A recurring theme in my discussions with secular humanist centers on the subject of morality. First a illuminating part of the Oxford definition:
6.b. Theol. The property of certain enactments of the Mosaic Law by which they belong to the moral (as opposed to ceremonial, etc.) law and therefore retain their validity under the Christian dispensation. Cf. MORAL a. 5a. Obs.
This leads me to the crux of my argument. The secular humanist generally does not believe in God. They also disagree with the influence of religion on society and government. Now, arguing from the perspective of social evolution, and not from faith, one can make the point that the establishment of morals is inextricably linked to religious behavior. The development of modern Western society is fundamentally linked to the Christian church, and before that the Mosaic Law. Now, other societies exist, with moral behavior, and codes of ethics. Conversely, the existence of a secular society that was formed without the influence of religion is a remote hope. I would contend that it, like the experiment of pure communism, would fail miserably. And my reasoning would not rely on faith. I would argue that we are genetically predisposed to succeed in a religious framework. And that the greater organism which is society, evolves in the context of communities who's members organize in the context of religion.
Its social Darwinism with a twist. Its God as the designer of evolution. Furthermore, my personal views on this subject would label me a heretic, get me excommunicated, and burned at the stake (or boiled in oil), as well as scoffed at by peers, thrown in jail in Cuba, get beheaded in Saudi Arabia, among various other punishments. For me, religion is the biblical meaning, "true religion is taking care of widows and orphans", and not the crystallized structures of denominations, the ridiculous fiction of Dante and Milton, or whatever other social control and fantasy you derive from these. What an amazing system life is. And how would you make it better?
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Judith Miller, Covert Undercover Agent of the NYT
The news is finally out! Judith is a covert agent of the NYT! They were just protecting her identity and now the terrible truth is out. Who is responsible for this horrendous leak? The security of the Liberal Institution of Truth (NYT) is at stake with this latest development. Fortunately her real sources are protected in this latest deal. Now that her cover is blown, there is no reason to stay in the clinky, and there will be no fishing expedition into what she knows. Whew, we we all so worried that critical confidential information would accompany this latest outing of an agent.
All jesting aside, what in the world is going on? This whole charade makes no sense, and yet is strangely compelling. Libs are compelled to pursue anything to squash Bush. The rest of us are compelled by the freakish characters involved. Some of the strangest aspects are contained in the Amici Curiae presented by press organization lawyers on behalf of Special Agent Miller. Even stranger is finding yourself, as a right wing radical, agreeing with observations contained within concerning the CIA. Some stories muddy the water..... My conservative sycophant mind numbed robot danger meter is blinking.
All jesting aside, what in the world is going on? This whole charade makes no sense, and yet is strangely compelling. Libs are compelled to pursue anything to squash Bush. The rest of us are compelled by the freakish characters involved. Some of the strangest aspects are contained in the Amici Curiae presented by press organization lawyers on behalf of Special Agent Miller. Even stranger is finding yourself, as a right wing radical, agreeing with observations contained within concerning the CIA. Some stories muddy the water..... My conservative sycophant mind numbed robot danger meter is blinking.
Monday, October 03, 2005
On the Evolution of Intelligent Design
Here is a rant of mine on Intelligent Design that I sent off to some talk show host.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know you won't read this, but I have to get this off my chest. You do not understand science. The theory of evolution is a theory. But, there are innumerable instances of evolving species. That part is indisputable. We are changing. The whole realm of life is changing. Now, as a Christian I don't have any problem with that. And intelligent design is exactly right. But, it was designed to evolve. Or God is playing a huge joke on us.
Take the age of the universe. Its either billions of years old, or God made it look that way. And that is indisputable. I can measure the speed of light. I can measure how far the distant galaxies are from us. Light from them is observed in the sky.
So take fossils. They exist. Extinct dinosaur bones are real. Changing DNA phylogenetic records exist for many species. Hence, many species have evolved. Over millions of years. Sure, there are lots of gaps. But those are good. Lots of things to explore. However, the records do not support intelligent design as pushed by many proponents of it. And I do not believe God just popped the world into being and included a whole extensive record there to mislead us.
If your real problem is with mutagenisis, what would the fossil record look like if its was God designing each species? Does a plant just pop into existence? I mean there would be obvious appearances in the fossil record of brand new species unrelated to anything ever before it. But that is not the case! Even the most complex organism is related to something before it. So, as I believe, God is involved, as the designer of a system that evolved.
The real problem here is naive creationists repackaging a product that comes from the Victorian era church, and not cognition. Darwinism is no threat to Christ. Christ is the pinnacle of evolution. He sets the point in time when we can become perfect in his life.
Which begs the question for my Mormon friends, why would God need to send Christ twice? Did he make a mistake the first time?
I don't think God is out to trick us. If there is light from galaxies 13 billion light years away, the universe is at least 13 billion years old. You are just putting on blinders to not see that. If there are dinosaur skeletons turned to rock all over the place, dinos once roamed the earth. If there are clear phylogenetic trees that show species evolution, species can evolve. Does that mean God isn't involved? No, the spark of life comes from some hand. And at some point man gains self awareness. Clearly that is Gods plan. To love man. And to give man life in the spirit.
