Sandra Bullock
If her part was in line with her beliefs, then who cares if an oil company might have been involved?
A spokeswoman for Sandra Bullock says the actress wants her parts of a video promoting Gulf Coast restoration removed until she learns whether oil companies influenced it.
The statement Thursday came after the website DeSmogBlog called the campaign an industry push to get support for drilling and taxpayer money to repair wetland damage caused by the BP oil spill.
Women of the Storm, a New Orleans group that produced the video, lists America’s Wetland Foundation as a partner. The foundation lists BP and other oil companies as sponsors on its website.
Because the product as a whole might be against what she thinks is right. And her presence on it would help promote that wrong thing. And her presence in it may imply to viewers that she supports that wrong thing.
Posted by scott on July 30, 2010 at 1732 hrs
crap - not Sandra Bullock now too. She was one of the few Hollywierdo’s that I could still stand to watch.
Seriously, why can’t they just shut up and sing/act.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2010 at 2004 hrs
Conservatism will never win over the creative set. Pushing the envelope, putting themselves in others shoes, being introspective and intellectually curious is kind of what they’re about (with mixed results, I admit). All of which is not really part of the conservative mindset.
Posted by scott on July 30, 2010 at 2022 hrs
It’s disappointing that you feel that way, Scott.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2010 at 2024 hrs
So, because I believe in fiscal responsiblity, self-sufficiency, self-determination and voluntary charity I am incapable of curiosity, empathy, and introspection?
You sir, should have your picture in the dictionary next to the words smug, arrogant, and jackass. You can also include clueless.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2010 at 2031 hrs
I believe I’m on to something but not expressing myself well.
It’s similar to the reason so many academics aren’t conservatives. it’s not some sinister indoctrination. It’s the fact that academics mostly get where they are by questioning beliefs and being open to new ideas. These, you’ll have to admit, are not really part of the definition of conservative thinking. Such work is attractive to those of a more liberal mind and the work itself fosters that kind of mindset as well.
Posted by scott on July 30, 2010 at 2033 hrs
I’m not asserting that questioning and openness makes one right. Perhaps one can question too much or be open to things that one should not be. I’m just asserting that such openness and questioning are more liberal characteristics than conservative ones.
Posted by scott on July 30, 2010 at 2041 hrs
It’s the fact that academics mostly get where they are by questioning beliefs and being open to new ideas. These, you’ll have to admit, are not really part of the definition of conservative thinking.
Nope - I’ll stick with smug, arrogant, jackass.
I’m perfectly open to new ideas. I have a child with Aspergers. I have to deal with that in my life (and work) constantly. You have no idea what the term “introspection” is until you deal with something like that.
That has absolutely nothing at all to do with my firm convictions that the government confiscates more than enough of my money to spend on things that are better left to the people themselves.
Perhaps you should get out of your academic and liberal echo chamber once in a while. And try some empathy instead of jackassery yourself once in a while.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2010 at 2045 hrs
I’m not talking about specific policy issues in today’s American conservatism so much as I am talking about a more timeless mindset. Back in the day, you would not have been allowed to go to school, vote or express your opinion the way you do, neomom. And the people who wanted to keep it that way can only be described as conservatives.
Posted by scott on July 30, 2010 at 2049 hrs
Alas this isn’t “back in the day”....
But why is it that those who consider themselves to be “conservative” must always atone for every original sin of anything bad that was perpetrated by a “conservative”.. While “liberals” and “progressives” get a pass on theirs? See Byrd, Robert - the man who recruited for the KKK and fought against desegregation of the military but was canonized by the “liberals”. See Kennedy, Theodore - who left a woman to die but was never charged and was canonized by the “liberals”. See Sanger, Margaret - who wanted to use abortion as a tool of eugenics to limit the undesirable black, poor and immigrant populations but is now the hero of “liberals”.
I’ve got a hundred of them. And why do “liberals” who howl at the supposed injustices against women in the US give a pass to countries/cultures/religions where girls have their genitals mutilated, can’t go to school, are forced into abusive marriages as children, are stoned to death for being raped, are considered property, and can be mutiliated or killed for trying to escape and gays are tortured and murdered.The game is growing tiresome.
