To extend through diplomacy and non-entangling alliances; to express through philosophy and reason the normative relationship of how things should/can be. Damn to hell the neoconservative jargon of creating phantom enemies to promote national unity and morality. What we say and do in life will stir in the remembrance of countless generations yet unborn; let us give them a more free world than was given us, wherein they may be free from tyranny and free to express themselves and their property in any way they desire as long as they remember to never infringe upon another's ability of the same.

Nearly makes one seep into depression to realize how far we've strayed form the wisdom of the founders. Where they infallible? No. But the wisdom they gained through their experience and knowledge of history as it WAS (not as they wished it to be) has yet to be logically dis-proven as the greatest course of action in our own day. With the American Empire reaching all over the world with the Department of Defense admitting of over 700 military instillations outside the of the United States, it's no wonder why the rest of the world calls us on our double standard.

Taken alone, there are way too many premises that would need to exist before this could receive any real validity. The point is obvious: the more people involved, the less chance there is of the majority being oppressive. Problem is, this is not always the case; a small majority can be just as oppressive as a large majority.

Intimidation does not equate with the rightness or wrongness of a principle. Whether or not I am a lawyer doesn't mean that I am any more intelligent in the law than you being a minister means that you are in the gospel of Christ; however, I agree with the substance of your response, albeit, historically, the terms may be a little mixed. I admire good and intelligent debate, in that we use the ability of logic wherein God has given us the ability to think and reason. This is a chestnut of the legal/philosophy/political science world -- a real "which came first, the chicken or the egg" kind of moment -- in that we argue which came first: law or equity? The law simply defines the way things are in how they move and interact with each other. It is not the "law" that gives power to gravity, because law is simply the entity that defines the effects of what would happen should you jump off a cliff without a parachute. Gravity simply exists, and law defines the movement of nature (natural law). Law simply defines the consequences of what happens if a certain action is committed by an individual. Law defines the course of justice, and justice is what associates the act with the actor, whether good or bad. As John Adams said that man cannot "make" natural law, but rather "define" it; man did not "make" gravity, God did... but man may define and reason the consequences of jumping off the cliff. When the man hits the ground, it is not the "law" that killed him... it was merely a consequence of the actions of the operating individual (sovereign). If I told a man that standing in front of a train would end his life, I would never be considered responsible or the killer for him choosing to stand on the tracks after I told him the way things were. Consequences follow everything -- whether good or bad (depending on how you define the terms) -- and the law has defined the limits wherein we can all move and act justly, appropriately, and peacefully with each other and receive the consequences. That's the the way it is.

Ken, to say that we "are a nation of, for and by the PEOPLE, and not a nation of lawyers, for the polititions, and by the cops" is a non-sequitur-- the premise is false. Of course we are a government of, by, and for the people (Gettysburg Address), but we are still a nation of laws. If there is no law, there is anarchy. Now, admittedly, anarchy is a term that people like to loosely throw around, but seldom understand. There can be no absolute anarchy, because even in the worse cases of "anarchy", when there have been group riots of uncontrollable masses, we still have the ability of finding a certain "order" or law (patterns of predictability) within these masses. There is a difference, however, between "law" and "statute". Lawyers, judges, and politicians haven't dealt in the founding term of "law" for a very long time; however, they HAVE dealt in doling out and fast tracking statutes. There IS a difference. Law, even biblically, was defined as the entity that defined the way things WERE. Philosophers of the Enlightenment argued that there WAS a certain order that nature took naturally, and we, as creatures of nature, must take a natural course too. How do we define that course? Well, the term was called "law". Now, this doesn't mean that this term has been used forever and in everything. Today, we've convoluted the terminology of law to represent a codex of regulations and rules wherein people are to be controlled. Such was NOT the original intent of the founders. Christian philosophy states that we are sinners, but that through the atoning sacrifice of a perfect and sinless individual we may overcome the way things are (or, rather, "the law"). No, the law does not liberate, nor is it meant to: it is meant merely to define how things are, and associate the natural penalty (the act with the actor) wherein the scales of justice may be balanced and the equitable portion returned. To say that we either have a government of, by, and for the people or we have a society of law is a huge logical fallacy built on several false premises.

