing else out there somewhere.

Of course, this is one of those fascinating questions. Are we alone? What is the reason for human existance? Are we just a science project of a superior being? Is there more than one superior being? Perhaps they are all having a competition, seeing which one of their civilizations will reach some goal first (like contacting another civilization). Can't you just see them all playing Civilization, and we are the tribesmen for their game? Oh, so many questions, so few answers.

---

Marc said about 5 hours later

Likely if they have the technology to travel long distances beyond what we can see (You'd suspect that we would be able to see a colonized planet in our telescopes/satellites), they could most likely demolish us. But would they is a totally separate issue.

More likely, if they wanted our resources, they would befriend us and slowly take us over (That's what North Korea thinks we're doing :) ).

They exists, UFOs definitely exist, probably 0.01% of the pictures are real, but they are. You'd figure that out of all of those, at least one of them was true. People really don't gain all that much fame for it anymore. Nor did anyone expect Roswell, which is totally true.

Unless the aliens come to us, we won't see them in our lifetime, unless, as Kristen said, they're in the form of a small creature that is likely unintelligent.

---

Marc said about 9 hours later

See!!!! Told ya so, told ya so!

UFO Prophet

---

Marc said about 9 hours later

Another cool one:

Fast UFO

---

GJ said about 20 hours later

Roswell, totally true? You guys are killing me.

There is not one iota of concrete proof that this was anything alien at all.

There are lots of anecdotes, stories, faked photos, and that's about it. No alien bodies, no huge leaps in science / military technology, no ship parts, nothing at all.

Just so you know, ICs were already being prototyped long before roswell. We have no anti-grav technology. Stealth technology is a human invention. Read the Skunkworks book for details on that marvelous American engineering feat.

Belief in roswell is all based on conjecture and hearsay. If you think you have proof, point me to it.

---

Geoff said about 22 hours later

Alright, so I wrote up this whole thing on aliens, but this new stupid word verification didn't accept my message apparrently (and I thought I entered the code in right...although I could barely read it).

Marc, great videos. UFO prophet was great...I have no clue how he did it.

Roswell, totally true. We captured not only alien craft, but possibly 4 aliens. 2 dead, one we shot, the other was wounded...died a few years later supposedly.

This was no military project Mogul. If Mogul crashed....wouldn't they know about it, and wouldn't they send more than 3 privates to investigate? I think not.

They even demonstrated this Top Secret Mogul prototype the following day to debunk the UFO. Heck they even reported it as a UFO at first, and then changed their minds and called it a weather balloon. Common!

These military people know what makes up a weather ballon, even this so called top secret Mogul ballon. Still doesn't explain the strange "indestructable" thin metal which wasn't used at all on any weather ballon. It ain't foil folks.

Wiki has a good write up on it. You can also find some info on the nice technology we reverse-engineered from aliens like stealth technology, anti-gravity propulsion, even the design of our integrated circuits.

They're out there...and yes, they are living well on 25th street in Manhattan.

---

GJ said about 23 hours later

IC history

Stealth history


Anti-Gravity history: none. OK, both the military and NASA have tried ideas out in this vein. They've had no success manipulating earth's gravitational field, which is strictly what anti-grav is supposed to do. Scientifically, depending on whose Grand Universal Theory (GUT) you believe, it may be possible but certainly would cost an inordinate amount of energy. There is still much research to do.

As for aliens using anti-grav drives--don't bet on it. You're not going to cover vast distances in space with an anti-grav drive. You'll need something to fold space and time--probably still gravity related, but may also require manipulation of particular spatial anomalies. This is all conjecture on my part, however--we have no real ideas or workable methods to do this.

---

Geoff said about 23 hours later

Funny how IC's history began in the 1940's....right around the time UFOs were being reported by fighter jet pilots during WWII.

Coincidence...i think not muwhahahaha.

Obviously there is no concrete evidence to back up the alien theories...mostly because the government has it stashed away.

Oh, and I'd say we've had to some fantastic technological advances since UFO's popped up. Space flight, landing on the moon, the Atomic Bomb, Computers, the Internet, Stealth, Lasers, the skys the limit.