Your self-righteousness, arrogance and rank hypocrisy are stunning.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2010 at 2104 hrs
I believe most, if not all, of the positions you decry above were the conservatives ones in their day.
Posted by scott on July 30, 2010 at 2106 hrs
No - they weren’t “conservative”, they were “progressive”. Isn’t that the label that you use? And trying to call Ted Kennedy a conservative is just freaking laugh out loud funny.
I note no comment or defense on the vaunted multicultural and moral equivalency open-mindedness on the torture and murder of women and gays I mentioned. Kind of hard to defend those ones isn’t it?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2010 at 2113 hrs
Lets also give honorable mention to the Progressive fave George Bernard Shaw - who loved him some dictators and his wish for a human gas for his panels.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2010 at 2126 hrs
The game is growing tiresome.
Then stop playing around.
My dictionary says conservatism means “holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation.” This kind of attitude does not mesh well with creative endeavors like arts and entertainment. I would think this was a pretty simple idea to grasp.
But perhaps you have another theory as to why artists and performers are so often of a more liberal mindset. Why do you suppose it is so, if not for this reason?
Posted by scott on July 31, 2010 at 0728 hrs
Probably because most of them barely complete high school…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 31, 2010 at 0815 hrs
Dude, you just pulled that right out of your ass.
Posted by scott on July 31, 2010 at 0821 hrs
No, I will not play the game any longer until the liberals/progressives use the same rulebook.
The first thing you did was try to project that it couldn’t be possible for these horrible people to be “liberals/progressives”, if they did all of these things, they had to be “conservative” right?
Except they were liberals/progressives.
So now you can play the game.
Answer my questions. Defend or condemn those horrible “Progressive” people and their horrible acts - or should I assume that you approve of institutional racism and using eugenics to fix the “negro” problem? Do you admire Hitler, Stalin and Mao like Shaw and Anita Dunn? You are to be forever stained by the sins of the words and deeds of the “heros” of your side.
Do you believe that a culture/religion that oppresses, mutilates, tortures and murders women and gays is truly the equivalent of the US? Isn’t that what multiculturalism is? And moral equivalency? All cultures are equally legitimate and stoning to death a 13-year old girl for being raped is exactly the same as how oppressed women are in the US right?
That’s the way the game is played isn’t it? If you don’t condemn them, you must agree with them? Right?
Example of the multicultural mindset… look at the comments on various sites regarding the Time mag cover this week of the girl whose nose and ears were cut off as ordered by the Taliban for running away from her abusive inlaws.
One of my faves - a commenter paraphrasing a conversation with a “liberal” This morning, she was on the warpath about American belligerency in the world theatre, and that I’ve got a “white knight” complex because there is no such thing as ‘evil’ in the world, only policies and causes.
I showed her this picture, and asked if that wasn’t evil. She replied angrily that it’s just their way, and we’ve no right to judge nor get involved.If that is “liberal” openmindedness - keep it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 31, 2010 at 0827 hrs
Do you believe that a culture/religion that oppresses, mutilates, tortures and murders women and gays is truly the equivalent of the US?
Uh, no.
Isn’t that what multiculturalism is?
No.
She replied angrily that it’s just their way, and we’ve no right to judge nor get involved.
THe woman is either an imbecile or her (even more likely) her response was just made up.
The thing you seem to be missing here is that the Taliban is a conservative group. What they need to do is become more, you know, liberal. Embrace some new ideas. Question what it is that they are doing.
Posted by scott on July 31, 2010 at 0834 hrs
Do you believe that a culture/religion that oppresses, mutilates, tortures and murders women and gays is truly the equivalent of the US?
Then why is it that we often hear from the “liberals” that people like - me - are just like the Taliban? Hyperbole much?
Te woman is either an imbecile or her (even more likely) her response was just made up.
Don’t make me go dumpster diving through the comments at KOS and DU…
The thing you seem to be missing here is that the Taliban is a conservative group. What they need to do is become more, you know, liberal. Embrace some new ideas. Question what it is that they are doing.