America is a wonderful and a great country, and was built upon the idea wherein if men worked they would not be hindered by others in succeeding. The Amish, Shakers, Mormons, and Amana's (to name a few) all share a similar story of groups and organizations that established a sub-culture under each state's protection in individual sovereignty (inalienable right). Each group took its marching orders from a more religious or theocratic leader than their political leaders, but each group, as history shows, never actually did anything in the infringement of inalienable liberty. Each group was free to join and free to leave (although each had a criteria or joining), even if you had to leave behind family, friends, and everything you knew -- you were not compelled to stay. The American history's treatment of the Mormons is actually an interest test case wherein there was actually an official extermination order (kill order) put out against them by the state of Missouri that was in effect from the late 1830's to as late as the 1970's when the state officially repealed the order (how's that for protection in inalienable liberty and religious freedom?). Such groups, to my knowledge, were not in violation of the state's intent to administer justice in regards to infringement upon individual inalienable liberty (or, in other words, " individual sovereignty"). (It is also noteworthy that no where is it ever shown that the majority ever holds "inalienable rights" -- only the individual; after all, isn't the majority just a collection of individuals? Unless we arbitrate a number wherein a majority automatically assumes an inalienable liberty, then we must reason that the majority maintains no right, power, or privilege beyond the individuals that make up the majority). Our system of government was built on the understanding that each person was "sovereign", which turned on its head the previously held philosophy in England that people believed that the King of England was the only legitimate "sovereign" and that he then beneficently gave freedom to the people (in other words, that freedom came not by natural design but by the King or "sovereign" -- this concept was an adaptation borrowed by Rome). It was through the writings of Locke and other of his contemporary philosophers that such a notion as existed for over several centuries in England was finally rejected. The Declaration of Independence boldly declared that the people, not the King, were endowed by a Creator with inalienable rights and were individually sovereign, and that among these rights (but not limited to these) are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (which "pursuit of happiness" is a term most defined to render as "property" as defined through the 1600's-1700's). Republics are variant of Democracies in that while both systems of government share majority consent to conduct the affairs of government, Republics adhere to a separate code of laws wherein a frenzied majority cannot, in a state of panic (9-11, for instance), violate or infringe upon the individual inalienable liberty of the people. Under this notion, John Adams once wrote that man, therefore, cannot "make" law, he can only define the natural law that already exists in nature to adhere societal statues to. Not all Republics adhere to a just codex of laws and are not inherently praiseworthy; however, as per our own Republic, the founders wisely established the outside codex of laws wherein the majority must bend its will upon the "laws of nature and of nature's God" (a term that was used quite often, due to the philosophical period known as the "Enlightenment"). Sadly, since the founders first wrote these words, the ideology and philosophy behind what these words meant in their day and age have been left out in most educational facilities; these terms are now used as a meaningless cliches by people who haven't been shown or haven't taken the time to know what was once meant by these words. Because we don't use these phrases in today's political movements, we have lost their meaning, and whenever they're even remotely referenced the majority who has never researched the original meanings react quickly with a flippant response that quite nearly states: "the laws of nature? What is that? As if anyone even knows! No one even knows what that IS!" The problem is that there are some people who actually study this stuff who DO know what it is; however, the people who study this also realize that philosophy, language, thought, and movement evolves, and unless the people are taught to look back to their foundation, they will forget the wisdom of their founders -- a fact that is quickly becoming a reality in our country. Just because Henry VII was considered the sovereign and the government operated on this fact, does not morally justify any of his actions (especially the act of beheading Sir Thomas Moore -- one of my historical favorites). Just because someone is sovereign does not mean their actions are inherently morally praiseworthy -- it merely means that they have full mobility, liberty, and agency to move and act without being infringed upon by another power in their course of life, liberty, or property (a course of action that the people of England had no "right" to without consent, or rather "license", from the sovereign). I have no problem with organizations establishing themselves that mimic themselves according to socialism, so long as the freedom of choice and the freedom against coercion is enforced through justice and equity (but this is an oxymoron, because socialism cannot exist without coercion); although I would disagree with such a system, I wouldn't seek to politically have it squelched unless it infringed on life, liberty, or property.

