Studies have been done that show that people are happier when they are much better off when they are in a better situation than those around them. People making 100k a year feel happier living in neighborhoods where others make less than them than living in neighborhoods of millionaires. The thing that causes the greatest amount of happiness might be to give most of the money in a nation to 55% of people and to surround them with the poor 45%, but that doesn't make it fair or moral.

The real answer is to behave as you would like to behave. But it's better put in this case in the reverse. Don't treat people like you wouldn't want to be treated yourself. In Mill's terms, it shouldn't be what gives the most people the most happiness, but it should be what gives the least number of people the least unhappiness. That solves the problems of things like slavery and injustice for popular benefit.

His recent activity shows that he's not up for the position:

1. Forgetting where spain is, trying to bluff

2. Strange twitches and confusion during press conferences

3. Refusal to release medical records unless behind closed doors

Not many people participate actively in local government, and when was the last time you contacted your congressman to let them know how you felt about an issue? Maybe through education, citizens would become more active in their local area.

At the same time, the gold standard would limit the ability of the fed to control inflation through their control on the money supply. A deflationary currency makes it harder to come up with the money we need for the national budget, since dollars continue to be worth more, and the US government has to ensure there are enough pounds of gold to cover any new currency they mint.

On top of all of that, it would be a logistical nightmare to shift over to a different currency or to start propping up our current currency at a fair dollar to gold rate.

The change will make the debate less interesting and less of a true test of the two vice presidential candidates.

Probably more likely is that people are shaken up for a while, there are deals done to keep wall street alive, and in the long term, the situation stabilizes and keeps growing. Drops in stock markets tend to be a leading indicator of overall economy, so we'll probably have a slowdown for at least a bit. They also tend to clean out overenthusiasm and irrational pricing, so after the drop, we'll regain footing when people start behaving rationally again and buying when valuations are reasonable.

Politicians will be smart enough that they'll find ways around the minimum wage pay if they wanted, but it would at least function as a reminder of what most Americans have to live on.

The problem is that we can't estimate the risks completly without knowing more about the way our universe operates. The only way of knowing more about the way it operates is by running experiments at the LHC. The main issues are that the scientists may be wrong with their models, but they can't know that without testing their models. They understand that and the fact that they have a page dedicated to the risks shows they are trying to be open about the risks.

Personally, I wouldn't mind dying by falling into a giant black hole as it enveloped the planet. It would probably be quite interesting for the few seconds you have. In any event, I'll be reading the link below, on how to maximize survival in a black hole.

On the reverse side, attack ads work far too well. They spread misinformation or exaggerated versions of a candidate's positions and help associate a candidate with a particular fear people have. McCain's recent Olympic ads about how Obama's going to tax the middle class are a great example. Some people that were on the fence about Obama but are having a hard time with the economy might be persuaded just on that ad.