Um no - the Taliban is not a “conservative” group. They are a bunch of mysogynist and power-hungry thugs and bullies. They aren’t trying to preserve any values or cultures. They are trying to preserve their own power.
But since you insist on playing the game - I give you the liberal “heros” of Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Che, Castro, and the new golden boy Chavez. Mao and Che are even fashion icons to those enlightened and openmided liberals. I believe the body count of just this group is upwards of 40 million people.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 31, 2010 at 0854 hrs
Why is it that we often hear from the “liberals” that people like - me - are just like the Taliban? Hyperbole much?
That is indeed hyperbole. I think the point that people who say these things are trying to make is that sometimes American religious fundamentalists are incredibly backward and that we should reject them for the same reasons one rejects the ideology of the Taliban.
the Taliban is not a “conservative” group.
They most certainly are. They are an untra-conservative Islamic group. That’s kind of the definition of the Taliban.
They are a bunch of mysogynist
It’s amazing to me that you can use this word and completely deny that it has anything to do with conservative versus liberal thought. It was not conservatism that gave women equal rights in the west. Wake up.
They aren’t trying to preserve any values or cultures.
Yes they are. The terrible and oppressive values of a 12th century middle-eastern culture which they seem to be stuck in. They need to be to become more liberal and more modern.
Posted by scott on July 31, 2010 at 0921 hrs
They are a bunch of mysogynist
It’s amazing to me that you can use this word and completely deny that it has anything to do with conservative versus liberal thought.
So, there are no liberal mysogynists? Liberals are incapable of spousal abuse or incest or rape? Please.
Mysogynists reside across the spectrum of political labels.
To even try to pigeonhole all mysogynists as conservatives reaks of intellectual dishonesty.
That same intellectual dishonesty that paints people as faith as the equivalent of the Taliban. Because in reality, they are not even on the same plane of existence.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 31, 2010 at 1005 hrs
there are no liberal mysogynists?
I never said that, nor does it refute a single thing I said in comment #20.
Liberals are incapable of
I didn’t say this, nor does it refute a single thing I said in comment #20.
To even try to pigeonhole all mysogynists as conservatives
I didn’t do that, nor does it refute a single thing I said in comment #20.
paints people as faith as the equivalent of the Taliban.
I didn’t say that, nor does it refute a single thing I said in comment #20.
It appears you have a habit of reading things into my comments and then trying to debate me on things I haven’t said. Is there anything I did say in comment 20 that you’d like to discuss?
Posted by scott on July 31, 2010 at 1016 hrs
To even try to pigeonhole all mysogynists as conservatives reaks of intellectual dishonesty.
That same intellectual dishonesty that paints people as faith as the equivalent of the Taliban. Because in reality, they are not even on the same plane of existence.
It’s fun to watch it happen to someone else sometimes. Keep the faith, neomom.
Scott will stop at nothing to twist definitions to meet his imagined views of modern conservatism. The darker and more negative aspects of “progressivism” and the evils done by Democrats are ignored or also placed squarely on the heads of his imagined conservatives. He’ll keep recycling the same arguments on these issues as well.
I tend to think he was told these things in college by some professor that he was smitten with, and now believes them to be his own ideas… but they always sound exactly the same every time he reissues them.
My dictionary says conservatism means “holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation.”
Perhaps a more modern and progressive dictionary open to new ideas is in order.
My dictionary more accurately says “” : of or relating to a philosophy of conservatism “” which is defines as ”“: such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs”“. Clearly, you are choosing to define others by the stereo typical definition you prefer.
Perhaps what you need to do is become more, you know, liberal. Embrace some new ideas. Question what it is that told as opposed to the new ideas in front of your face.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 31, 2010 at 1049 hrs
We’re dueling with dictionaries now? I’m using the one installed on my computer, the Oxford American. The very first definition of “conservative” says “holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation.” Are you telling me your dictionary says nothing like this? I bet it does and you’re just conveniently ignoring it and choosing the “of or relating to” entry to sneak us over to the narrower application to American politics.
I also notice that you, like neomom, offer nothing to refute anything I said in comment #20.