Can we attribute most if not all of this to human invention...probably, but its nice to think we had some help from the aliens. After all, they did build the pyramids hahahaha.

---

GJ said about 24 hours later

yawn. Attributing things like this to aliens means we're just stupid idiots who can barely tie their own shoelaces.

Strictly speaking, UFO sightings began much earlier than the 1940s. However, sightings grew exponetially in the 50s and 60s.

Funny thing is, most of the spaceships and aliens looked like what people were seeing in the sci-fi movies of the time. Coincidence? I think not.

At the end of the day, those who would have you believe that UFOs exist have a convenient excuse why there is no evidence: the government is covering it up. The government is so good at this, it has never leaked to the major news media--never mind many other very damaging things have, leading one to believe that the government in fact does NOT control the media.

Not only that, but they're hiding it why? Oh, that's right--it would cause mass panic. Or we want to hoard all their secret technology. And never really use it, either...because if we did, those pesky scienctists would find out that we really didn't know how this neat stuff worked and that it must be alien in origin. So, what is to be gained by the enormous cost of this secrecy?

If you want to see what would happen to us if aliens appears, study your history. Ask a native american what it's like when aliens appear on the horizon. Sure, the first few may appear friendly--they may even have fairly good intentions--but your way of life is coming to end in a bad way.

Oh, that's right--they're advanced, and nice--don't want to cause us any harm, but also don't want us to compete with them. So, they stay out of sight (they are, after all, very advanced), watch for developments in science that would possibly threaten alien dominance of space, and take steps to derail that progress. We'd never be the wiser, if done correctly. If not done correctly, war of the worlds would ensue.

Trust me. There are no aliens visiting us--and none know of us, if any even exist.

---

Geoff said about 24 hours later

I think you underestimate aliens. Using the white man landing on American soil is poor comparison of humans and aliens.

If aliens actually visited us, they would probably require technologies we cannot even fathom. To them, we are probably like insects. Would we eradicate all cockroaches because they pose a threat to our existence? Of course not, they have no chance of attaining our knowledge or leveraging our technology.

Aliens would probably look at us the same way. I suspect they came during the late 40's, perhaps returned a few more times later on. Anything after the 60's is pure crap. The media wasn't even broadcasting aliens in the 40's or early 50's. They got their material from Roswell reports baby.

As for the government, sure they have leaked a lot of crap, and they can be morons at times. But if they reall want to keep a secret, they sure as hell can. As for panic, the War of the Worlds broadcast should answer that. People would freak out if they knew aliens were buzzing over our head.

Questioning aliens visiting us...sure maybe they never came....questioning their existence entirely...thats just plain crazy. The numbers are far to great for this entire universe to be barren.

---

Geoff said 1 day later

Good Alien Link from PBS

Here is something we can all appreciate. Based on your answers to this interactive site, you will be given counter evidence. I've already taken the test...let me know what you decide in the end....You should already know what I chose.

---

GJ said 1 day later

Geoff, the argument that the universe is so big that there just has to be life out there is false.

It's akin to saying I have a million cups, and because I know milk can go in a cup, odds are good that a few of these cups hold milk.

See the problem? Not enough info.

The Nova site is cute--but with input from what appears to be only three scientific sources, all who wholeheartedly believe we are not alone, you get scientific postulations as to the likelyhood that not only is there life out there, but that it may well be more intelligent than us.

I'd say that until we understand how to create life ourselves, we have no basis to assume anything about the likelihood of other alien life out there. The fact is, science still cannot explain how life first began. Evolution explains how it got from the very first organism to where we are today, but it doesn't say how that first bit of life started.

It is entirely possible that the first spark of life had to be struck by God. If so, then there is no telling how many other places he may have done the same. If God is not behind it, and it is some other process that started life, than the universe may well be teeming with life. We just won't know until we find it--if we find it.

Geoff said about 2 hours later

Interesting topic. I don't think the government has the right to impose religious belief systems onto people. Our constitution gives us freedom of religion and right to exercise or not exercise it. However, we also have freedom of speech. So aren't we as a consensus nation free to say, "A Nation under one God?" I think so.