Waffler, the principle behind individual sovereignty is as old as philosophy itself; it is the political and individual thought of the ages. Through the Enlightenment it was argued that men are born free with inalienable rights merely by reason of being born in a "state of nature"; they argued and reasoned that there was a Creator that gave us these rights; the argument against a Creator is thus not against the existence of a "Creator" but rather what form that creator takes: Is the Creator Jesus Christ, Allah, nature itself, happenstance, or any other divine entity? This is up to interpretation and can be argued; however, the point is that we are creatures of a divine creation wherein we are given rights that cannot be taken from us (whether by individual abdication or majority usurpation). In this line of reason it was concluded that each individual has the full right and ability of expressing their rights, so long as they did not infringe upon another's ability of doing the same. The "law" of nature thus "defined" the natural interaction of earthly creatures. This was basically the old definition of what a "sovereign" was: the individual who inwardly held full inalienable liberty... However, once a sovereign stepped outside his inalienable liberty and infringed upon someone else's inalienable liberty (which is not an inalienable liberty), then that sovereign has stepped outside the protection of the law to move and act in accordance to their own course. This was first defined by the Norman's as an "outlaw"-- or rather, someone who is outside the protection of the law. It was not a crime to retain by force a sovereign who had impeded upon another sovereign's inalienable liberty. The law would no longer protect unjust persecution or detainment upon the guilty party. Being incarcerated does not alienate inalienable liberty; however, by reason and logic, it is concluded that detaining a person who is no longer in factual control of their inalienable liberty may be forcefully contained until they are able of paying recompense and restoring the "equitable" portion to the infringed sovereign. This is why an "individual sovereign" cannot just walk out of prison: because they are an "outlaw" (outside the encompassing protection of the law) and are not protected in their inalienable rights. As for socialism, yes it is unpatriotic to our American Republican government that was to be maintained on republican principles as based on the "laws of nature and of nature's God". Why do we then allow companies like UA to be owned by the unions? Because you have to allow freedom to all people and organizations. It would be unjust to force people to work for a union, as well as it would be unjust to force people to not work in a union. Unions are argued to be a form of societal socialism; however, as there is still as yet a choice as to whether you work for this societal socialistic organization or not, then there is nothing the government can do about it (justly). However, for the government to be involved in socialistic practices would be unjust, because government is the only entity on earth that can use the power of coercion "legally" (if, however, unjustly). Once force is used on innocent people who have not infringed upon the rights of their neighbor, then tyranny and usurpation is present.

ABSOLUTELY!!! Democracy is the pure essence of socialism! Pure Democracy ends in majority rule absolutely with no alterations, exceptions, or limitations! Societal Democracy is Socialism, pure and simple. When the majority of the workers revolt against the store owner and take over his business as a collectivist revolution (violently or by blunt force), this is Communism! When the majority of workers pass laws against the store owner and then take over his business through due process and through political motives, this is Socialism! What protection do property owners, business owners, or any other individual person possibly have in a Democracy? Are we REALLY to rely on the fact that the majority is usually always right? This facet of "Wikiality" is bludgeoning our thoughts and raping our heritage! Truth by mass consent solely is NOT truth! No matter how you put it! When you rely on the majority only, you alienate inalienable liberty! If you base your entire system of government on majority rule only, then you base your system of government upon an idea that it was the majority that gave rights in the beginning and that it is the majority that will take them away from you! How can the majority grant inalienable rights when tomorrow the majority can choose to alienate these from you?!?! How ABSURD is this reasoning?! ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! We are "endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights" that among these are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"! THIS IS THE SOURCE OF OUR RIGHTS!!!! OUR CREATOR!! Was the majority our CREATOR?! When we base our government on majority rule only, we base our government on socialist doctrine! The ignorant blundering fools who support Democracy still cannot answer what arbitrary ratio the majority's consent must reach to make Rape or incest "moral". Why? Because they are cowards who cannot support their own ideology -- they fain to profess knowledge, but are shown ignorant when they cannot even ask a simple question. WHAT IS THE RATIO?!?! 1:2? 1:10? 1:100? 1:1,000? or how about 1:1,000,000? Does one million people against a single person constitute a "moral majority" in condoning rape and incest? What is your magic number? There ARE eternal absolutes wherein the majority simply cannot have sway or make a moral judgment!! This is the very vile basis of Socialism! The majority DOES NOT set the basis for right or wrong! To think otherwise makes reason shake and crumble in atrophy!