Posted by scott on July 31, 2010 at 1059 hrs
Sorry scott for not replying fast enough for you. I had to get my kids some lunch. I am an hour ahead of you.
But let’s revisit what you said regarding mysogynism in #20, shall we?
It’s amazing to me that you can use this word and completely deny that it has anything to do with conservative versus liberal thought. It was not conservatism that gave women equal rights in the west. Wake up.
It seems very clear from that statement that you are asserting that if you are a conservative you are a mysogynist and if you are a liberal you are not. That somehow, as a woman, I am working against my own self-interest if I am a conservative.
Also regarding the Taliban. You label them as fundamentalist Islam and equate them with Evangelical Christians via the all-encompassing label “conservative”. I would label them as power-hungry, narcisstic control freaks, and evil. I would also deny Islam as a legitmate religion. It is a blood cult. It is not a religion of peace. They worship a murderer/pedophile. They subjugate their women to lives of servitude and then kill them for perceived slights to their honor. When in fact, they probably just get off on it.
So no, they are not even on the same plane of existence as your typical Southern Baptist or Missouri Synod Lutheran. There is a difference and there is no moral equivalency. The intellectual dishonestly is because you can’t step out from the dogma of multiculturalism to take a good look and discern between them.
I also note, you still have not addressed the Heros of Progressivism. I will assume you agree with them then.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 31, 2010 at 1131 hrs
I’m using the one installed on my computer, the Oxford American. The very first definition of “conservative”
... and the very next one definition says: ”“(in a political context) favouring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially conservative ideas”“
Are you telling me your dictionary says nothing like this?
Are you telling us that you are so galactically stupid that you can’t recognize which of those two definitions is applicable to the discussion, or the modern American conservative political movement?
If you can, then I suggest that neomom was correct in her definition of the words smug, arrogant, and jackass. Either way, you being rather a jackwagon again (a word that totally needed to be brought back into the lexicon)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 31, 2010 at 1157 hrs
ASOL - I am a recovering liberal, so I can understand the way a liberal thinks. Thankfully I woke up.
I have found my conservatism liberating as I no longer view the entire world through the prism of perceived slights and victimhood. Nor will I be silent any longer as those that believe they can help me run my life and raise my try to destroy all those that disagree with them by trying to delegitimize us using labels such as “racist” or “mysogynist” and compare us to groups like the Taliban; or by claiming we are heartless and lack empathy, or are incapable of seeing other viewpoints. My take on that is..
Project much?
I posted this on another thread, but it is just so perfect… out of the words of a (legal) immigrant:
“So when my husband and I came to America, we heard a story about conservatives. We heard that these conservatives are a really really weird lot. Nutjobs, basically. And these conservatives, they’re obsessed with sex. They’re obsessed with sex and they’re obsessed with what you’re doing in your bedroom. It’s all they think about. They’re just constantly worrying about what you’re up to in your bedroom.But you know something? Since we’ve moved here, we haven’t found that. But what we have found is that liberals, are in every other room in your house. They’re in the fridge. They’re in your car. They’re in your air miles. They’re in your clothes. They’re in your hair. They’re in your cleaning products, and your washing machine and the refrigerator. They’re all over the place! And they’re in your light bulb! And I want to say them .. This is America! Get out of my light bulb!!”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 31, 2010 at 1159 hrs
oops - missed a word…
should read “raise my children” in the 2nd paragraph
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 31, 2010 at 1201 hrs
It seems very clear from that statement that you are asserting that if you are a conservative you are a mysogynist and if you are a liberal you are not.
It’s not at all clear that this is what I’m saying. I’m not saying that at all. But I am saying that the fight for women’s equality was a liberal, not a conservative, position at that time. I mean conservative in the broader sense, of course.
regarding the Taliban. You label them as fundamentalist Islam
I do. They are exactly what I said they are: an ultra-conservative Islamic group.
and equate them with Evangelical Christians via the all-encompassing label “conservative”.