So, which is it then? Well, I think the nation should decide whether we unite under one God. Majority wins. Many of us don't want Bush as our President, but he is still our president because the majority of the nation voted for him (At least in the most recent election ;)

So the majority of the US believes in one God, and we are presented by one God. If you believe in many gods, or none, you still have the right to believe it. You should also have the right not say the pledge of allegiance if you don't want to. Sure it alienates you, but you have the right to leave and practice your beliefs where it is more commonplace.

So, back to the question, should the government eradicate all evidence of religion? If the majority of the government thinks we should, then as our elected representatives, we should be able to remove all religious notions from the government.

---

GJ said about 7 hours later

Majority rule is not all what our government is about. If it was, blacks would still be attending segregated schools....women wouldn't be voting...etc.

Here is the danger of mixing religion with government: religion is founded on faith. Faith means different things for different people. Muslims have different faith from Jews. Christians are different than Wiccans...in fact, just within one belief you often have many branches of belief--Christianity alone has a zillion different factions. No other major religion is any different.

So, what's a government to do? Pick one of them? OK, say we pick Christianity, seeing as (for the moment) Christians are the overall majority of the country? OK, now, which branch of Christianity? Roman Catholics are the biggest group, but are by no means a plurality. In fact, I think (don't quote me on this) non-Catholic Christians outnumber Catholics 2-1, but no single non-Catholic group is as large as the Catholics. So, do we make it a Catholic nation?

Probably not--you'd alienate all those other non-Catholic Christians, not to mention the non-Christians and beyond them the non-believers. Chances are, you'd have a major civil revolt on your hands.

Back when the country was founded, the founding fathers wanted nothing more than to separate religion and government--they saw the damage it did to Britain and France, and more importanly, to their individual rights and freedoms.

So, they settled on putting generic God references in the documents that shaped our nation--mostly because they were by and large agnostics. Bet you didn't realize that, eh? :)

Anyhow, over time, the Christian churches (other than the Catholic church, which was largely ostracized in early America) peddled their influence with the county and helped get like-minded individuals elected to public office. You can thank them for all sorts of good deeds--like prayer in schools (maybe not a bad thing if you are Christian--considerably less so if you are anything but); refusal to teach proper science (evolution) in favor of the biblical story of creation; placing the words "under God" in the pledge; placing the words "in God we trust" on coins, etc.

Think the founding fathers did these? Nope. A bit of history:

Coins were first stamped with "In God We Trust" during the Civil War thanks to appeals by clergymen. Congress passed this Act in 1864.

The pledge was originally written by Francis Bellamy--here's what it originally said: "I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Notice no mention of God or the United States.

The phrase under God was added in 1954--you can thank the Knights of Columbus for championing this item.

Evolution--see the Scopes trial in the 1920s...and it is still being fought today.

A lot of folks that grew up in the 40s and 50s remember the "old" US as being a very religious place--far better than today's US.

In fact, the US has been in a religious fervor for several decades--the constitution was been under assault by the major Christian churches for quite some time. The big difference today--the country is far more diverse today than it was in the 50s--and the percentage of both whites and Christians is on the decline. Further, the US is experiencing what Europe already knows--that secularism is growing by leaps and bounds, and fewer and fewer people are regular church goers.

So, why am I so fervently against government and religion as a mixed drink? Simple: the further down the path this country goes in that direction, all of the following will continue to increase:

* decline of science and mathematical prowess that made our country great

* escalating violence between the haves and have-not--that is, the Christians in control of the government, and the burgeoning non-Christian population that is being force fed a religion they don't want.

* eventually, the collapse of the nation that will make the fall of Rome look like a walk in the park.

So, flip side--what happens if we rid the government of religion?

Hmmm...I'll have to think on that one for a bit. It'd be a major culture shift for this country.

---

Geoff said about 22 hours later

It is to my understanding that we still elect and pass laws using Majority or 2/3rds vote depending on who is voting. I can't remember all the differences, but I know they are there. The only single person who has influence is the President who can veto, but he cannot pass a law by himself, nor veto a law by himself. Thus our Checks and Balances system is at work (although the Patriot Act has royally screwed this system up, but that is a whole other topic).