For your interest, there is one very major thing science has not been able to prove and is taken on faith. Time goes forward. There is no proof. And we just have to believe that it does, there is no proof. And that makes almost all science somewhat based on faith. There is no proof! When you
get up each day, you just observe that its the next day and say, "Yep, time is still going forward."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I really enjoy that last bit, as it forces some of my fellow science blowhards to pontificate in a contorted manor. They do have faith in something! That drives them nuts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know you won't read this, but I have to get this off my chest. You do not understand science. The theory of evolution is a theory. But, there are innumerable instances of evolving species. That part is indisputable. We are changing. The whole realm of life is changing. Now, as a Christian I don't have any problem with that. And intelligent design is exactly right. But, it was designed to evolve. Or God is playing a huge joke on us.
Take the age of the universe. Its either billions of years old, or God made it look that way. And that is indisputable. I can measure the speed of light. I can measure how far the distant galaxies are from us. Light from them is observed in the sky.
So take fossils. They exist. Extinct dinosaur bones are real. Changing DNA phylogenetic records exist for many species. Hence, many species have evolved. Over millions of years. Sure, there are lots of gaps. But those are good. Lots of things to explore. However, the records do not support intelligent design as pushed by many proponents of it. And I do not believe God just popped the world into being and included a whole extensive record there to mislead us.
If your real problem is with mutagenisis, what would the fossil record look like if its was God designing each species? Does a plant just pop into existence? I mean there would be obvious appearances in the fossil record of brand new species unrelated to anything ever before it. But that is not the case! Even the most complex organism is related to something before it. So, as I believe, God is involved, as the designer of a system that evolved.
The real problem here is naive creationists repackaging a product that comes from the Victorian era church, and not cognition. Darwinism is no threat to Christ. Christ is the pinnacle of evolution. He sets the point in time when we can become perfect in his life.
Which begs the question for my Mormon friends, why would God need to send Christ twice? Did he make a mistake the first time?
I don't think God is out to trick us. If there is light from galaxies 13 billion light years away, the universe is at least 13 billion years old. You are just putting on blinders to not see that. If there are dinosaur skeletons turned to rock all over the place, dinos once roamed the earth. If there are clear phylogenetic trees that show species evolution, species can evolve. Does that mean God isn't involved? No, the spark of life comes from some hand. And at some point man gains self awareness. Clearly that is Gods plan. To love man. And to give man life in the spirit.
For your interest, there is one very major thing science has not been able to prove and is taken on faith. Time goes forward. There is no proof. And we just have to believe that it does, there is no proof. And that makes almost all science somewhat based on faith. There is no proof! When you
get up each day, you just observe that its the next day and say, "Yep, time is still going forward."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I really enjoy that last bit, as it forces some of my fellow science blowhards to pontificate in a contorted manor. They do have faith in something! That drives them nuts.
Who Left the Heat On?
Here we go with some global warming. I'm privy to all sorts of info on this subject. But the popular perspective is pervasively present among the Ph.D.'s within the halls. My take is this, when it was El Nino in th 80's, we scientists milked it for every grant dollar we could get. Now its "Global Climate Change", and again, we want your tax dollars. One difference, it will take much longer to figure out climate, hopefully ensuring funding for, well, forever! Now how about the validity of the Kyoto crowd. I got this email last week:
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Today (Sept. 28) we witnessed a rather curious event in the US Senate. Possibly for the first time ever, a chair of a Senate committee, one Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), invited a science fiction writer to advise the committee (Environment and Public Works), on science facts--in this case, the facts behind climate change."
The rest of the text (and the hearing in realaudio format) can be found at:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=188
As I thought some of you might be interested in the topic (if not directly involved in it) I decided to send this mass email.
Sorry for any inconvenience,
(concerned grad student name goes here)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
What prompts people to assume everyone wants to know about their personal view, and under the assumption you agree. Its incomprehensible that you don't support global warming as a concerned scientist for the new age. Well, thats sarcasm. Now for a fact check. Is there global warming? Sure. Is there global cooling? Yep. Is it because we have dumped CO2 into the atmosphere? Not proven, just a week theory. There are always trends in global values, and its very hard to accurately say where a trend is trending until it gets there. And as for causation, its far more likely that fluctuations in the suns output would produce the observed temperature record. Another contrarian point of interest is the satallite measure global distribution of tropospheric temperature, which has been measured since 1979. This has not shown a large increasing trend.
All these points aside, we scientists are predominantly populated with those who's views are left of center left. Couple this with easy cash, and we can jump on the global warming bandwagon, come hell or high-water (sic). Now, I want to see more tax dollars go to science, but it would be nice to get it on its own merit and not by political subterfuge. However, as a pragmatist, that is a very unlikely scenario. Here are a few good resources for those who want to pursue my counter argument:
NASA GHCC Global Temp
Stanford Solar Center
As for the arrogance and extreme bias displayed, par for the course. Looks like a science fiction writer can look beyond his left pinkie and see a scam of 'facts', so why not have him before a committee? Besides, more politicians will be familiar with Jurassic Park than global warming, a observation of our representatives and leaders that liberals are fond of reminding us. (Ala Reagan's stupidity, Bush's stupidity, Christians stupidity, anyone who doesn't agrees stupidity...) Just because someone presents a string of facts supporting their agenda, doesn't make those facts truth. Furthermore, the 'facts' in this case are not conclusive, just suggestive. The real issue here goes a bit deeper in my opinion. There is a group of people who believe humans can be a destructive curse on nature. Their god is nature, and humanism. Fundamentally, they believe we can create and destroy, that we are in essence god. Opposing this view are those that believe we are stewards of nature. That the resources provided and the technology discovered will continue to lead us to a brighter future.