Good hell, where do we begin? I am firmly for NON-interventionism and am opposed to nation building and protecting. The United States has had to borrow nearly every single cent of the costs for the war in Iraq from China... The Nixon Doctrine sought to put the financing of our Imperial troops around the world to be placed on the actual countries we were occupying (as Waffler said, a "tax"). The United States, instead, has sought to pay for its own Imperialism by borrowing from the country it is occupying to pay to keep our troops there. This is not old news, whether you agree with nation building or not. It is hotly debated by Political Scientists whether the "Ron Paul Republicans" or the Bush Admin followers are actually "isolationists". Ron Paul advocates a non-interventionist foreign policy, while the Bush Admin advocates an active and advanced policy of nation building and monitoring. Is Paul an isolationist by design or is the Bush Admin isolationist by consequence? The Bush Admin's foreign policy is being shown to greater isolate the United States from the world than anything any "non-interventionists" have ever accomplished. As the US Imperial military continues to set up more than 700 military bases around the world (outside the United States), it is becoming a hated and imperialist perceived nation that other nations are backing away from (thus making the United States more isolated).

What is "good" and what is "evil"? It is hard to say, because terms are relative (based on language). This is why religion, ethnicities, and cultures will always argue over what is a "good" or "bad" intention. In political science we commonly discuss how the greatest despots of history operated on the "best of intentions" in securing their kingdoms/empires/principalities.

Machiavellian theory, based on one of his works "The Prince", touches on this subject. In science (any science, whether biology, chemistry, political, geology, etc.) seeks to find what "works" and what can be predicted to happen more often than not. Nothing, in science, is absolute; however, science seeks to find what works more often than it doesn't-- this is justified through the scientific method. Our founders justified, analyzed, and argued on a foundation of government as based on the Enlightenment's new philosophy of life in accordance to the natural course of nature (laws of nature or "state of nature").

This type of foundation of government work "works" better than any other foundation, because it was based on more infinite and eternal absolutes... but nothing was set it stone. They operated on the best logic and principles that they could find. Was it "good" or "bad"? Depending on what philosophy or background you come from, it could be both.

Christians could quote Christ as saying that by the "fruits" of the structure you can know whether things be "good" or "bad", but this still doesn't actually define the terms. How you apply this quote decides how applicable it is, but as far as politics/government goes, I give it 5 stars; I believe it was Dante who said that the hottest place in hell is reserved for the person who in the necessary time and juncture of performing a specific act said that it didn't matter.

I have no problem in arguing that men who violate natural law and liberty have a special place in "hell" for their actions in restricting "God's creations" in their inalienable rights... Even in the best or worst of intentions (to protect-- or to control?), there is no substitute for liberty and freedom!

..laughs.. Anonymous, you're certainly on one today -- any jabs for me while you're at it? Archer hadn't even posted on this quote, and Mike didn't even say anything when merely posting 5 stars. You going to give your name, or are you going to cower behind the cloud of anonymity? You could at least make up a name for yourself, like "Casper, from nothingworthsayingville" or something of this nature. If "Mike and Archer are limited to their propaganda and mantras," are you going to at least give us a dissenting opinion so that we may debate the issue? Merely accusing people of being limited to "propaganda and mantras" is rather childish without expressing an opposing view at least once. As per the quote, I agree; this is the foundation of thought wherein our own Declaration of Independence and most civil disobedient protesters take their actions from.