So GJ, if you could further explain how womens' right to vote wasn't ratified by a majority in each state, please do. As far as I know, you can't make amendmends to the Constitution or Bill of Rights without this.

Now, to counter some points you made. I went to a Catholic school as the rest of you. Religion didn't inhibit my Math or Science teaching. As a matter of fact, Religion class allowed us to ponder things science and math has yet to prove (and probably never will). It taught us morality. Science and Math don't teach us this.

Religion can make you think too, and it spurs far more passionate responses than science and math ever will (not all of it is good though, just look at our "homeland" in the middle east). I think all are important and every person should be exposed to some form of Religion/Faith.

Regardless of whether you believe the teachings or not, it exposes you to a different perspective. Science should be approached by every angle, even if it can't be measured. You can't quantify Love, but it exists.

If you were a die-hard scientist, you couldn't love anyone because love isn't something you can measure, it isn't something you can test in the lab, so it cannot exist and therefor cannot be used, but how many scientists don't love their mothers? (and fathers too!)

So do I think our country should convert to secluded, computer robots who calculate, process, test, measure, and hypothesize? No. Obviously we don't want the opposite either.

Some of Science's greatest achievements started with faith. Faith in an idea that couldn't yet be proved, but they were sure they were right. Many times this isn't the case, but if you don't believe in something you really can't do anything.

Science didn't teach me faith. Math didn't teach me faith. Religion teaches faith. Although we may choose not to agree with everything Religion teaches us, it still influenced our life in positive ways, and that is worth teaching.

Now to end on a unique thought. Most of us in the family are Mathematically competant. Most of the US is not. I bet there are a good number of people who would like to see Math removed from school. Yet we force kids who clearly hate Math and can't do it. So for those individals, should they not be forced to take Math? That is basically what you are saying.

Hell, back in highschool I bet everyone would drop Math and Science if they could. Why should religion be any different. Just because you don't believe in it?

---

Steve said about 22 hours later

I think y'all have too much time on your hands...

I say, leave the "In God We Trust" on money until it's time to come out with a new coin or bill. Then, just simply, remove it. I don't care, it doesn't do anything for me.

Want it removed from the pledge? Fine. I don't care. No need for an act of congress to do so, let it be up to the schools or the teachers or whatever. People complain too much about the littlest things.

Can you tell it's way past my bedtime? Stupid Dale Carnegie class. Sounded like such a good idea back in January when I signed up. Not such a good idea now... The one day I don't have to stay at work until 9:00 PM working on cars, I stay until 10:30 PM in class.... So please excuse the crabby response, if it comes off that way.

---

Steve said about 22 hours later

Who else does the Prez need to veto a bill? The letter carrier? I think you mean that a Veto is not the final answer, and can be overuled with a 2/3 vote in the house.

Anyone see the Simpsons episode with the end of days? This whole topic reminds me of it...

---

Geoff said about 22 hours later

Oh yeah, the nation will fall regardless. History proves that. In fact, as civilization advances, an empire's average length of rule is reduced significantly.

So don't expect us to rule for a 1000 years. We can be science nuts or religious who-has, we still be gobbled up by a black hole or ripped apart when our galaxy collides with Andromeda in the next 2 billion years. So plan on hitching a ride with the aliens or the arrival of the Second Coming...whichever you believe :)

---

Eric said 1 day later

Geoff said "I went to a Catholic school as the rest of you. Religion didn't inhibit my Math or Science teaching. As a matter of fact, Religion class allowed us to ponder things science and math has yet to prove (and probably never will). It taught us morality."

Personally, I believe that our parents taught us morality. Religion class may have emphasized how we were brought up, but it didn't really make us who we are.

My vote is for separation of church and state. However, I like "In God We Trust" and I am proud to repeat the pledge as is. I don't know how I would feel if I was athiest, but I really don't care. That's their problem, and they are a very small minority.

There are many laws, bills, etc., I don't agree with; but I don't go around making a fuss about it. I am very happy with the majority of the way the country is governed. I think I can deal with a few minor things I don't agree with. And I think everyone else should too. If they don't like saying "One nation, under God,..." then don't say it! Or move out! I won't miss ya!

---

GJ said 1 day later

Ahh, lots of debate.