I’m not sure I like the way you’re using the word “equate.” It is true that they are a conservative group, however. I don’t know why we’re even debating that point.
you can’t step out from the dogma of multiculturalism
You seem to think that I can’t recognize the Taliban as the champions of culture inferior to our own. You are wrong.
http://scottfeldstein.net/blog/?p=1189
Are you telling us that you are so galactically stupid that you can’t recognize which of those two definitions is applicable to the discussion
No. I’m telling you that you yourself can’t recognize which of those two definitions is applicable to the discussion.
I’m not talking about specific policy issues in today’s American conservatism
Posted by scott on July 31, 2010 at 1225 hrs
scott - I don’t read your blog on a regular basis, but thank you for that link. Your introspection about the left’s over acceptance of cultures that are abhorrent just to be accepting as you state is actually rather refreshing. Take a gander at most comment threads on left-leaning blogs or on newspaper forums you will find some rather disturbing things regarding this.
A great many on the left do equate Evangelical Christians with the Taliban. There are too many examples of this to even list.
I am also not denigrating the work of the early women’s rights movements - ala Susan B Anthony and such. There was a time I would have called myself a feminist in the Gloria Steinham vein. However, there comes a point when one has to take a look at the “movement” and do an honest assessment. Mine was in the late 90’s as I was compiling all of the information I was going to take to the EEOC and a labor attorney to sue my employer for discrimination. After much introspection (yes, I really am capable of that, shocking, I know), I burned every paper in the fireplace. At that moment, I took control of my own life because I was not a victim. I simply found a different job, and now am more successful than I ever would have been if I had filed that lawsuit. That was when I started becoming a conservative.
The current feminist, and other (insert aggrieved group name here) “advocacy” groups have a vested interest in not actually empowering the groups they are supposedly helping. Because if they did that, there would be no reason to exist and they would not hold power and influence any longer.
I have more faith in people to do right for themselves than anyone else could do for them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 31, 2010 at 1649 hrs
A great many on the left do equate Evangelical Christians with the Taliban.
There are those who do this in a hyperbolic sense, yes. (Anyone who believes it to be literally true is an idiot.) But as I said, I think their point is that they sometimes find the fundamentalist religious right in America to be very backward. I think the have a really good point.
Posted by scott on July 31, 2010 at 1700 hrs
Fundamentalist Christians are “backward”? Scott, you are incredibly ill-informed.
But I’ve come to expect that.
Oh, wait…you mean “unenlightened and unable to look at the Biblical teachings in a living, breathing document, updated to what’s new, cool and hip”.
Yeah, I’ve come to expect that, too. The Bible, like the Constitution of the United States means exactly what it says.
I’ll stay “backward”, thanks.
Posted by Deekaman on July 31, 2010 at 2139 hrs
Anyone who doesn’t at least “sometimes” find the religious right in America backward is himself backward. Thanks for letting me know where you stand.
Posted by scott on July 31, 2010 at 2218 hrs
And in what way would fundamental Christianity be backwards? God gives us the freedom to do as we wish, knowing that there are consequences to our actions. I don’t exactly see that as backwards.
Oh, that’s the same as “The failed policies of the last ten years”, right?
Maybe you should have a look at the backwardness of “Progressivism”. It’s really nothing more than serfdom. Seems that was discredited around 1776 or so. Anyone who can’t see that is, I guess by your standards, a moron.
Posted by Deekaman on August 01, 2010 at 0453 hrs
scott, you have consistently ignored the multiple examples of the “backward"ness of Progressivism. So perhaps you may want to put down those stones in your glass house. As a reminder - I give you eugenics and the enlightenment of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 01, 2010 at 0834 hrs
Deekaman, when the Christian right wants to suppress the teaching of science in schools, that’s backward. When they want to foist biblical creationism in science class, that’s backward. When they want to preserve the right to discriminate against people on the basis of their gender or sexual orientation, that’s backward. When their influence in politics is still so profound that you can ask five men running for president whether they believe in evolution and most of them don’t raise their hand, that’s not only backward but frightening. When they step up to the mic and declare that 9/11 is God’s way of punishing us for gays and feminism, that’s backward. Ditto for hurricane Katrina.
I get that you may not see these kind of things as backward. But at least wake up and realize that a lot of people do.
I give you eugenics and the enlightenment of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao.