Waffler, are you still on that kick? You really should just sit in on a few political science and philosophy classes, read some Machiavelli -- go grab his Discourses on a Republic and educate yourself. And while you're at it, grab a few books by the founding fathers and read up on why they hated Democracies. There is a whole world out there for you to discover if you'd just look outside wikipedia. We all understand the Democracy thing, that's why we support a Republican form of government. Well said Mr. Burwell, don't take any account to what Waffler says, no one else here does (no offense Waffler). Just out of curiosity, Waffler, are you in possession of a dictionary that predates 1900? Are you familiar that terms and phrases change over time? You would if you had any education in the matter, but I will tell you once again (because it doesn't look like the last thousand times worked): The terms we associate to the word "Republic" have changed over time (you ignoramus), and so have the ideas, principles, and philosophies that were commonly held. If you want to argue how things evolve, that's fine, but stop running your mouth with a false answer. OF COURSE you can look up in ANY and ALL dictionaries (Websters, Oxfords, etc) to find that a Republic and a Democracy are nearly identical in today's terminology... NO ONE HAS EVER CHALLENGED THAT IS WHAT THEY CURRENTLY SAY!! Of all the points you are ignorant on, this is perhaps the greatest (and I'll say it for the 1,001 time): TERMS AND DEFINITIONS CHANGE OVER TIME!! You can ask any college professor, and they will tell you the same thing... Political Science 101 text books tell you that the terms have changed between what a Republic was considered THEN AND NOW. All current definitions fit an international understanding and ideology that the US has adopted over the last 60 years (you'd know this if you had ever taken any international political science classes) -- But that IS NOT what any of us here are talking about. Go ahead and read Machiavellis Discourses on Republics and then get back to me before you respond, and then, perhaps, you'll have a general idea where Archer, Mike, and a host of other people on this blog have been talking about in reference to Democracies and Republics... Do your homework, and let people think you're ignorant before you open your proverbial online "mouth" and prove it to us all (yet again).

Who is "us"? The US government? The US people? The Bush Admin? Neoconservatives in general? What does "with" mean? Physically, emotionally, ideologically, militarily, politically? Does it mean "next to" or merely in "support of"? And how in the HELL does he define what a "terrorist" is? A dear professor of mine once said "defining terrorism and torture are a lot like trying to define pornography... you can't ever really define it, but you know it when you see it". Problem is, when government gets involved, the more ambiguous the terms the more liberty is lost. Terms and conditions are vital to a free society, nothing can be left up to "well, yeah, you 'know what I mean'". Who has caused more fear and uncertainty around the world? Bin laden or Bush? There are some pretty convincing peer-reviewed papers I've read that would seriously make you re-consider what you think you knew-- not all is right in Washington D.C... There's a reason many international organizations are putting together a case to try Bush as a war criminal at the Hague. As a God-fearing Conservative I'd say, Good Riddance! Damn nation building!

Well damn, I never thought a warm-red-blooded American would ever speak concerning the reduction of human populations. ..shakes head.. Apparently it's been a while since Waffler has taken any courses in urbanization, industrialization, and how the growth population affects the GDP of a nation. Reduction in human population growth? Does anyone else out there realize that Europe is on an industrialized/urbanized population implosion that is devastating the projected GDP and socialized scheme of their countries? Give people the ability of taking care of their own, without any handouts, and you'll quickly realize how fast people will curtail their own population growth. Africa aside, because there are too many externalities to control for to show a difference in application to the United States (or western civilization for that matter), history has shown that there is natural balance to what the earth can hold before it will naturally cleanse itself. Otherwise, you're left supporting a Maoistic "one child policy" of genocide as an alternative plan, or a tax incentive program to NOT have children... Either way, Waffler would either be killing people or spending more money to decrease the future workforce.