Some responses:

Geoff:

women: bad example from me. I can bring up all sorts of morality issues with this one, but not majority rule issues (except pehaps that the majority immorally kept women from voting for a long, long time).

religion and science: you, Geoff, were lucky--you went to a Catholic school, where science was taught and encouraged. Critical thinking was encouraged. These are good things, though probably not good for Catholicism, as critical thinking tends to conflict with religious belief. However, many other Christian branches are not so accepting of science. Ready for this? There are a lot of them that not only say the evolution is crap because the bible says different, they also say the sun revolves around the earth. That's not science, that's religion trying to dictate scientific principles. The Catholic Churchs gets involved in this too--view their active role in opposing abortion on the grounds that life begins at conception. Science can outline precisely when the zygote is fertilized--is that somehow a human being? How is it different than 0.1 seconds prior? The potential for life is not that different from either scenario....and because of this, the Church starts taking *interesting* positions on in-virto fertilization, sterlization, pregnancy inhibitors, and all sorts of other reproduction-related medical issues. But I digress.

Fact is, religion can exist in concert with science--but the two are completely separate. One cannot dictate terms to the other. Science is based on observation, measurement, and hypothesis. Religion is based on belief. Where we get into trouble is when your religious beliefs have you convinced that Adam and Eve truly existed--and science shows that they did not. Was that belief in the Adam and Eve story really critical to belief in God? No, it shouldn't be--but if you insist that the Bible is to be interpreted literally, evolution violates that belief system. So, your only choice is to force ignorance of it. This isn't just about evolution--religion and science smack heads in many areas, and for many reasons....which should really be a whole different thread.

Geoff, you had an interesting comment: "Science should be approached by every angle, even if it can't be measured. You can't quantify Love, but it exists."

How very wrong you are. :) Science by definition requires measurement and observation. Science cannot weigh in on things that do not fit that category. How would it? You mentioned love--that can be measured to a degree. We can measure hormonal responses; we can measure social interactions; we can measure brain activity. So yes, we can study the effects of love, and draw some conclusions about it. Does it mean love is fully explained? Not a chance. A lot of people assign qualities to love that are God-based. How do you propose that science proves them? Science cannot, and that is fine. These components of love are belief-based. If you believe them, fine. If you don't, that's fine too. Atheists fall in love just like everyone else.

On to your next quote "If you were a die-hard scientist, you couldn't love anyone because love isn't something you can measure." As I mentioned before, it can be measured, at least on physical levels. Physical attraction is an animal trait. Mental attraction is as well. Why would a scientist not be subject to those animal needs? Scientists are not machines--they are humans like the rest of us.

OK, next up: faith. Science doesn't teach faith. Check. Math doesn't teach faith. Check. Religion teaches faith. Check. Parents teach faith (thanks Eric). Check. Some of what religion teaches is positive. Check. None of these are reasons to include it in government. Is it worth teaching? That's a personal decision. If you're a Jew, you probably take a different view of this. If you're an atheist, you really take a different view of this.

There seems to be a running theme that religion teaches morality. I would agree with this, but morality is taught by your parents, your peers, your country, your environment, all sorts of things. Sorry to use the A-word again, but atheists are not by default anarchists who wish to end the world. They're not so different from any of us--other than their lack of faith. Is that a bad thing? That depends on what you believe. Should they be entitled to less of an existence because their beliefs (yes, atheist is a belief) don't jive with yours, or the majority in the country? Nope. If they live by the rules the country lays down, everything is cool.

What happens when the country becomes relgious-orientated? Do we now take a dim view of all those with different religious views? You better believe it! Is that a good thing? It's not what the founding fathers intended--and I think they were right.

Geez, Geoff, you gave me a lot to respond to. ;) Keep it up!

Another quote: "Some of Science's greatest achievements started with faith. Faith in an idea that couldn't yet be proved, but they were sure they were right. Many times this isn't the case, but if you don't believe in something you really can't do anything."

Umm, not really. Yes, they had faith in an idea--and pursued it with vigor. Sometimes they were right--many other times they were wrong. When a scientist proves themself wrong, they go back to the dashboard, revising their idea to fit the observations collected. They do not continue to insist on faith in their original concept--unless they aren't really a scientist.

