Looking-Glass Selves

First, you are confusing a scenario with reality. The Rockefeller Foundation is laying out a few possible events in order to assist with preparedness training. The fact that we live in a dangerous world, indicated by the security precautions which have been taken for the London Olympics, does not indicate that anyone in government has some nefarious scheme. Use Ockam's razor (parsimony or economy). Second, when people (including myself) use the term new world order, we are using it to refer to the world as it exists now, not to some possible world government. Now, some folks (again, myself included) would like to see the new world order evolve into a kind of world governance or government. However, that idea continues to be debated. In any event, it is not a secret conspiracy. Those who recognize the changes in the world, and the need to move political and economic institutions into the 21st century, are very open about it.

Many people discuss (and attack) feminists as if they are a monolith (all the same). Objectivizing people may make life easier. However, people are not stereotyped categories. For instance, whenever you type "feminists," you might replace it (in your mind) with members of a racial or religious minority (or Autists for that matter). It is the same issue.

People can debate whether a country is real. However, debating whether a being is real, while some have tried, is more problematic. As a Critical Realist, I would suggest that humanity is real. Roy Bhaskar says that we are all connected through co-presence or a cosmic envelope. On the other hand, countries come and go. Some countries are not even recognized as legal entities by other countries. (For instance, China does not recognize Taiwan as being separate from Mainland China.) Humanity is ontological. Countries are epistemological (perceptive).

The problem is that sexual orientation (or sexual preference) is a late-20th-century concept. The concept was developed after gays and lesbians were more socially accepted. In other words, there had to be a term which distinguished homosexuals from heterosexuals. Taking the concept of sexual orientation and retrofitting it onto an ancient manuscript, such as a Biblical text, doesn't make much sense to me.

Some of my tax money supports services I may never use. That is the end result of not living on an island.

In light of the recent massacre in Colorado, To be honest, many (not all) of the people I have seen oppose gun control online are precisely the ones who should never be allowed to purchase a gun.

My views are the opposite, in most respects, from libertarianism. However, in fairness, not all libertarians are extremists. People who post on almost any subject online tend to be the most passionate ones. That can make it appear that everyone has extreme views.

Jefferson apparently changed his mind on that subject several times - going back and forth between deism and theism. People have argued whether Jefferson was one or the other. In fact, there is good textual evidence that he was both at different times of his life.