Well said, Chitty... Ignorant, but well said. I agree that the US's history is stained with mistakes, but it appears that implementing freedom is a lot more difficult than speaking about it. It is difficult to be right when the government is wrong, especially when it is YOUR rights that are being violated by the very government that is specifically supposed to guard these rights. Since you brought it up, let me ask you: what is the "general welfare"? Do you know where the General Welfare clause came from? Are you educated? Why don't you read some Hobbes and Rousseau first and then get back to me. The general welfare clause had nothing to do with the government "taking care" of the people; but you wouldn't know that unless you knew that words and definitions actually change over time. Do you know the difference of the use of "welfare" then and now? Obviously you don’t know what natural law is, but you might if you actually studied history, philosophy, and societal evolution to see when, how, and why the US was founded upon such a basis of laws (and why we've diverged from them). Your red herring fallacy that natural law has to do with the survival of the fittest is comical, but off base. Why don't you read some Locke, Blackstone, and Hume and then get back to me on natural law. As per the founding fathers, they wrote pertaining to the "laws of nature and of nature's God" -- something that obviously they're not teaching over there in Long Beach, CA. The phrase, "of the people, by the people and for the people" is from the Gettysburg Address, not a follow up to the Constitution's "We The People"; and the phrase, "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution as well (you did, however, get the preamble correct). Quite frankly, I didn't expect any response better than what you've given from someone who comes from a state (California) that rules that children in Public Schools are no longer stewards under their parents (once they cross the threshold of the public school doors) but entities of the state; government schools over there must be giving you tons interesting things to think about. But with my non sequitor, I'll end.

The government was NEVER intended (per the founding fathers) to "serve" the people's needs; IT WAS ESTABLISHED TO PROTECT THEIR RIGHTS BY IMPLEMENTING JUSTICE, ACCORDING TO NATURAL LAW, IN THE INFRINGEMENT OF INALIENABLE (GOD GIVEN) RIGHTS FROM ONE SOVEREIGN UPON ANOTHER!! Look up your facts, get your history straight, get an education and THEN comment! ..sheesh.. I'm no big fan of Reagan, but my hell, make an intelligent response. Give me ONE time that the founding fathers stated that the government was to take care of the needs of the people's existence (outside the protection of their rights)!!

Actually, the idea behind "the state" goes back before the Greeks; the term "the state" itself was used as early as the Enlightenment. It was derived out of "the state of nature" as expressed by the likes of Hume, Locke, and Rousseau. The Greeks believed that government was a natural course of nature (just as natural as trees, rivers, and wind), which they called the "polis". This polis, like the wind, could only be seen by its effects and existed by a "collective" (group) of individuals to carry out the natural aspects of this entity to the "collective" (group) society. In Political Science we measure Rational Choice Theory against Cultural Theory; there is a difference between society/culture and groupthink. The "collectivist" thought as discussed by those of us espousing the so-called "socio-political babble" is in reference to the tragedy of groupthink, not society/culture.

I can go for that...

Shakespeare had his own twist: "This above all, to thine own self be true". Again, definitions matter. Can someone BE a murderer? What of a child molester? Can it be said that these people were just BEing themselves? Serial killers, what of them? They are just expressing themselves, no? Unless the terms and definitions are defined, what good is this quote? It's a philosophical twinkie.

As a Christian I can agree that history has proven that man can take any philosophical belief and can twist it to contort to anything. Morality itself is not a product of terror, but forced morality maybe. Whenever morality has been forced, legislated, and coerced, liberty has faltered -- why? While it may be immoral to murder another a human being, the law is not enacted because of its "morality," but because it was an infringement upon another human being. The rights of life, liberty, and property were the reasons governments have been created-- not to coerce morality. If you force morality, it is no longer moral; you cannot force virtuous behavior and keep virtue. Morality is found in the choice. Liberty cannot exist without morality (the whole, "if men were angels there would be no need for government" idea). There is no liberty without a choice, and no morality in coercion. Terms and definitions matter.