Unique thought response: failure to understand math and science is a big reason why so many people out there are suckers. They wrap their whole life around belief--and some of those beliefs are, shall we say, stupid. Astrology, anyone? Magnet therapy? Chiropractics? UFOs? Loch Ness Monster? Men in Black? Atlantis? Crystal power? Math and science require critical thinking--something that is almost totally absent in media, and thus the rest of people's lives. It's not cool--and requires us to ask tough questions. It sure isn't hard, but I think it's taugh so poorly in school in order to discourage people from pursuing it. A government will never be toppled by sheep, will it? That's what the majority of us in this country are--sheep. We get everything, including our morality, spoon-fed to us--and we base our life values around it.

Baaaa. Baaaa. I don't need to vote, it's not like the government will do me wrong. Baaaa, Baaaa, I never studied numbers or economics, so what if the deficit is several hundred trillion dollars? Baaa, Baaa, isn't that John Roberts a cutie! He'll make an excellent supreme court judge.

OK, gotta give my fingers a rest. Fire away!

---

Geoff said 1 day later

UFO's are real. (well, most are not, but the first few were...they've moved on by now)

Now...what else can I counter...hmm all points you made were valid and I agree. Although String theorists believe in a theory that cannot be proven simply because it is so "perfect". So is it Science? Well, mathematic equations were developed for it, it required critical thought and testing, but it can't be measured or proven wrong. Einstein spent his last years devoted to this "Theory of Everything" and he was our greatest scientist of the 20th century. So is it still science?

Are we all sheep, we sure are! You can make all the assumptions of how poor our government is, how stupid our country people are, but who is going to do anything about this? Surely not us who complain about it on a BLOG haha. It is the one in the million who stand up and act. Very few people are willing to sacrifice this much.

Me, I'm happy designing websites and driving my car. BAAAA!

So back to the initial question of this topic. Do I want to see religion booted....I don't care either way hahaha...BAAAA!!!

---

GJ said 1 day later

UFOs are so not real....they're all weather balloons and undigested gruel (thank you Charles Dickens).

Anybody who says string theory cannot be proven, ever, is making up a new religion. It's not science if it has no way to be tested. However, many of the new exotic theories cannot be tested by any means available to us now. What does this mean? It means that, until tested and proved, it remains only a hypothesis, and one would be foolish to be guided by its tenets. Unless, of course, you've given up on your current religion and need a new one.

Moral of the story: be wary of those who wish to further inject religion into the country's infrastructure. That's a very slippery slope, and the road to hell is absolutely paved with good intentions.

---

Geoff said 1 day later

UFO's are totally real. Are you telling me all the military personelle and commercial air pilots who reported UFOs are seeing weather ballons...or shooting stars...or the moon peaking through the clouds?

I'm sure in many instances they were mistaken...but if our military trained pilots and astronauts can't figure out a the difference between a flying vehicle and a weather balloon, than our country is in more trouble than we think.

I can't prove they were aliens...but deep down, we all know they are out there, they've taken a few of us, and they're coming back to exterminate the rest of us in Robitussin® tripods.

---

Geoff said 1 day later

It should just be changed to "In a Government We Don't Trust."

I think everyone can feel confident pledging to that. I sure can!

---

GJ said 1 day later

ROFTLMAO, that was great, Geoff!

Also, on UFOs...apparently, we need a new debate topic. Let's not pollute this one with UFO debate...I bet that one will be amusing, too.

Kristen--you are absolutely right. I think politically active Christians are threatening the very republic we all hold so dear. I compare it to the Taliban because that's the end destination for this path of tyranny. Do I have something against Christians in this regard--no way. If the Mormons, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, or even atheists had the kind of politacal power the Christian groups have, I'd be just as concerned.

See, I believe these politically active Christians fear the melting pot is getting out of hand--there are a lot more people of different nationality, skin color, relgion, and culture here now--and the white-bread Protestant America is quickly disappearing. They would like nothing better than to enact laws to preserve American in the 1950s. Change is always a hard thing to swallow--but resistance is futile. (thank you, Borg). Legislating that preservation will cause this country to be absolutely soaked in violence, not unlike what you see in the middle east. We are too far gone down the path of a multicultural America...there is no going back.

