Cal

By gum, Curvy, I think you have hit the proverbial nail on the head!

So, PD, what color of shirt DO you wear to work? :)

[ YOur post starts out with an unproven, and perhaps, unexamined assumption. Like your insistance that homosexual's have different brains because of genetics? Your views of what is scientific and proven, unexamined assumptions are without merrit. The Traveler Trav--your unproven assumption is that a society can only function based on your idea of the nuclear family. As a matter of fact there are lots of societies that have functioned very well with very different arrangements. Do some sociological studying about a native peoples of the south pacific, for one example. YOu need to look outside your own little world of realities and see that humans can function in a variety of social and familiar arrangements. I would be glad to consider something outside my little world but you refuse to give any reason or justification; that is an essential part of reason – the reason. The lack of reason is on your part with the assumption that homosexuality is needed or necessary or a benefit. I am still trying to connect to some reason. The truth is that it is not needed it is not necessary and there is no benefit. The truth is that it is a cognitive behavior. The truth is that cognitive behavior is a product of learning in an environment. Do you understand what cognitive response is? You want me to consider homosexuality, why? Just because you have an opinion about something is not a reason for everyone else to fall in line. Especiall if you have no reasonable reason. Have you not implied at other times, that blind acceptance of things is not an intelligent response? Lets be clear. I could care less what someone does in private and in secret, thaw they do and not tell is their business; but what some people proclaim in public is public business. And if they say something is scientific, and has reason and is needed they should be ready to give reason. All I ask is that if you support something you give clear reason before you expect others to agree. I gave sound scientific studies that blew holes in you junk science. Homosexuality is cognitive, it is not instinctive nor is it genetic. If I have misrepresented scientific studies of cognition then correct me. In the mean time, please try to get a grip on reality my friend. I do not care that you are for homosexuality – just that you lie to support it. Also you say I need to consider something outside my little world. Two responses. 1. Why do I need to consider something outside my world? Because that is you unsupported opinion? 2. You need to understand that your arguments and science do not hold up anywhere – even in your little world. Homosexuality is not genetic it is not instinctive - it is cognitive. The Traveler I've already given the scientific evidence for the genetic influence in homosexuality, and you have chosen to ignore it. A quick recap for the scientifically handicapped: 1) Minnesota and Australian Twin studies. (Highly respected sociological studies of identical twins separated at birth, raised in totally different environments--show a 50% correlation on a host of characteristics previously thought to be totally environmentally determined--including homosexuality) 2)Post mortum brain studies of homosexual brain anatomy. (Homosexual brains contain anatomical structures characteristic of the opposite sex)--Are you suggesting that brain structure is environmental? 3) Couple those with extensive interviews with gay people that documents that most of them knew they were gay from as long as they can remember. Look them up, read them and then tell me that is "junk" science. Sorry friend, but, it is you that is operating on opinion and prejudice, not me.

What kind of God would keep them apart?

I wonder Cal - in light of things you have posted on other threads. If parents really want to hit their children often and hard (for no reason just hit them) - I mean they really want to and think they have always wanted to just beat the tar out of their children - does that make it okay? How about harsh beating of children if you have always wanted to beat children since you were born? How about if you think beating children is the only way you can be happy or fulfilled? Is it okay to whip you children if you can find another society that has done it for generations and somehow survived? How about if some child says they want to be beat up by their parents? If some society (say in the south Pacific) used strong corporal punishment with children - Does that make it right or what is best? What justifies beating Children? The only reason I can think of - is if there is a direct relationship to needs in society to the punishment being used. If there is no need or benefit for society I do not think we encourage parents to beat their children in order to fulfill the personal fantasy of the parents. And I really do not care how fulfilled parents think they feel – if there is no benefit – I say it should not be forced by law that beating children is okay, just so certain parents can feel good about what they are doing. The Traveler This post seems kind of harsh in light of the OP. No one, not even Cal, has advocated beating children. I was drawing a parallel. On another thread I have opposed a cognitive behavior because I saw no benefit for society. Our friend Cal supported the behavior using the arguments as I have applied them to beating of children. He claimed the behavior is okay because adults found pleasure in the behavior – I am pointing out, so other can see how silly that argument appears to me. Such arguments are not reason to an intelligent person they are excuses for someone that wrapped up in themself. Our friend Cal said I should expand my horizons because there are other cultures that survive without loving parents caring for their biological children. I wanted all to see how silly that argument appeared. The point is my friend Jenda, and I do not think you quite got it, what is best for society is most likely what is also the best for children. Not what is okay or what we can get by with in some primitive society or even what parents find pleasure doing. Children’s lives are very much dependent of what parents (and society) teach – both intentionally and unintentionally, by the environment they create for children beginning from before birth until children are 25. The science to back my opinion is in a number of articles in the March National Geographic Mag. You might want to read the articles concerning the development of the human brain. I believe we have an obligation to sacrifice our opinions, pleasures, desires, urges and other such things that are in conflict for providing the optimum environment for benefiting children and society. We do not sacrifice children and society for the benefit of our opinions, pleasures, desires, urges, passions and other such things and then think society will be the better for it. The Traveler YOu completely misread the meaning of what I said about HOW some parents justify hitting their kids. My point was that parents sometimes THINK they are doing their kids a favor by hitting them, when what the parent is REALLY doing is simply venting their own frustration, which does no good for the child, and simply relieves the parent of their frustration. The parent is doing it for HIS/HER benefit, not the benefit of the child. Which is a reason NOT to hit the kid---it harms the kid. How can I be any clearer. Now, would you please stop misrepresenting my position on things.