Actualization of this tenant of stewardship is something that should be focused upon. When we discovered that DDT was extremely detrimental to nature, we stopped using it. However, DDT save thousands of lives as a pesticide. We have developed replacements that aren't damaging. That is progress. The industrial revolution has enabled a standard of living for hundreds of millions to be greater than ever imagined. Can we limit the cost to our changing environment? Lets find out. And can we spread this wealth and health to all humans on the planet without massive pollution? Lets try. But the secular humanist would want us to hobble ourselves, allthewhile emerging nations will not abide by the same tenant. Are you going to force China or India to stay on bicycles? In one sense the culture of the car represents personal freedom, control of your destination. That destination is what we are fighting over. As a christian, I do not believe God is leading us into a ditch. I see a bright future with amazing opportunities for advancement. Science and technology can be the tools we use as stewards of the Earth. Yet in the true spirit of the natural world, we must compete to succeed. There are no un-utilized resources in any natural community, and man is no exception. So we must fight politically as well. And utilize our opportunities.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Today (Sept. 28) we witnessed a rather curious event in the US Senate. Possibly for the first time ever, a chair of a Senate committee, one Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), invited a science fiction writer to advise the committee (Environment and Public Works), on science facts--in this case, the facts behind climate change."
The rest of the text (and the hearing in realaudio format) can be found at:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=188
As I thought some of you might be interested in the topic (if not directly involved in it) I decided to send this mass email.
Sorry for any inconvenience,
(concerned grad student name goes here)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
What prompts people to assume everyone wants to know about their personal view, and under the assumption you agree. Its incomprehensible that you don't support global warming as a concerned scientist for the new age. Well, thats sarcasm. Now for a fact check. Is there global warming? Sure. Is there global cooling? Yep. Is it because we have dumped CO2 into the atmosphere? Not proven, just a week theory. There are always trends in global values, and its very hard to accurately say where a trend is trending until it gets there. And as for causation, its far more likely that fluctuations in the suns output would produce the observed temperature record. Another contrarian point of interest is the satallite measure global distribution of tropospheric temperature, which has been measured since 1979. This has not shown a large increasing trend.
All these points aside, we scientists are predominantly populated with those who's views are left of center left. Couple this with easy cash, and we can jump on the global warming bandwagon, come hell or high-water (sic). Now, I want to see more tax dollars go to science, but it would be nice to get it on its own merit and not by political subterfuge. However, as a pragmatist, that is a very unlikely scenario. Here are a few good resources for those who want to pursue my counter argument:
NASA GHCC Global Temp
Stanford Solar Center
As for the arrogance and extreme bias displayed, par for the course. Looks like a science fiction writer can look beyond his left pinkie and see a scam of 'facts', so why not have him before a committee? Besides, more politicians will be familiar with Jurassic Park than global warming, a observation of our representatives and leaders that liberals are fond of reminding us. (Ala Reagan's stupidity, Bush's stupidity, Christians stupidity, anyone who doesn't agrees stupidity...) Just because someone presents a string of facts supporting their agenda, doesn't make those facts truth. Furthermore, the 'facts' in this case are not conclusive, just suggestive. The real issue here goes a bit deeper in my opinion. There is a group of people who believe humans can be a destructive curse on nature. Their god is nature, and humanism. Fundamentally, they believe we can create and destroy, that we are in essence god. Opposing this view are those that believe we are stewards of nature. That the resources provided and the technology discovered will continue to lead us to a brighter future.
Actualization of this tenant of stewardship is something that should be focused upon. When we discovered that DDT was extremely detrimental to nature, we stopped using it. However, DDT save thousands of lives as a pesticide. We have developed replacements that aren't damaging. That is progress. The industrial revolution has enabled a standard of living for hundreds of millions to be greater than ever imagined. Can we limit the cost to our changing environment? Lets find out. And can we spread this wealth and health to all humans on the planet without massive pollution? Lets try. But the secular humanist would want us to hobble ourselves, allthewhile emerging nations will not abide by the same tenant. Are you going to force China or India to stay on bicycles? In one sense the culture of the car represents personal freedom, control of your destination. That destination is what we are fighting over. As a christian, I do not believe God is leading us into a ditch. I see a bright future with amazing opportunities for advancement. Science and technology can be the tools we use as stewards of the Earth. Yet in the true spirit of the natural world, we must compete to succeed. There are no un-utilized resources in any natural community, and man is no exception. So we must fight politically as well. And utilize our opportunities.
Optimism and Hope, and Iraq
Ah, the view from the left ------ Full of Optimism and Hope. I get this in my inbox:
The US's top commander in Iraq, General George W Casey Jr, did not have good news on this issue on October 2. He said, "Just one of the 120 US-trained Iraqi army and police battalions was able to operate without US forces."