Of course, this is my belief. That doesn't make it fact. Oh, wait a minute, yes it does! LOL.

Note that just because I want a total separation of church and state, I did not say churches are outside the law. I am saying the law should not recognize any form of religion as being "special" nor should it align the government with a specific deity or belief system.

Finally, one last, very dramatic point. You said that even though fewer people are going to church, there is no decline in those that believe in God. I disagree.

If you do not go to church, and do not follow your church's rules and regulations, aren't you just making up your own religion? You're doing the same thing the founders of every modern faith has done--picked and chose what they liked from existing faiths, added some of their own tweaking, and presto! New religion is born.

But wait a minute--that means that religions are a device of man's making. Or was it God's will manifesting itself in you (or the founder of your particular religion)? Hmmmm....and why, then, are there SO many religions that have existed over the years, and more pop up all the time?

Christianity isn't the oldest religion--in many ways, it's an amalgam of earlier beliefs. Does that make it fake? Not necessarily. It comes down to belief that God did walk among us over 2000 years ago, and left an incredible footprint on the world. For Jews, they are still waiting for him. For Muslims, well, I'm no Muslim scholar, suffice to say they don't buy the Jesus is God thing either. Can only one be right? Or are they just different interpretations of the same truth?

We are excluding many other old, respected religions--simply because we have no familiarity with them. That doesn't mean they don't have part of the truth, either.

Or, take the atheist approach--there is no God. It's a figment of man's imagination. Contrary to popular Christian belief, most of them aren't out to rid the world of God. They just don't get why so many believe in a God that is dictated to them.

Who is to say what's right? The danger with including religion with government, then, is the emphasis that one religion IS right, all others are wrong and thusly inferior, and should be eliminated. A modern Crusade!

Religion can exist without integrating with the state. The state will not become some evil, anti-religious entity. It is a majority rule system, so until the majority of people are evil and anti-religious, things are ok. If church influence in government is needed to keep people from becoming evil and anti-religious, that is kind of scary, don't you think? It's legislating of religion, of belief. You cannot legislate belief, it has to come from within.

---

Kristen said 1 day later

Wow.

I'm getting the feeling that GJ thinks religion is becoming a stronger force in government these days--if Mr. Roberts has his way (oh, I mean, Mr. Bush) we'll be trying to go backwards in terms of civil rights before we know it, many thanks to religious influence.

What would happen if religion demanded that the government be completely separate? Do we trust the Catholic church to operate without Big Brother? Maybe they shouldn't have to pay taxes. Maybe priests shouldn't stand trial for sex abuse. Maybe they shouldn't need building permits.

I don't trust churches to operate without at least a casual glance from Big Brother. And honestly, I don't trust Big Brother without a little 'religion' in it.

Just because fewer and fewer people are going to church does not mean that fewer and fewer believe in God. When the majority of people feel that it is not only unnecessary but also harmful/discriminatory to pledge allegiance to "one nation, under God", then that phrase will be taken out. Personally I think America needs to be reminded of it more often just to humble ourselves.

Sure, not everyone believes that we are "under God". Do we all really believe in "liberty and justice for all"? Others have an issue with pledging allegiance to a flag. We shouldn't waste our time and tax dollars in court debating semanitics. Obviously those dollars and manpower need to be spent planning how to respond to natural disasters.

"In God We Trust"? You won't catch me saying baaaaahumbug.

---

Geoff said 2 days later

Amen, now lets get crackin on aliens.

Geoff said about 2 hours later

No thanks to my QB, Cullpepper, who started off the season with -6, and then shot up this week to an amazing 2 points.

With any luck, by the end of the season he might actually throw a TD or two. And I should have played Pittsburg for defense...14 stinking points I gave up! How did I ever stick with the Bills!

---

GJ said about 6 hours later

At least you didn't have to play again McNabb. OMG, he scored 34 points! Owens only landed 18 against you. :)

Thankfully I picked up Tampa Bay's defence this week, as my QB Trent Green was only a point better than Culpepper.