The pain is going to come whether you see it coming or not. It's the action of an adult to face the unpleasant truth with eyes wide open. Children will close their eyes, plug their ears, and whine against the inevitable.

Argument is absolutely necessary for me to form my own opinions. If there is no one else around, I'll argue with myself and sometimes I even convince one side or the other that I'm right. The art of debate, logic and rhetoric, however, is terrible in this country. It is poorly done because it is poorly taught if it is taught at all, and as a result too many people cannot come to logical conclusions. Speaking of the art of debate, I read just last week that a debate coach dropped his pants during a debate. Now that's a "rebuttal." That's where the art of debate now stands.

If you've found yourself in a sea of people who don't agree with you, you'll know the "publication" duty is not always easy. It is a duty to yourself and your fellow man none the less.

Even if he was hitting on women, we all learned a few years later that sex doesn't matter given that we had a President with a live, walking, teenage humidor.

He has said he is a Republican, Robert. Do you doubt him? I find it interesting that so many who imply that Thomas has a poor intellectual capacity never seem to have read his writings or his decisions, or to have heard him speak. His legal writings are rational, logical well reasoned and are based on basic principles that he holds. I have no problem with someone arguing principles, or showing that he has misapplied his principles in a certain case. That is what we ought to do. But there seems to be an inordinate number of people who will call him an intellectually deficient fool when that clearly goes against the facts of how well reasoned his opinions are. So, if someone is not judging the book by its content, then its pretty obvious they are judging it by its cover: a dark cover. As for house boys, you don't really believe big media do you? I mean they're just untrustworthy corporatists, right?

Here's your genius: "Gore's undergraduate transcript from Harvard is riddled with C's, including a C-minus in introductory economics, a D in one science course, and a C-plus in another. "In his sophomore year at Harvard," the Post reported, "Gore's grades were lower than any semester recorded on Bush's transcript from Yale." Moreover, Gore's graduate school record - consistently glossed over by the press - is nothing short of shameful. In 1971, Gore enrolled in Vanderbilt Divinity School where, according to Bill Turque, author of "Inventing Al Gore," he received F's in five of the eight classes he took over the course of three semesters. Not surprisingly, Gore did not receive a degree from the divinity school. Nor did Gore graduate from Vanderbilt Law School, where he enrolled for a brief time and received his fair share of C's."...© Copyright 2000 Globe Newspaper Company

If Clarence Thomas were a Democrat I'd suspect somebody was racist around here. If you had ever heard Clarence Thomas speak you would know he is someone who bases his thoughts and speech on a set of sound principles that do not change with the winds of public opinion. He has the integrity to apply the law as it was intended and written. That is, of course, anathema to those who want to distort the words of the Constitution and law to their own liking to achieve the outcome they desire (bondage for us all). He is not a house boy to the leftist powers that be and that brings out their hatred.

Language is as good at prevarication as the human mind because it is simply an extension of human thought. By our very nature we will twist meanings to our own advantage. We all know it and we act accordingly. To twist meanings not only clouds the issue for others but in your own mind as well. It is always refreshing when someone will just be straight up with you and call something what it really is, and it will almost always lead to a clear and concise conclusion. Clouding issues by morphing words to your own advantage just leads to endless bickering.

I hope that Locke is right, I know that Rousseau is wrong, but I think that Hobbes is right. "Is man naturally evil or divinely good?" The answer is yes. He is both. "A creature of logic and reason or of ignorance and self-destruction?" Again the answer is yes. He is both. Every man has within him the capacity for natural evil and divine good. He has the capacity of rationality and foolish self-destruction. Everyone makes many choices daily between good and evil and that is the true conflict. The conflict is not between the external society and individual, it is within each individual whether he will choose liberty for himself or bondage to his lower nature.

It's only the dishonest who are on the losing side (although they be a majority) that try to silence dissent. How do you "win" an argument if you're on the losing side? Call your opponent Hitler and quickly walk away.

Most people have absolutely no idea what a real critic does. A critic is "one who expresses a reasoned opinion on any matter especially involving a judgment of its value, truth, righteousness, beauty, or technique." A critic does not tear something down that does not need tearing down. In fact he supports the good. What the modern media have become are nihilists who want to destroy the good with the bad simply to boost the own sense of self-worth and demonstrate their power. They are narcissistic nihilists.

It is not the job of Supreme Court justices to be the free thinkers of government. Their job is to interpret the law as it was intended and how it was written. The legislative branch can freely think within the bounds of the Constitution all it wants. The Supreme Court will interpret it when necessary as to what the intent of the legislature was and what they actually wrote. The legislative branch as well as the executive are too willing to abdicate their duties to the judicial for deniability of responsibility and political expedience. It is the way of a coward to for the legislative or executive to pass their responsibilities to the judicial. When you ask for judicial free thinking, you are asking for a dictator. But I have a question. What if the black-robed dictators are not yours but someone else's puppets?

Having zeal, or passion, for something is an emotional response. There is nothing wrong with excitement or having strong emotions for something, but one cannot base their entire life's decisions on it. We were also given minds for rational thought. The zealot will become so blinded by his passion that he cannot think and come to conclude what the real results of his zealotry will be. That is when the intransigent error comes.