Yes, man does have an effect upon the earth, but we cannot ignore the earth's ability to counteract man. Newton's postulate still applies: to every action, there is a greater or an equal reaction. Mount St. Helens erupted, it put more measured Co2 and other harmful and toxic fumes into the air than what man will have put into the atmosphere in the next 50 years. We cannot fathom the amount of gas and noxious fumes it produced, and yet the Earth responded to balance. There is a lot of fear mongering going on -- and while we should be wise stewards of this planet of ours, there are a lot of do-gooders who make misinformed mountains out of molehills. For instance, yes, the Amazon rainforest is important, but the majority of Earth's oxygen does not come from the Amazon like what is taught in many 3rd grade classes. Should we be wise stewards? Absolutely! But, no, skepticism is not born out of ignorance; however, blatant trust in "professionals" is. The most intelligent and educated professors and thinkers I know are the most skeptical people of all-- as they should be-- because they realize there are certain absolutes in nature by which we measure "the sky from falling". When a statement is made, they do not accept it at face value but they skeptically hold it to their field's criteria until such a statement can either be shown probable or improbable. Just because someone says that there is little correlation between human Co2 emisions and global warming doesn't mean they are automatically ruling out that mankind has no impact on the earth's environment... It just means that the correlation seeking to be found has small fit.

Sadly, the fit in correlation between human Co2 emissions and global warming patterns is very weak indeed. There is absolutely no doubt that the earth is experiencing a global warming phase, which would account for multiple scientists around the world to look at the data and conclude that such is the case. Being married to a biologist who gets irate at the science community's and industry's inability to hold itself to the scientific method, there are many avenues wherein some scientists agree with the presented data and conclusion without further explanation of how the data was collected. If there does exist a global cabal that was using "global warming" as a method to unify a one-world government, it wouldn't be hard at all to show slighted data to the most honest of scientists concerning human caused global warming; especially since the vast majority of evidence presented for global warming has come through government entities, it is hard to say for absolutely sure that such data hasn't been skewed. For instance, having actually searched for and found the UN's officially released global warming graph that Al Gore used in his docu-movie, it is easy to see that Mr. Gore used the lowest of the large margin of error to interpret previous temperature trends and then conveniently used the top of the margin of error to show his spike in increased temperature. Do we forget that the officially released data that human caused global warming is built upon is government sponsored and collected from official government weather stations (usually military)? Global warming enthusiasts often shown how the global temperature mean shot up significantly in the last decade, but they conveniently forget to show how the data was collected. Russia, over the last two decades (especially the last decade), has closed down the overwhelming majority of its Siberian weather stations (which were military run) and transitioned them to other monitoring activities. The data from Siberia is no longer reported or included within the global temperature mean, which thus has dramatically increased the data on the global temperature mean. The fit in correlation of increased/decreased solar activity is actually very tight indeed; some solar flares and increased solar activity has been known to last for multiple decades. As for a unanimous scientific community being behind the data presented behind human caused global warming, this is simply untrue. Why the media only reports on one side of the story is up for debate; however, if there is a global cabal working to overthrow United States' best interests in moving towards a global one-world government like what Rockefeller has admitted being a part of in his auto-biography "Memoirs", then we can safely assume that such cabals would also have control of media outlets. Conspiracy aside, the evidence to absolutely say human caused global warming is a fact is just not there. There are many other facts that prove such a statement, but with a slighted media they are not as readily available. Check out the following link form the U.S. Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

Just another form of the link between groupthink and Cultural Theory.

I'm with Mike, I don't know if it's the "most exhausting", but it'll work.

Robert, even on a personal level -- let's say for Confucius himself -- the perceived "good" and "bad" is arbitrary-- as you said, everything is always subjective. What is in a person's heart is also subjective -- who is to say what is in the heart is good or bad? When a lion kills its prey, do we ask "was his heart good or bad?" Hitler's personal intent (heart) of good and bad is different than another's good and bad. Hitler may choose that Jesus Christ's teachings are bad while Machiavelli's are good, or that Judaism maybe is the one true religion under Jehovah while Hinduism is bad -- and while he may be in the minority, the line is still arbitrary. Simply stating "good" and "bad" is rubbish unless terms of what is good and bad are defined. A general catch-all of good and bad is elementary; of course we should choose the good and reject the bad -- as a society we try to do this already (As I would say even the globalists that we often criticize on this blog operate on the best of intentions of doing "good" -- even though they are off base); but the real substance and wisdom is found in what we define as good and bad-- both for ourselves and what that means for the collective.