I do not see eugenics as fitting well into the liberal ideals of expanding enfranchisement, widening the circle of who is “in” as opposed to “out.”
As far as communism, it’s may be true that it represents the ultimate extreme of leftward political ideology (coupled with fascism and dictatorial leadership). But I reject the idea that this is what today’s liberals are aiming for. “Progressivism” isn’t a process where we progress, progress, progress and then bang one day you wake up and you’re Stalin. It would be like saying conservatives want to conserve, conserve, conserve and then bang one day we wake up and realize we’ve gone back to enslaving black people.
Posted by scott on August 01, 2010 at 0914 hrs
It seems that you need to go to great lengths of self delusion in order to justify things done by “liberals”, progressive, and even Democrats… willful omission of facts and outright changing them to suit the needs of your beliefs.
The fact that the word “progress” is contained in the word “progressive” does not indicate that groups interest in taking us forward anymore than the word “rat” in Democrat indicates that they are a bunch of filth infested rodents. (Except for Charlie Rangel and Barney Frank)
The ultimate goals of the progressive movement (and their past association with many heinous schemes) are pretty far removed from expanding enfranchisement (we all have the vote now, by the way) and widening the circle. They are entwined with cultural, moral and historical relativism… which is why, I suppose, that you so easily alter their historical motives and actions. The progressive vision is a reinterpretation of the “negative rights” in our founding documents, and their replacement with larger, more intrusive government that makes more correct natural decisions than the masses would be able to.
When guys like Obama refer to negative rights, they mean the constraints on government that we set forth when our nation began. When they say “typical white person”, “a mongrel people” or refer to the gun clingers and bible toters… they are referring to the people that the elite feel should not be allowed the liberty to do as they wish, unless it is withing the tight constraints offered by the rulers.
Neomom made a good point in her post. The liberal foot soldiers march against a few issues like abortion, gay marriage, class warfare as oppression by the evil, hate filled, Neanderthals of conservatism. They demand freedom, but in actuality, their government has insidiously wound it’s tendrils around almost every decision you make during the day.
Flush the toilet... we’ll tell you how much water to use.
Turn on a light... we’ll tell you the type and wattage you are allowed.
Drive to work... we’ll tax your car, tires, gas and oil, even as we decide what types of cars you may own, the size of the motor, and even the type of fuel you are allowed.
Work... we’ll control most of your employers choices, your benefits, and we’ll control your salary through taxes and fees. We even decide how much you will save for retirement, when you will get it, and how much you deserve.
Have dinner... we’ll decide what is contained in your food, how it is grown, how it is sold, we would also like to decide the fat, salt, and sugar content of it and how much you consume, lest you get fat.I could go on all day… the length and breadth of progressive big government’s control over your life is staggering…
Spare me your uneducated and fact-free narrative of how forward thinking progressives are and how it’s not at all like what the Russians had. You want the same flavors, but in a different package. Nauseating.
Anyone who believes in that level of control must be an idiot, eh Scott?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 01, 2010 at 1046 hrs
The ultimate goals of the progressive movement (and their past association with many heinous schemes) are pretty far removed from expanding enfranchisement (we all have the vote now, by the way) and widening the circle.
Really? So wanting women to have equal pay for equal work doesn’t fit that? Wanting to make it illegal for people to discriminate against others because of their sexual orientation doesn’t fit that?
And by the way, the regulation of businesses in terms of gas mileage or pollution really is in some ways about expanding enfranchisement. If wealthy business owners despoil the environment but can afford to live in unspoiled places, it’s a liberal idea to put some safeguards in so that everyone can live where the water is not poisoned. One can even make the case that including the environment for its own sake is a new kind of widening of the circle of who and what gets included and who is not.
Finally, if you insist that I own Stalin I’ll insist that you own the Taliban. See how that works?
Posted by scott on August 01, 2010 at 1057 hrs
Care to give some examples of Christians “suppress"ing the teaching of science in schools?
You can also claim that eugenics doesn’t fit in to progressive/liberal thinking, but it is woven throughout it. Margaret Sanger is the self-described hero of Hillary Clinton. Obama’s “Science Czar” co-wrote a book advocating it. Shaw is god-like in academic circles. All believe that our Constitution is out-dated and should be replaced. All believe that central planning from the government is a better way than self-determination and private property rights of the individual citizens.