If you want to know what's really happening today, wait fifty years and read a history book. By that time the political interests of both sides of an issue have usually moved on and there is very little reason left to lie. As for the war between the states, the major reason was unfair taxation. There was no income tax (it was unconstitutional) even though during the war Lincoln actually collected an unconstitutional income tax. The main antebellum source of revenue to the federal government was tariffs on imported goods. The industrial north was a net exporter. The agrarian south was a net importer which is why (anti-slavery) Britain supported them during the war. So, the south was funding the expansion of the industrial north and they could do very little about it. They had a lower population and could not effectively oppose legislative tax increases. When you rob Peter to pay Paul, Peter is going to get pissed off. When you want to explain a war, money is usually the best place to start.

It must be true! I read it in a government report. The newspaper even had a story on the government report. I saw a man on TV with perfectly combed hair and a smooth, baritone voice saying how important it was. How could it not be true? Reason and judgment require effort. Expressing your opinions takes a certain small courage because it exposes you to ridicule, or worse if you don't live in free society.

I prefer to keep my tastes in men lousy, Waff. By the way, I think George Bush might have had more to do with Al Gore winning the Nobel than Al Gore did. As I recall one of member of the prize panel said they gave Gore the prize as a "kick in the shins" to George Bush. I think that's Swede speak for a "poke in the eye." Not exactly a ringing endorsement for Al.

What do the initials IPCC stand for? Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In 1998 global temperatures started to decrease. For the first six or seven years the global warmists put this down to just statistical noise. By 2006 it was becoming clear even to them that this was not just noise but a downward trend. At this point there has been no global warming for a decade. Up to 2006 Bush rejected anthropogenic global warming/climate change out of hand as not being supported by enough data to determine whether it existed or not, and rightly so. By the time he finally jumped on the bandwagon for political reasons, the terminology had already morphed into global climate change. You are right that the phrase climate change is more ambiguous and for very good reason: it is not very easy to panic the public over global warming when there is in fact global cooling.

I am constantly confused, Waffler, as to why PT Barnum was right: why is there a sucker born every minute? T. Boone and Nancy Pelosi have their large financial interests in Clean Energy Fuels Corp. (CLNE) and are ready to reap their "wind-millions" in profits. I don't see any reason why that should give them any moral standing. Nobel Peace prizes are political beauty contests. The only prizes that are earned on the basis of merit are those in the sciences and perhaps literature. All the rest are handed out to make a political statement by the prize committee itself. By the way wasn't Rush Limbaugh nominated for a Nobel Peace prize? Political indeed. If Al Gore won the Miss America pageant, I might give him a little credit because at least he'd look good in a bathing suit.

Robert: Facts (I am speaking as "data") are readily observed and repeatable and can be observed by anyone at any time. If I say the sky is blue and you say it is green, then we have a disagreement because we have obviously not standardized our method and observation. If we agree on a method and standard definition then we can say that at noon the light that passes through our atmosphere to our eyes and is not scattered predominates from 455-492 nm. We come to an agreement ahead of time by agreeing to a method of observation and the parameters of the observation and then accepting the facts that we observe.

You need to research the origin of the phrase "climate change" Waffler. I think you will find that it started in the halls of the UN with the IPCC.

It only took the church 500 years to change its mind and offer an apology to Galileo. I do give them credit that they actually did (in the face of overwhelming evidence). As for the Church of Global Warming and it's Pontiff Albertus Gorius, I wonder how long it will take for the apology. Perhaps Gorius XXIV will come around when there's no longer a profit to be made and it's time to start the next scam.

Sorry, Robert. Words have meanings. Something that is thought to be true is an hypothosis. Something that is thought to be true and is supported by some data (or facts) is a theory. There are no false facts but I do think I know what he is talking about. As long as the scientific debate is not stifled, eventually a false theory will be exposed. The problem is too many will use the power of government and their hand picked 'scientists on the take' to bribe or brow beat dissenting scientists into submission (for that all important government grant, their livelihood). If that is allowed to happen the lie will not be exposed. That is the consequence of nationalized science............. Pronunciation: \ˈfakt\ Function: noun Etymology: Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere Date: 15th century 1: a thing done: as obsolete : feat b: crime archaic : action 2 archaic : performance, doing 3: the quality of being actual : actuality 4 a: something that has actual existence b: an actual occurrence 5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality— in fact: in truth

Why the bamboozle? Follow the money. PT Barnum knew there's a sucker born every minute and so does Al Gore. Why is the bamboozle always morphing into a slightly different argument? It's not global warming anymore. That is so passe. Now it's global climate change (like climate hasn't been in constant flux for billions and billions of years). Well the global temperature has not increased since 1998. In fact it has so inconveniently fallen. There is a paper at the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences [Cardell et al. (2007)] which shows that C02 levels have not only increased but accelerated since the 1990's. Yet the global temperature has fallen. They are at a loss as to why their model (which showed temperature increase even without increase in CO2) cannot predict current temperature. Let me help them out. When the data do not support the model, the model is wrong. The model was also wrong in the 1970's (the previous bamboozle) that predicted an ice age by the mid 1990's. We sure are lucky we all started driving SUV's.

Why is it that newsprint circulation has been plummeting for years? People are tired of being lied to and manipulated - I know I certainly am. The more their circulation drops the more desperate and obvious they become in their slant. I will occasionally read a local paper or NYT. I also read Pravda during the Soviet era (or even now, for that matter) and for the same reason - to have a good laugh. It is a sad day in journalism when the National Enquirer has become our most reliable news source.

Free debate without human interposition must be allowed for truth to prevail. That of course is the point of various interests trying to impose speech codes on everyone and making certain topics off limits. "Why, that was a racist attack"...."the science is settled"....or simply shout down your opponent or throw a pie in his face: those are the tactics of people who are on the wrong side of truth. If honest people allow them to succeed with these tactics, truth will not prevail.