Let's see….at that rate we should be able to leave Iraq by, oh, in about 2150….
The constitution, such as it is, goes down in flames.
The civil war intensifies.
Iraq dissolves into Kurdistan, Iranistan and Sunniland.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, isn't that a nice positive view of the world.
First, the technical aspect. What does it mean to operate independently? If you mean that they don't have their own spy satellites, robot bomb sniffers, gps gear for each troop, secure communications, UAV's and such, then so what. If it means they can't operate because everyone goes native in a operation, then that is a serious issue. Second, about the constitution. Good thing you libs weren't around screaming when the Founding Conservative Christian Fathers came up with ours. Took a while. But thats neither here nor there. What is interesting is how actively leftist will try to denigrate and distort our efforts in Iraq.
You could be the worst peacenic on the planet, hate President Bush more than George Soros, be Micheal Moore's chauffeur, and still have enough brains to realize we need to actually succeed in Iraq. But, liberals tend not to use their brains, and exist on a potent mix of hate and frustration. I hear constantly, "I support the troops, just not the war..." So what does that mean? The troops support the war, so if you really supported them you would support the war. And, yes, you don't support the war. In fact you actually promote "propaganda" that actively undermines the war effort. Typical liberal lie.
Furthermore, back to the "civil war" brewing in Iraq. I think we had one. But, I don't think the Iraqis will need to go that far to figure out self rule. And just the fact that they are having a constitutional referendum in Iraq is a huge advance. All the achievements made by these people are remarkable, and completely ignored by the "Peacenic's for World Socialism" propaganda wing. By that I am referring to mainstream journalism. But one thing is in the rags and on the wires, Iran wants to build nukes. And they aren't very friendly with us. It seems prudent to do whatever possible to succeed in Iraq.
I support the War and the Troops..............
The US's top commander in Iraq, General George W Casey Jr, did not have good news on this issue on October 2. He said, "Just one of the 120 US-trained Iraqi army and police battalions was able to operate without US forces."
Let's see….at that rate we should be able to leave Iraq by, oh, in about 2150….
The constitution, such as it is, goes down in flames.
The civil war intensifies.
Iraq dissolves into Kurdistan, Iranistan and Sunniland.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, isn't that a nice positive view of the world.
First, the technical aspect. What does it mean to operate independently? If you mean that they don't have their own spy satellites, robot bomb sniffers, gps gear for each troop, secure communications, UAV's and such, then so what. If it means they can't operate because everyone goes native in a operation, then that is a serious issue. Second, about the constitution. Good thing you libs weren't around screaming when the Founding Conservative Christian Fathers came up with ours. Took a while. But thats neither here nor there. What is interesting is how actively leftist will try to denigrate and distort our efforts in Iraq.
You could be the worst peacenic on the planet, hate President Bush more than George Soros, be Micheal Moore's chauffeur, and still have enough brains to realize we need to actually succeed in Iraq. But, liberals tend not to use their brains, and exist on a potent mix of hate and frustration. I hear constantly, "I support the troops, just not the war..." So what does that mean? The troops support the war, so if you really supported them you would support the war. And, yes, you don't support the war. In fact you actually promote "propaganda" that actively undermines the war effort. Typical liberal lie.
Furthermore, back to the "civil war" brewing in Iraq. I think we had one. But, I don't think the Iraqis will need to go that far to figure out self rule. And just the fact that they are having a constitutional referendum in Iraq is a huge advance. All the achievements made by these people are remarkable, and completely ignored by the "Peacenic's for World Socialism" propaganda wing. By that I am referring to mainstream journalism. But one thing is in the rags and on the wires, Iran wants to build nukes. And they aren't very friendly with us. It seems prudent to do whatever possible to succeed in Iraq.
I support the War and the Troops..............
Friday, September 30, 2005
Solution for America
Here we pose a question to a crotchety classic lib for solving our economic woes:
So do you think we should be spending buckets? i mean to prevent the recession/stagnation ala Japan for the last fifteen years? Its a possibility..... But couldn't you get out of that another way? Although Japan seems to be stuck. I mean if your take on the economy is that its stuck in slow growth. But your wrong characterizing the service sector as burger and fries. But what should we do? Socialize manufacturing? Thats very inefficient. But some manufacturing may be a security issue...... I don't know. Obviously you don't move Electric Boat to Singapore. But what about Caterpillar? Or Boeing? We subsidize farming already. But I don't know....
The Liberal's Solution
Changes:
1. Reform tax structure...count all income, close loopholes, small number of progressive steps. Tax forms should be single page affairs anybody can fill out.
2. Cut military spending, mainly by stopping weapons systems procurements. Big cuts in number of generals and admirals. Cut overseas bases by at least 3/4. Remove troops from Europe. Restructure army as light mobile strike forces....not to fight WWIII on plains of Europe.
3. Tax corporate foreign profits...create pressure to retain/return tech jobs to us.
4. Change Social Security--no more raiding of trust fund...make congress pay it back from prior years raids. Raise retirement age in six month steps. Increase % individual contrib and employer contrib, it will only take a small change.