Cry all you want about the alleged efforts at sexual repression by Christians and conservatives. But the emmigre I quoted above is correct. Progressives want to be in every other room of the house and every other aspect of our lives.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 01, 2010 at 1103 hrs
Perhaps a better definition of today’s conservative political movement is that of individual rights and liberty with a smaller federal government and more state’s rights. And that of progressivism/liberalism is of collectivism and a large and powerful federal government.
All of the individual issues are formed in each group based on those parameters.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 01, 2010 at 1111 hrs
Care to give some examples of Christians “suppress"ing the teaching of science in schools?
Sure. What I’m referring to can be most clearly seen in the State of Tennessee vs. Scopes 1925, where religious conservatives faught against the teaching of science in schools. And this isn’t just a historical anomaly that we’ve left behind, either. The fight over the teaching biology in public schools continues today. Surely you know that. Any time a right wing religious group insists that the teaching of science be watered down with disclaimers or that the teaching of science must give over some of its time for “intelligent design” it is an assault against the teaching of established science in school.
You can also claim that eugenics doesn’t fit in to progressive/liberal thinking
Yes I can. And I did. Whatever Sanger had to say on the subject of eugenics (and here I take it on faith that you understand she was vehemently against euthanizing anyone), her views on it were not liberal; they did not adhere to the principle of expanding enfranchisement to people who previously did not have it. The fact that she was clearly a liberal on so many other issues does not disprove this.
All believe that our Constitution is out-dated and should be replaced. All believe that central planning from the government is a better way than self-determination and private property rights of the individual citizens.
Blanket statement much?
Incidentally, are you for or against a constitutional amendment preventing gay people from marrying each other?
Posted by scott on August 01, 2010 at 1119 hrs
Perhaps a better definition of today’s conservative political movement is that of individual rights and liberty with a smaller federal government and more state’s rights. And that of progressivism/liberalism is of collectivism and a large and powerful federal government.
Perhaps it is a ok definition of today’s political debates. I’m simply making the case that in a broader sense, liberalism is about expanding enfranchisement and conservatism has ever been against this expansion. That is true as well.
Posted by scott on August 01, 2010 at 1121 hrs
So…in what way is teaching of Creation any more “backward” than the idea that we evolved from a single cell? Even Darwin didn’t believe his own theory. And, BTW, it is still “theory”.
And if fundamental Christianity is so “backward” and apparently laughably so, why do you fear it so much that nit must be removed from every aspect of American public life? while at the same time, you seem to have no problem with the Islamization of the United States. Progressives seem to have no problem with Sharia Law. (You’re a smart guy…look it up)
Further, the Left must lie and develop false crises to further their agenda. A “healthcare crisis” with a fix that does nothing for the problems. A “Financial fix” that is nothing more than perpetual bailouts for the financial sector. A “War on Poverty” which has, by any objective measure, been a complete failure and has done nothing but build a dependent class. Social Security that redistributes wealthy from those with the lowest net worth to those with the highest. Medicare, medicaid…both are broken beyond repair. All are failures; all are “Progressive” ideas. Your ideas are “backwards”. They are discredited and unworkable.
Posted by Deekaman on August 01, 2010 at 1131 hrs
So you use an example from 1925. Anything more recent and concrete? And, no, I don’t believe that the idea of intelligent design is anti-science. Fact is, science doesn’t know the origins of the universe either. Intelligent design discussions don’t dismiss any known or proven science either. Seems that is just one idea you are not so open-minded about.
I also don’t support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. It is as much a state’s rights issue as abortion should be.
Pardon for my non-clarity on my above “blanket” statement. I meant all in the sense of those mentioned in the paragraph. But I would state that the vast majority of liberals/progressives today do believe those things… See the statements ad nauseum of the living/breathing document known as the US Constitution, the massive power-grab and concentration of power in the Executive branch by Obama, and the myriad nanny-state laws and regulations put forth - all for our own good to protect us from ourselves and others of course.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 01, 2010 at 1131 hrs
the regulation of businesses in terms of gas mileage or pollution really is in some ways about expanding enfranchisement.