I wonder Cal - in light of things you have posted on other threads. If parents really want to hit their children often and hard (for no reason just hit them) - I mean they really want to and think they have always wanted to just beat the tar out of their children - does that make it okay? How about harsh beating of children if you have always wanted to beat children since you were born? How about if you think beating children is the only way you can be happy or fulfilled? Is it okay to whip you children if you can find another society that has done it for generations and somehow survived? How about if some child says they want to be beat up by their parents? If some society (say in the south Pacific) used strong corporal punishment with children - Does that make it right or what is best? What justifies beating Children? The only reason I can think of - is if there is a direct relationship to needs in society to the punishment being used. If there is no need or benefit for society I do not think we encourage parents to beat their children in order to fulfill the personal fantasy of the parents. And I really do not care how fulfilled parents think they feel – if there is no benefit – I say it should not be forced by law that beating children is okay, just so certain parents can feel good about what they are doing. The Traveler This post seems kind of harsh in light of the OP. No one, not even Cal, has advocated beating children. What do you mean "not EVEN" Cal? I thought I was the one most adamantly AGAINST any kind of physical punishment? Has my pacifist position been usurped?

I wonder Cal - in light of things you have posted on other threads. If parents really want to hit their children often and hard (for no reason just hit them) - I mean they really want to and think they have always wanted to just beat the tar out of their children - does that make it okay? How about harsh beating of children if you have always wanted to beat children since you were born? How about if you think beating children is the only way you can be happy or fulfilled? Is it okay to whip you children if you can find another society that has done it for generations and somehow survived? How about if some child says they want to be beat up by their parents? If some society (say in the south Pacific) used strong corporal punishment with children - Does that make it right or what is best? What justifies beating Children? The only reason I can think of - is if there is a direct relationship to needs in society to the punishment being used. If there is no need or benefit for society I do not think we encourage parents to beat their children in order to fulfill the personal fantasy of the parents. And I really do not care how fulfilled parents think they feel – if there is no benefit – I say it should not be forced by law that beating children is okay, just so certain parents can feel good about what they are doing. The Traveler Trav--was that posting directed to me? I can't read anything in it that sounds like you read what I posted.

That reminds me---If God thought enough of Samson's long hair to make it a condition of Samson's power, then how come, according to some LDS God is now reversing himself?

Are you male or female? If you are female, keep it, it probably has a certain charm.

I'd say that the first and fourth possibilities are most likely. The Second is not impossible to accept, but the Third is highly unlikely. My reasons for this are that it doesn't seem likely that Paul alone would have access to this body of literature, and that we should see at least some resemblence of the Pauline literature in the writings of other contemporary authors (Christian or Jewish) which are absent. Yes, I've never been all that impressed with argument no. 3. The early Christian writers went to great lengths to find references to Christ in Old Testament writings, sometimes finding a Messianic subtext in passages from Isaiah that are highly ambiguous, to say the least, and in a couple of cases seem very unlikely to be referring to Christ at all. If the original Hebrew canon contained references to Christ as explicit as those found in the Book of Mormon, the writers of the Gospels probably wouldn't have needed to go fishing around in Isaiah and Psalms for language to cram into the Messianic mold. I mean, compare that vague Isaiah language about a young woman/virgin (it's not clear which one is meant) conceiving and bearing a son, vs. the Book of Mormon's specific prophesies about the birth of Christ, including details right down to Mary's name and skin tone. If the Gospel writers had had such detailed prophesies available, they'd have shouted them from the rooftops. Interesting how the BoM is very specific about things that happened BEFORE JS and contains virtually nothing prophetically specific AFTER JS. Makes one go HUMMMMM?