5. Big changes in Medicare Medicaid. National health insurance program for all Americans...insurance companies allowed to run it at fixed return rates. Big reductions in payment rates to doctors. Fed malpractice insurance coverage to lower cost to doctors.
6. Tax breaks for hiring older workers in job share or less than full time....incentives to keep older people employed.
7. Energy independence--incentives to get rid of fuel inefficient cars. No more highways. Tax engine displacement and vehicle weight, but phased in to give time to get rid of gas hogs. Develop alternative energy sources. Push power generation for business and homes into solar and nuclear sources...get away from oil/gas/coal.
8. Enter into specific industrial relationships with specific countries (mainly Africa) to develop industries with us on most-favored-nation relationship.
9. Much tighter and restrictive land use policy. Reduce urban sprawl, more concentration of population into compact areas where costs can be contained and neighborhoods developed....not jam-packed cities, but satellite communities with fast transit to urban core.....the urban village.
10. Educational reform--national standards/goals, but not tests in current form. Test for abilities, not content. Want to make sure teachers CANNOT teach to test. Multi-track education. At high school level students opt for technical vs. academic vs. I don't know what tracks....but NOT rigid, and it don't mean that plumbers should not learn Beethoven! Corporate internship/apprenticeships bring tax breaks and future jobs for students.... teaches good work habits.... ensures ready stream of trained workers. Teachers must major in areas in which they teach. Shoot all professors of education and burn down the colleges of education. Max of 15 minutes per day dealing with government regs by teachers. Beginning salary of ANY school teacher ANYWHERE is 30,000 Yankee dollars. (ya, and classes should stand when teacher enters the room, too)
So what do we think?
1. Everybody wants this! Why wont any politician do it? y
2. National Security, need more not less n
3. Raise taxes? Again? n
4. More Taxes? (surprise surprise) n
5. Nationalized Health Care? (paid for by -- more taxes) n
6. Tax breaks now? Ok, but you sound like WalMart...... y
7. Naive view of energy, and expensive, but close...... n
8. Huh? I think we do this, but not with dictators..... ?
9. Are you Walt Disney? This is poppycock. n
10. You sound like Bush! y
Score:
yeah 3
nyet 6
with one abstention.
So do you think we should be spending buckets? i mean to prevent the recession/stagnation ala Japan for the last fifteen years? Its a possibility..... But couldn't you get out of that another way? Although Japan seems to be stuck. I mean if your take on the economy is that its stuck in slow growth. But your wrong characterizing the service sector as burger and fries. But what should we do? Socialize manufacturing? Thats very inefficient. But some manufacturing may be a security issue...... I don't know. Obviously you don't move Electric Boat to Singapore. But what about Caterpillar? Or Boeing? We subsidize farming already. But I don't know....
The Liberal's Solution
Changes:
1. Reform tax structure...count all income, close loopholes, small number of progressive steps. Tax forms should be single page affairs anybody can fill out.
2. Cut military spending, mainly by stopping weapons systems procurements. Big cuts in number of generals and admirals. Cut overseas bases by at least 3/4. Remove troops from Europe. Restructure army as light mobile strike forces....not to fight WWIII on plains of Europe.
3. Tax corporate foreign profits...create pressure to retain/return tech jobs to us.
4. Change Social Security--no more raiding of trust fund...make congress pay it back from prior years raids. Raise retirement age in six month steps. Increase % individual contrib and employer contrib, it will only take a small change.
5. Big changes in Medicare Medicaid. National health insurance program for all Americans...insurance companies allowed to run it at fixed return rates. Big reductions in payment rates to doctors. Fed malpractice insurance coverage to lower cost to doctors.
6. Tax breaks for hiring older workers in job share or less than full time....incentives to keep older people employed.
7. Energy independence--incentives to get rid of fuel inefficient cars. No more highways. Tax engine displacement and vehicle weight, but phased in to give time to get rid of gas hogs. Develop alternative energy sources. Push power generation for business and homes into solar and nuclear sources...get away from oil/gas/coal.
8. Enter into specific industrial relationships with specific countries (mainly Africa) to develop industries with us on most-favored-nation relationship.
9. Much tighter and restrictive land use policy. Reduce urban sprawl, more concentration of population into compact areas where costs can be contained and neighborhoods developed....not jam-packed cities, but satellite communities with fast transit to urban core.....the urban village.
10. Educational reform--national standards/goals, but not tests in current form. Test for abilities, not content. Want to make sure teachers CANNOT teach to test. Multi-track education. At high school level students opt for technical vs. academic vs. I don't know what tracks....but NOT rigid, and it don't mean that plumbers should not learn Beethoven! Corporate internship/apprenticeships bring tax breaks and future jobs for students.... teaches good work habits.... ensures ready stream of trained workers. Teachers must major in areas in which they teach. Shoot all professors of education and burn down the colleges of education. Max of 15 minutes per day dealing with government regs by teachers. Beginning salary of ANY school teacher ANYWHERE is 30,000 Yankee dollars. (ya, and classes should stand when teacher enters the room, too)
So what do we think?
