Well, I read quite a lot, approximately 225-230 books a year. I prefer books that  challenge me or are force me to think. But, if we're talking about mind candy or fun books, I like romance novels. This makes me unique for a man, I think. My favorite author is Lynsay Sands. She has a series of vampire books about a family named Argeneau. These vampires are from Atlantis and their vampirism is the result of nano technology from their distant past. They have developed blood banks that supply blood to their people so they don't have to feed off people. They have the same powers as regular vampires except they can go out in the daytime, but only for short periods and religious artifacts don't affect them since they are not dead. They can read minds, control people, are strong and very fast. But, the fun part is that the constant bombardment of peoples thoughts is exhausting and after hundreds of years they lose interest in food, which they can eat, and in sex. Then enter the life mate. It seems the nanos recognize the person of the opposite sex that is perfect for you when you run across them.  And the way they know is they can't read or control the other person. Food suddenly taste good again and the sex is unbelievable because you not only experience you gratification, but you also experience the feelings of the other person when you sexually excite them. Then the sensations bounce back and forth between them until the sensations are so intense they pass out. This last for the entire first two years they are together then calms down somewhat but still remains strong. Great Books.

I think the problem is that all the moderates have been eliminated. I think they killed them, but that's another story. The moderates and centrist were the ones that in the past fostered compromise which ultimately lead to solutions. For instance, I don't see why the president couldn't delay Obamacare for, say six months and drop that tax on medical equipment. Then the republicans could drop all the other demands they want in order to approve a budget and the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling is something you definitely don't want to mess around with because it could lead to global repercussions and an even more serious recession. Besides, the debt ceiling isn't for new spending, it's for spending that congress already approved and to which the president agreed. Also, they should use this opportunity to agree to seriously discuss tax reduction as well as a serious plan for entitlement reform. I guess that ultimately the responsibility rest with us. We need to let those clowns know that we are not going to continue to sit idle while they fatten themselves and totally ignore us.

This question is nothing more than an exercise in rhetoric and has nothing to do with the concept of God. While I am not a believer I understand the God concept. He is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. If the concept of God were true then your question would have no relevance because it is a human construct and since we are fallible we would be totally unable to formulate a test for God simply because we don't have the ability or the intelligence.

Francis Collins wrote a book titled "The Language of God - A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief." Mr. Collins was the head of the Human Genome Project and is currently the head of the National Institute of Health.

I never experienced anything supernatural that couldn't be explained later with some logic and reason. But, I love talking about it and reading the information available.

Sometimes I wonder how a libertarian would do. Ideologically pure libertarians would be even worse than the two parties we have now. But, suppose you could find a moderate libertarian. That person could be almost perfect for todays situation. Here in VA. in the governors race we have a extremist right wing conservative republican and a weak democrat and most of the general public doesn't care for either one to any great degree, but there is a libertarian moderate that makes a lot sense and when he speaks he talks only on the issues where the other two just castigate each other. I checked him out on the web sites and I am going to cast my vote for him, a first for me.

If anyone is expecting this to end on a satisfactory note, forget it. If we and others in the west don't get involved the Islamist in the north, backed by Iran, will almost surely win and wont that be a promising note in the middle east. Then it's on to Jordan, Turkey, and a host of other countries in that area. Oh, and when Saudi Arabia gets involved in a civil war, along with other oil producing countries then we can all park our cars and walk everywhere. Yeah, that's going to happen. Like I've said before, "money talks" and when it does all of these noble aspirations will fly right out the window. We in the west are the one's that constantly blather about human rights violations and basic human rights. But, what really motivates us is money and that is what will motivate us here. This has got to stop, we must respect human life, we are all brothers under the skin. Oh really, since when? Check your history!! At no time in the history of the world have we even appeared to learn from our past. But, as bad as that sounds we do make progress and we make progress because we do get involved in nasty situations, if we don't then the nasty situations just compound themselves and become more precarious for the rest of us. We make microscopic progress because we do try. So, when we let this situation resolve itself and the Islamist have taken the entire area and start even more terrorist attacks in the west let's not gasp and cover our mouths in horror like a massive collection of hypocrites.

Well, I'm no fan of president Obama and I don't think he should have been given the peace prize, but when to use diplomacy or military force is a complicated issue and one in which the public isn't well versed enough to make an educated guess. What we offer, as the general public, is a smattering of facts, as presented by the media and with it's bias', smothered in emotional content. Hardly, the basis for a pragmatic disposition. The beauty of living in a republic such as ours is that we are able to elect representatives that reflect our general positions with the knowledge that they will be educated on the issues and make intelligent decisions based on current reality. If they don't, hey there is the next election.

Whether to use force or diplomacy is a very complicated. The unfortunate reality is that diplomacy usually doesn't work without force by the US. For example, diplomacy didn't work in Bosnia, Kosovo, Liberia, Sierra Leone until force by us was used. And it hasn't worked in most of the conflicts in which we had a strategic, economic , or humanitarian interest. We are the ones that promote democracy, humanitarian interest, and capitalism and the world expects us to help when we can, an idea we promoted. If we respond to global events as the isolationist want things will get worse for us, not better.

That having been said, I'm reluctant to get involved in such a convoluted situation filled with reactionary opponents. But, this problem is one that was exacerbated by Obama's dithering during the whole process and his failure to act much earlier.  We have major interest in the middle east and can't afford for the Syrian problem to spread like a virus throughout the whole region. However, to ridicule the president for considering military action because he received the peace prize is naïve and emotional. Global situations ebb and flow, so to denigrate the use of military force because someone ordinarily supports diplomacy is absurd. Diplomacy usually requires the use of force or the threat of it's use. Does anyone really think that Iran will comply with our demands without the knowledge that we might respond militarily??

This situation is beyond confusing. Personally, I think that I have ascertained the problem. DIAPER RASH!!!!! Because of the climate these poor people have been suffering for centuries. If we send them several boatloads of baby powder it could solve the whole mess. They are just grouchy.

Kidding aside, I think that Israel, as a ally of the U.S. , will force our hand and we will bomb Iran. The problem with Iran is that it's a theocracy and seems to be more focused on eliminating Israel than working toward its own good and would sacrifice its people in order to do that. Also, most of the western governments agree that Iran cannot be allowed to get the bomb.

But, who really knows? This area is so complicated with sectarian violence of Sunni vs. Shiites, religious vs. secular, Jews vs. everyone else and the complication of the Syrian civil war that any possible outcome is pure speculation.

The know-nothing party wanted to curb immigration because they feared the influence of Irish, Germans and I think Catholic's in general. They were nativist. I believe they were formed sometime in the 1850's. and were a national party. I can't remember any specifics.