WHERE does it imply this? Cal, you misinterpreted my post and nothing could be further from the truth. What I DID say was that as corporal punishment became frowned upon by the vast majority of the people, parents were not being trained in other methods of discipline that worked. Children grew to have more rights then parents as the Child Abuse Phenomenon became in Vogue. Sure, there are real cases of child abuse and I don't condone an adult beating up on a child or visa-versa. I am a believer that there are better ways of teaching children while also empowering them with their own natural consequences. Now tell me just where you got the information that I was pro-spanking? Strawberry, You wrote: YOu implied that parents can't effectively set limits without spanking. Read what you wrote. If I misinterpreted your real position, you helped me do it.

Just plain good PR.When was the last time anybody's vote meant anything. All you get to do is "sustain" the brethern. And if you put up your hand at the wrong time, you will get called into the Bishop's office and get raked over the coals, and probably get a lecture something like this: "When the brethern speak, the Lord has spoken. Who are you to challenge that?" Ok, they might not put it in such a didactic way, but the message will be there.

Sea levels were higher during period where the earth's temperature was a lot warmer than it is now (as in dinosaurs-in-Alaska-warmer). Anthropogenic global warming, even according to the most pessimistic models, won't warm things that much. And there's a consensus forming that a milder warming would cause glaciers in Antarctica to expand because of increased snowfall, while continental and Greenland glaciers would contract. Antarctica contains 80% of the world's ice, so the net effect of glaciers increasing/decreasing would be positive, with the additional water being locked up in Antarctic ice more than offsetting the additional water released from Greenland and continental glaciers. It's not just me saying this -- look it up. PD. The ice in Antarctica is being threatened by a warming currently going on Antarctica. Many that adhere to junk science of global warming point to the fact that Antarctica has warmed up 3 times the rest of the world are spelling this as the great destroy on its way to happening. The problem is that Antarctica is not getting warmer because of greenhouse gasses. As it turns out one of the world’s largest active volcanoes is almost at the South Pole. It seems that there could be a major eruption. But the environmentalist with an agenda have nothing to exploit in this so they are ignoring it. Of and when this eruption takes place the oceans will rise from 15 to 20 feet and over 75% of the world population will have to move. The Traveler Please Trav!!!!!!!!! That volcano, you speak of in Antarctica is like a pimple on the face of a giant. It might cause a little local heating, but no geologist I've spoken to thinks it amounts to a hill of beans. It certainly won't cause much more than some localized melting. A much more likely explanation for the Antarctice melting is the same as for the melting of the rest of the world's glaciers. Simple global warming. There really isn't much dispute among scientists in the the relevant fields that global warming definitely has a human-causal connection.

Sea levels were higher during period where the earth's temperature was a lot warmer than it is now (as in dinosaurs-in-Alaska-warmer). Anthropogenic global warming, even according to the most pessimistic models, won't warm things that much. And there's a consensus forming that a milder warming would cause glaciers in Antarctica to expand because of increased snowfall, while continental and Greenland glaciers would contract. Antarctica contains 80% of the world's ice, so the net effect of glaciers increasing/decreasing would be positive, with the additional water being locked up in Antarctic ice more than offsetting the additional water released from Greenland and continental glaciers. It's not just me saying this -- look it up. Yes, I've read it. It's a nice theory. But it ignores what is ACTUALLY happening. The Antarctic glaciers are melting, not getting bigger. World ave temps have been rising significantly for 100 years. We're still waiting for the Antarctic ice shelves to get bigger.

Yeah, lets just trash the earth, pollute the crap out of it. After all, we'll all be dead--we can let our grandchildren suffer the consequence--who cares about them anyway. By the way, was that Hebrew National or Ballpark brand?

Good comment, Outshined---we agree on something!