1. Everybody wants this! Why wont any politician do it? y
2. National Security, need more not less n
3. Raise taxes? Again? n
4. More Taxes? (surprise surprise) n
5. Nationalized Health Care? (paid for by -- more taxes) n
6. Tax breaks now? Ok, but you sound like WalMart...... y
7. Naive view of energy, and expensive, but close...... n
8. Huh? I think we do this, but not with dictators..... ?
9. Are you Walt Disney? This is poppycock. n
10. You sound like Bush! y
Score:
yeah 3
nyet 6
with one abstention.
Liberals vs Conservatives
Here is a very interesting point/counterpoint on the philisophical underpinings of our politics. Enjoy!
(originated by V on June 27 05)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liberals vs Conservatives:
-------------------
Liberals believe in the right to self determination of the individual. Conservatives believe that the elite, especially the corporate elite, know best; the individuals have only the circumscribed rights that the state gives them.
-------------------
M- By self deterimation do you mean do whatever you want unless we don't like it? And the corporate elite know best, yeah right, what century are you in?
V----Maybe that's why the ACLU is a Liberal, not a Conservative, organization....we defend everybodies rights....including W.F. Buckley and the American Nazi Party....the first amendment covers everybody. Name a time the libs opposed constitutional rights! And, in case you have not noticed, the corporations run this country--the interlocking directorate of government-corporations-military is called the
circulation of elites....look it up.
---------------
Liberals believe in constitutional government, representative democracy and the rule of law. Conservatives believe in rule by religious or aristocratic traditional elites; that the people cannot know what is best for them, and that the elite have the right to make the law in their own self interest.
---------------
M- Except when they loose elections, or the constitution isn't quite right (gun control, abortion, religion), and the rule of law, is that the law based on a Judeo Christian ethic? If anybody believes the people don't
know whats best for them its liberals. Now the acusation about traditional elites, hmmm whos created Camelot? Who wants to build aristocracy?
V--the above makes no sense......what are you talking about? What constitutional issue are you talking about? Somewhere you have bought in a Marxist idea.....this is very confused.....
-------------
Liberals believe in both human rights and civil liberties, especially freedom of speech and of the press, and in the tolerance of diversity of thought and expression.
Conservatives cling to traditional class based rights and privileges, based on a monopoly of force. That the press and speech must be regulated so that their vested interests are maintained. They believe in the orthodoxy of thought, especially religious thought, and actively suppress ideas and speech that threaten their dominance.
-------------
M- How about activily supressing ideas that will destroy our civilization? And, whos intolerant now? You show me something you can't do here, no matter how odious. Civil liberties, so long as they don't promote
anything religious. Human rights? Whos human rights? Do you want human rights for Iraqis? Do you want civil liberties for women in the middle east? And your regulation of the press crap is a joke. You can say almost anything here, and i don't see any conservaties trying to supress or regulate it, nor wanting to.
V----Ah, so you're for suppressing IDEAS! Most revealing! How traditionally conservative...Tsarist, monarchist, Bismarckian etc. Like what ideas, for example? Things like voting rights, the right to
organize, public assembly etc..... Nobody objects to SUPPORTING religion, what we object to is REQUIRING religion...big difference. Want separation of church and state, like the founding fathers established, for example. Human/civil rights in Iraq and the middle east are great....but THEY get
to define what that means, not G. Bush. Not OUR place to define THEIR society....thought u guys were against "nation building"? Or is that OK when the R's are in power rather than the D's? Ref the press....a
controlled press means there is no real debate on issues....points of view never make the press....the press is "self-censored".... Plus, lots of things u cant do....like attend Bushie rally wearing a kerry tee shirt...
-------------
Liberals believe in a free market and free trade, with limited government intervention in the economy to insure fairness and competition. Conservatives believe that government exists to insure their control of
the economy, and their ability to control markets and trade to maximize their profits, whatever the cost to the workingman.
-------------
M- Here you have mislabled your labels. And as for the workingman, who is currently overtaxed, looks like conservatives are trying to give him a break. Now, historically I would agree, but thats is far in the past. Limmited government? Show me one liberal polititian who is working towards those goals. Free market and free trade? Ditto.
V-gee.....tax and spend seems to make a lot more sense to me than don't tax and spend record amounts!
--------------
Liberals believe in neutral government; government that does not take sides and has an open mind in ethical questions. Conservatives believe that governments primary function is to express and support their point of view in economic, religious and personal ethical decisions. This is usually done thru the use of a religious orthodoxy.
--------------
M- What is your neutral government? Complete drivel here. Who secures your idylic government? An open mind in ethical questions read to me like you have no moral foundation, or want to destroy one. Conservatives believe that the governments primary function is to provide security for the population. Now if the MAJORITY wants the government to represent them as you point out, that sounds like democracy in action. Sorry that you can't have it your supposed don't take sides way. Your way just takes your side. So the position is a falacy to start with.
V--aha again....so, ur against looking at different sides of issues...again, how conservative......we are right and end of debate. Sounds just like George II. No open mind on ethical questions......unbelievable...
------------
Liberals believe in equality before the law and in a secular state. Conservatives believe that corporations and the privileged have a right to use the state and the law to maintain their position in society, and often
try to find religious support for this position.
------------
M- Equality before the law? Now the secular state is definitely what libs want, but you will have to make you own somewhere else. Because a true secular state needs a majority of people who do not believe in God. And what would be the foundation of your state? I supose you could form some government that represents the people, but what foundation do you have if you have removed the tradition of morals based on Judeo Christian ethic?
V-so, now u don't belive in equality before the law!!!! Gee. Secular state simply means that there is not religious test in governmental matters.....see the Constitution on the matter. Personally, I'd base a REAL secular state on reason, logic, evidence and proof.....not some theological flight of fancy and religious voodoo. (unless, of course, it was MY theology and voodoo!!!)
---------------
Liberals know that change will come, no matter what. They believe in a better tomorrow, especially if we are ready to criticize and change today. They are forward looking. Conservatives fear change, fear the people, and fear tomorrow. They look back to an imaginary perfect past that never really existed, and long to return to it. They are backward looking.
----------------
M- thats funny, mr. doom and gloom sees a bright future? Who is looking back to an imaginary past? Libs glory days were Veitnam and Watergate, and they still relish the day. Change is what conservatives long for, work for, and will atain. Its just not the changes you want. The imaginary perfect past pops up on both sides, but I think your utopian socialist perspective is just as blind as the libs who live in the sixties and the conservatives who dream of Leave it to Beaver.
V-such confusion! Where did utopianism and socialism come from? Thought we were talking about Liberalism? Can't u keep them straight? What the "conservatives" of today work for is government of the corporation, by the corporation and by the corporation....
---------------
Liberal ideas and revolutions have been victorious from the time of the Enlightenment, else under the Conservatives we should still be living in caves in a Hobbesian world.
---------------
M- now your just ranting and raving. And mixing up historical definitions. Was the Enlightenment brought about by a secularist? And now you label victorious ideas and revolutions Liberal. Hmmmm,
were the founding fathers, who fought the revolution here liberal? If you want to redefine things, then you have to agree on definitions to have discourse.
V--the founding fathers were a lot more than liberal---they were REVOLUTIONARIES!!! Many of them were outright secularists, and most were theists of different stripes. Gee, read ur history. And yes, the
Enlightenment was in large part, very large part, a secularist development.
--------------
(Here M responds with counter def)
--------------
Now lets set some opposing platforms:
Saddle the population with the cost of a welfare state
-- or --
Give precedent to self determination and let the individual be as productive as posible
Prey upon the emotions of minorities and special intrest for political gain
-- or --
Present cognizant arguments to garner the suport of the individual
Cower to foriegn threats so as to appear nice
-- or --
Stand up and fight with a real goal in mind
Tax the most productive elements in society
-- or --
Promote a environment for every citizens oportunity to atain success
Now, of course, unfortunately, as I have stated before, no polititian has reduced government. So some of these definitions can't fit into party politics right now I guess. But whatever, the fun goes on...... Wish I
was there already.
(originated by V on June 27 05)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liberals vs Conservatives:
-------------------
Liberals believe in the right to self determination of the individual. Conservatives believe that the elite, especially the corporate elite, know best; the individuals have only the circumscribed rights that the state gives them.
-------------------
M- By self deterimation do you mean do whatever you want unless we don't like it? And the corporate elite know best, yeah right, what century are you in?
V----Maybe that's why the ACLU is a Liberal, not a Conservative, organization....we defend everybodies rights....including W.F. Buckley and the American Nazi Party....the first amendment covers everybody. Name a time the libs opposed constitutional rights! And, in case you have not noticed, the corporations run this country--the interlocking directorate of government-corporations-military is called the
circulation of elites....look it up.
---------------
Liberals believe in constitutional government, representative democracy and the rule of law. Conservatives believe in rule by religious or aristocratic traditional elites; that the people cannot know what is best for them, and that the elite have the right to make the law in their own self interest.
---------------
M- Except when they loose elections, or the constitution isn't quite right (gun control, abortion, religion), and the rule of law, is that the law based on a Judeo Christian ethic? If anybody believes the people don't
know whats best for them its liberals. Now the acusation about traditional elites, hmmm whos created Camelot? Who wants to build aristocracy?
V--the above makes no sense......what are you talking about? What constitutional issue are you talking about? Somewhere you have bought in a Marxist idea.....this is very confused.....
-------------
Liberals believe in both human rights and civil liberties, especially freedom of speech and of the press, and in the tolerance of diversity of thought and expression.
Conservatives cling to traditional class based rights and privileges, based on a monopoly of force. That the press and speech must be regulated so that their vested interests are maintained. They believe in the orthodoxy of thought, especially religious thought, and actively suppress ideas and speech that threaten their dominance.
-------------
M- How about activily supressing ideas that will destroy our civilization? And, whos intolerant now? You show me something you can't do here, no matter how odious. Civil liberties, so long as they don't promote
anything religious. Human rights? Whos human rights? Do you want human rights for Iraqis? Do you want civil liberties for women in the middle east? And your regulation of the press crap is a joke. You can say almost anything here, and i don't see any conservaties trying to supress or regulate it, nor wanting to.