YOur post starts out with an unproven, and perhaps, unexamined assumption. Like your insistance that homosexual's have different brains because of genetics? Your views of what is scientific and proven, unexamined assumptions are without merrit. The Traveler Trav--your unproven assumption is that a society can only function based on your idea of the nuclear family. As a matter of fact there are lots of societies that have functioned very well with very different arrangements. Do some sociological studying about a native peoples of the south pacific, for one example. YOu need to look outside your own little world of realities and see that humans can function in a variety of social and familiar arrangements.

The logical error of "black and white, either or" thinking.Your posting implies that without spanking a parent cannot set limits and hold a child accountable. Nothing is further from the truth. Yes, it may require that the PARENT show some self restraint---heaven forbid we model self restraint for our kids. I seriously doubt that the lack of spanking is the reason kids feel "entitled". The wrongful sense of entitlement that some kids exhibit comes from a parent who sets no limits, enforces no rules and basically lets the kid do what ever he/she wants. What does that have to do with spanking. The only parent who has no "tools" in his/her arsenal besides spanking is not armed very well. Be a little thoughtful about it and you can come up with plenty of tools to hold kids accountable--and they work a hell of a lot better than spanking. My philosophy, and I've raised 4 kids who turned out very well, hold kids accountable, but NEVER let them think you don't TRUST them. Once you do, you've lost them, no matter how much spanking you do. Keep your self under control, but thoughtful before you act and don't give them TOO MUCH to rebel against. They will often surprise you at their own good judgement. On the other hand, there are some kids who will drive you crazy until the day you die, and you won't be able to do a thing about it, and spanking won't help. If you get one of those genetic mutants, just look up to the sky, and ask, in a very loud voice, "Why me, Lord?"

Spanking is not a crime, Cal. When he grows up, he'll thank you. (As opposed to his friends who are in jail...) "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." (Proverbs 1:7) And this: "He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him." (Proverbs 13:24) It does? So creating an unrealistic world for the child, where they believe that consequences don't apply is better? Also, I suggest you re-read my post. I don't spank my children in anger. I spank them because I love them, and I want them to be rule-obeyers, not rule-breakers. I want them to be responsible members of society, not one of the undisciplined children who believe that the rules don't apply, or that they won't be punished if caught. Interest---I never ONCE spanked my youngest daughter, and she has turned out (don't tell my other kids this) better than the ones I did spank? How could that possibly be, by your philosophy.As to your old testament quote; In old testament times, a child could legally be KILLED for his misbehavior. I thought we had made some progress since then. Third, what does spanking teach? That it's appropriate to HIT someone when you are displeased or disagree with what they are doing? That's exactly the message you are sending when you do it. I seriously doubt that kids whose parents calmly discuss their behavior with them do worse than kids that are hit all the time. Fourth, physical violence accomplishes only one thing--resentment. You think kids thank you for HITTING them? If they do, its only because they thought you cared---but you can care without hitting them. My daughter never complained that I DIDN'T hit here and she has thanked me many times for being a caring Dad. What she DOES also have is a tremendous amount of self esteem--she is strong, ambicious, independent and a caring parent herself. She's hardly suffering from a lack of being HIT. And even more important, perhaps, she doesn't hit her kid. And he is doing just great. On the other hand, early on in my parenting, I too, thought spanking appropriate. I experienced the pain of seeing the resentment it caused. That is why I quit doing it. Your little plattudes from 2500 years ago, hardly impress anyone in this day and age. As a school teacher I see lots of kids. The ones doing the worst are those who are physically abused, not the ones who say their parents never hit them. I will agree that kids need to know their parents care. But there are better ways to show it than spanking.

Snow--I may be wrong, but perhaps one of the reasons Mormons, even in general, seem to know more about their religion is that there is simply MORE to know. We have a distinct history we share with very few others, we have 4 cannons of scripture instead of one, and many of our doctrines are so distinct from other christian religions that the differences are easily identified and remembered. After all how does a Baptist kid distinguish his faith from, say a Congregationalist? Is the distinction all that great?

Is there really any debate as to what BKP's approach to religion is? He is probably the most quoted church leader on the internet. That he takes the "do what you are told" approach is no secret folks. That the church heirarchy as a whole puts its stamp of approval on talks that stress conformity and unquestioning loyalty is no big surprise either. It is in the nature of autocracies to demand followership ahead of independent thought or controversy. The church is not a democracy, it has no "bill of rights", there is no "right" to free speech, there is only conformity and commitment. Get used to it.