V----Ah, so you're for suppressing IDEAS! Most revealing! How traditionally conservative...Tsarist, monarchist, Bismarckian etc. Like what ideas, for example? Things like voting rights, the right to
organize, public assembly etc..... Nobody objects to SUPPORTING religion, what we object to is REQUIRING religion...big difference. Want separation of church and state, like the founding fathers established, for example. Human/civil rights in Iraq and the middle east are great....but THEY get
to define what that means, not G. Bush. Not OUR place to define THEIR society....thought u guys were against "nation building"? Or is that OK when the R's are in power rather than the D's? Ref the press....a
controlled press means there is no real debate on issues....points of view never make the press....the press is "self-censored".... Plus, lots of things u cant do....like attend Bushie rally wearing a kerry tee shirt...
-------------
Liberals believe in a free market and free trade, with limited government intervention in the economy to insure fairness and competition. Conservatives believe that government exists to insure their control of
the economy, and their ability to control markets and trade to maximize their profits, whatever the cost to the workingman.
-------------
M- Here you have mislabled your labels. And as for the workingman, who is currently overtaxed, looks like conservatives are trying to give him a break. Now, historically I would agree, but thats is far in the past. Limmited government? Show me one liberal polititian who is working towards those goals. Free market and free trade? Ditto.
V-gee.....tax and spend seems to make a lot more sense to me than don't tax and spend record amounts!
--------------
Liberals believe in neutral government; government that does not take sides and has an open mind in ethical questions. Conservatives believe that governments primary function is to express and support their point of view in economic, religious and personal ethical decisions. This is usually done thru the use of a religious orthodoxy.
--------------
M- What is your neutral government? Complete drivel here. Who secures your idylic government? An open mind in ethical questions read to me like you have no moral foundation, or want to destroy one. Conservatives believe that the governments primary function is to provide security for the population. Now if the MAJORITY wants the government to represent them as you point out, that sounds like democracy in action. Sorry that you can't have it your supposed don't take sides way. Your way just takes your side. So the position is a falacy to start with.
V--aha again....so, ur against looking at different sides of issues...again, how conservative......we are right and end of debate. Sounds just like George II. No open mind on ethical questions......unbelievable...
------------
Liberals believe in equality before the law and in a secular state. Conservatives believe that corporations and the privileged have a right to use the state and the law to maintain their position in society, and often
try to find religious support for this position.
------------
M- Equality before the law? Now the secular state is definitely what libs want, but you will have to make you own somewhere else. Because a true secular state needs a majority of people who do not believe in God. And what would be the foundation of your state? I supose you could form some government that represents the people, but what foundation do you have if you have removed the tradition of morals based on Judeo Christian ethic?
V-so, now u don't belive in equality before the law!!!! Gee. Secular state simply means that there is not religious test in governmental matters.....see the Constitution on the matter. Personally, I'd base a REAL secular state on reason, logic, evidence and proof.....not some theological flight of fancy and religious voodoo. (unless, of course, it was MY theology and voodoo!!!)
---------------
Liberals know that change will come, no matter what. They believe in a better tomorrow, especially if we are ready to criticize and change today. They are forward looking. Conservatives fear change, fear the people, and fear tomorrow. They look back to an imaginary perfect past that never really existed, and long to return to it. They are backward looking.
----------------
M- thats funny, mr. doom and gloom sees a bright future? Who is looking back to an imaginary past? Libs glory days were Veitnam and Watergate, and they still relish the day. Change is what conservatives long for, work for, and will atain. Its just not the changes you want. The imaginary perfect past pops up on both sides, but I think your utopian socialist perspective is just as blind as the libs who live in the sixties and the conservatives who dream of Leave it to Beaver.
V-such confusion! Where did utopianism and socialism come from? Thought we were talking about Liberalism? Can't u keep them straight? What the "conservatives" of today work for is government of the corporation, by the corporation and by the corporation....
---------------
Liberal ideas and revolutions have been victorious from the time of the Enlightenment, else under the Conservatives we should still be living in caves in a Hobbesian world.
---------------
M- now your just ranting and raving. And mixing up historical definitions. Was the Enlightenment brought about by a secularist? And now you label victorious ideas and revolutions Liberal. Hmmmm,
were the founding fathers, who fought the revolution here liberal? If you want to redefine things, then you have to agree on definitions to have discourse.
V--the founding fathers were a lot more than liberal---they were REVOLUTIONARIES!!! Many of them were outright secularists, and most were theists of different stripes. Gee, read ur history. And yes, the
Enlightenment was in large part, very large part, a secularist development.
--------------
(Here M responds with counter def)
--------------
Now lets set some opposing platforms:
Saddle the population with the cost of a welfare state
-- or --
Give precedent to self determination and let the individual be as productive as posible
Prey upon the emotions of minorities and special intrest for political gain
-- or --
Present cognizant arguments to garner the suport of the individual
Cower to foriegn threats so as to appear nice
-- or --
Stand up and fight with a real goal in mind
Tax the most productive elements in society
-- or --
Promote a environment for every citizens oportunity to atain success
Now, of course, unfortunately, as I have stated before, no polititian has reduced government. So some of these definitions can't fit into party politics right now I guess. But whatever, the fun goes on...... Wish I
was there already.
Ah, going public
I have decided to take my rants and coments public so we don't have to keep repeating ourselves. This arises out of the fun flame war I've been having. So onward and forward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)