Then you have no "heat of passion" defense--your crime was premeditated!I once heard a psychologist quoted as saying, "Only hit a kid in anger". At first I was taken back--but, think about it. Perhaps a kid can forgive you for hitting him when you are out of control. But when you hit him with cold premeditation, under total control, now how does he forgive you? A better policy---respect your child as a REAL human being, and keep your hands off. If you can't find the self control and wisdom to handle a child gently and reasonably, then DON'T BE A PARENT. I didn't always believe that, but I do now, without reservation. Hitting a child for almost ANY reason does the child almost nothing but harm, and does the parent no good but relieve his/her tension of the moment. The spanking is for the parent's benefit, not the child--and that benefit pales in comparison to the damage done to the child.

The american people get leaders no better that what they can elect. We get what we deserve collectively. Given enough pickup truck driving, tobacco chewing, beer drinking, shot gun totting Bubbas and what do you get? George Bush.

Energy techonology first. Almost ALL technologies are expensive at first. Even conventional gasoline burning engines were once much simpler--the public got used to the extra expense of emission controls etc. Secondly, the public doesn't think twice about spending 40 or 50,000 dollars on a gas guzzling SUV. If such cars didn't exist, do you think they would stop buying cars? China--you might be right that China's entry into the Western-style economy MIGHT curb its population problem--but that is a future HOPE. What they have done lately, though draconian, was, from a practical stand point--probably necessary. If China's current population came anywhere near the US mode of consumption, the world environment would be in even more trouble--Global warming etc. Cal, True, technologies get cheaper as they're more widely used, and alternative energy sources undoubtedly will as well. The question is whether the decrease in alt-energy's cost will ever get those costs below those of fossil fuels. "The public" doesn't buy many $50,000 SUVs. Most are priced, as far as I can tell, in the $30,000+ range. And make sure you compare apples with hybrid-powered apples. You can't substitute a Prius for a Yukon; the Yukon buyer wants a big off-road vehicle. You'd have to substitute a hybrid-powered Yukon for a conventional Yukon. And the hybrid Yukon would be more expensive (because it has two engines instead of one), discouraging its purchase. (Although with gas getting more expensive, we might start to see hybrid SUVs becoming a rational long-term investment, given the much higher fuel-cost to purchase-cost ratio of big vehicles.) So yes, if $50,000 SUVs didn't exist, people would still be buying cars. They'd be buying $30,000 SUVs or pickups, or $50,000 sports cars with marginally better mileage. I do agree with USNationalist that we'll never "run out" of resources. In a flexible (read: capitalist) society, prices move, and act as a signal of impending mismatches between demand and supply. When resources begin to be depleted, their prices rise, encouraging people on the demand supply to limit their use and innovators on the supply side to develop alternatives. By the time we come anywhere near running out of oil, oil won't be used anymore. It will have been replaced by something newer and cheaper. This is where Thomas Malthus (and the modern Jared Diamond) got it wrong, in trying to extrapolate the experience of preindustrial, pre-capitalist societies to the present day: Those societies were far less flexible, far less able to innovate and seek substitute resources, and so when the resources those societies were based on gave out, so did the societies. The threat of global warming is the only thing that might alter this equation, because the effect of burning fossil fuels imposes an externality -- a cost that isn't borne by the person causing it. The problem with crafting a rational response to this problem is that no one knows with any workable certainty what that cost is. It could be small, or it could be great. Even the most politicized, worst-case scenario global-warming advocates present gigantic ranges of possible effects. The actual scientific consensus on GW is basically this: The earth's climate is growing warmer. (How much warmer, and when the warming began, is still uncertain.) C02 in the atmosphere is one of many materials that can trap heat. (How much warming can be expected from increased C02 is still uncertain.) C02 in the atmosphere is increasing (although by a few hundredths of a percentage point, as a percentage of the atmosphere). It is likely that some (unknown) portion of the observed warming in the atmosphere is attributable to human emissions of C02. It may be a major factor, or it may be a drop in the bucket. The effects of anticipated warming range from a net benefit (increased crop yields, growing seasons, milder weather) to a net detriment (shifts in rainfall patterns, species dislocation, nastier weather [although that's unlikely, since severe weather is largely caused by differences in temperature between the polar regions and the tropics, and global warming, whose effect is expected to be chiefly in raising the temperature at the poles, will reduce the temperature difference], and raised sea levels (or just the opposite, as warming in the polar regions from unbelievably bone-chillingly frigid to just damn cold allows more snowfall -- it's mostly too cold to snow much in the polar regions, causing them to be basically deserts of ancient ice -- and causes greater glaciation.) Based on this information, some peole think that the Kyoto accords, which promised to cost billions of dollars to possibly lower the [vaguely] anticipated global temperature at the end of the enxt century by less than one degree Celsius, was a good idea. I, obviously, don't agree. To conduct a rational cost/benefit analysis, you need to have some general idea of the benefit before you can judge whether a cost is worthwhile, and global-warming predictions at this point are basically useless for this kind of scientific analysis. So there we are. It seems to me that the most rational approach to GW would be, first, to take whatever precautionary measures could be taken without significant cost, as a kind of just-in-case approach. That is, if an emissions-limited policy could be imposed without a measurable cost, if GW turned out to be a mostly false alarm, we'd be no worse off, whereas if it turned out to be a major problem, we'd be better off. One possibility might be to tighten up the present tax exemption for SUVs, requiring a showing that they actually be used in a business. Second, we ought to invest in research into alternative energy sources (including safer nuclear power, with acceptable waste-storage provisions), which will likely eventually be useful as substitutes for depleted fossil fuels regardless of what happens with GW. Third, we ought to focus on narrowing the range of possible GW-related effects down to the point where a rational cost/benefit analysis can be made and the proper further remedies selected. As a side note, if the worst-case scenarios of the GW proponents are accurate, then we're basically hosed no matter what we do -- because avoiding those scenarios would require us to reduce our per-capita energy use to preindustrial levels, with all the fun stuff that comes with it, like mass famines, pandemics, and insane infant mortality rates. As the original post pointed out, with China and India coming online (and my money, by the way, is on India to eclipse China in the rising superpower department) we can't possible conserve our way out of the worst-case GW scenarios without causing the end of civilization as we know it. Only a revolution in energy technology could avoid both that result and GW, and that revolution isn't going to involve a bunch of wind farms and solar cells in the desert. They just don't have the potential to do the job, being way too land-intensive -- and as they say about land, they're not making any more of it. It doesn't really matter whether or not alternative energy sourses can do the "job" or not as to global warming because the oil and automotive industries have so much political clout and access to the public mindset that no serious "revolution" in energy use is likely to happen before the effects of global warming, ocean, land and air pollution alter our lifestyles FOR us. We won't have to do it to prevent global warming, global warming is going to spank us so severly that we won't have a choice at that point. The essential point about messing with the global weather system is, just what you alluded to, and that is, that the weather systems are essentially a "chaotic" system and are extremely hard to predict. Add to that the cascading effect on ecosystems, aggraculture, life cycles etc and no one really can say what the outcome will. Perhaps the most predictable outcome will be rizing ocean levels--which will be, eventually, disasterous enough. Geological history shows that ocean levels were higher during globally warmer periods, so your theory that more snow on the poles will prevent sea level elevation is not realistic from a geological history perspective. As to SUV's---people buy SUV's because detroit decided they would, not because people actually need them. How is it that soccer mom's managed to get by in the 50's, 60', and 70'ss with out them? They have been sold bill of goods by the oil and auto industries. If they wanted to, the auto companies could just as easily convince people that down sized hybrids are the cool thing--with no serious decrease in carrying capacity or really utility.

Thank you that illustrates my point exactly. The liberal mentality is that people are too stupid to run there own lives therefor we need smart liberal elites to forcibly take their money from them and give them a measly percent and a half return because, again, they are too stupid to do it themselves. Fine, for all you stupid people, by all means, don't take advantage of a self investment SS option, let the govt. do it for you - but for heavens sake don't force the rest of us be treated like be are so stupid that we need big brother to take care of us like you think big brother needs to take care of you. The problem with an opt-out provision for SS is that too many people who SHOULDN'T opt out, will, leaving the rest of us, in some form or another, to foot their bills. Better we all pay a little, get a moderate benefit and make sure no one has to wander the streets looking for food at age 75. Again, PD and Snow, what is the point of the government overseeing even a partly privatized SS? You still haven't convinced me that ANY privatization has any merit for the people who actually will need it. PD--I realize that SS has needed on going supervision, its just that Bush, and I will grant, Clinton, was the first president in how long to have anything of a projected budget surplus, and STILL did nothing to "shore up" SS. A pox on BOTH of them.