Only a progressive could say that strict control promotes freedom. Let me also point out that your Oxford dictionary says that enfranchise means to give the right to vote, or to free a slave… neither of which is occurring in your example. In fact, you are supporting quite the opposite thing.
One can even make the case that including the environment for its own sake is a new kind of widening of the circle of who and what gets included and who is not.
Yes, that would be progressive thought. Use the environment as an excuse to heavily regulate and control the day to day actions of each person. Send out the foot soldiers to claim that only through total control will you have freedom. Brilliant Scott… I could not have offered a better example of the dangers of progressive thought (or lack thereof).
I guess I’ll need to point out that conservative do not support polluting the water, despoiling the planet, or killing your meemaw. They basically want limited government based on Constitutional principle (one of those being universal suffrage). You want more government in more places based on relativism and control of choices. That’s it in a nut shell.
Also, try not to confuse a form of government (communism) with a religion (Islamic extremism). I suppose your progressive education has left you unable to note the difference. Religious conservatives and political ones are not the same thing…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 01, 2010 at 1135 hrs
in what way is teaching of Creation any more “backward” than the idea that we evolved from a single cell?
Well, because one is science and the other is mythology. And to want them both presented in science class as equally viable explanations for the origins of life on earth is, well, backward.
And, BTW, it is still “theory”.
Gravity is a theory, too. I think you don’t understand the way science uses the term, to be honest with you.
why do you fear it so much that nit must be removed from every aspect of American public life?
I don’t know what this means.
you seem to have no problem with the Islamization of the United States. Progressives seem to have no problem with Sharia Law.
I don’t know what you’re talking about.
A “healthcare crisis” with a fix that does nothing for the problems.
It fixed one problem and not another.
A “Financial fix” that is nothing more than perpetual bailouts for the financial sector.
I don’t know what you’re talking about.
ocial Security that redistributes wealthy from those with the lowest net worth to those with the highest.
I don’t know what you’re talking about.
Medicare, medicaid…both are broken beyond repair.
Wrong.
I don’t believe that the idea of intelligent design is anti-science.
It is. It is not science. If you want to teach these kind of things, put them in another more appropriate subject area. I personally think it would be great to teach religion in public schools. As long as it’s broadly-based, non-indoctirnatory and not presented as science.
the massive power-grab and concentration of power in the Executive branch by Obama
One wonders if you were equally alarmed when president Bush violated FISA and the fourth amendment or at his record-breaking use of “signing statements” to usurp power from the legislative branch. If not, then your outrage is pretty hypocritical.
Posted by scott on August 01, 2010 at 1141 hrs
How has the Great Society “enfranchised” anyone? If you look closely, it destroyed the family by making fathers irrelavent. The government became the “father” figure. That destruction of the family - most evident in the black community, but not exclusive to it - is an enormous contributor to the downward spiral of perpetual poverty as found with drug use/dealing, gangs, dropping out of school, early promiscuity and teen pregnancy.
I’ll give you guys the benefit of the doubt on your good intentions, but as the old saying goes… The road to hell is paved with them.
I also don’t believe we need an “Equal Pay” law for women. There are a myriad of ways and input factors in the award of compensation including levels of accomplishment, education, and experience. These laws also have a way of backfiring. The only people to benefit from them are the lawyers. Take a look at the ADA - instead of hiring more physically disabled, it is now harder for them to get a job. Because there is always a way of finding someone more qualified. The same will happen with women. The more women define themselves as victims, the less successful they will be (see my own example above for some of my insight into this).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 01, 2010 at 1142 hrs
As an Engineer (not the type that drives the train), I understand science just fine, thank you. Probably better at it than you and the rest of your Progressive pals.
And of course, you have no idea what I’m talking about. All you Progressives are in denial or just plain liars. For those items to which you did respond, you give no evidence, so refer to the previous sentence. Repeat.
Posted by Deekaman on August 01, 2010 at 1148 hrs
If you understand science you wouldn’t be having this conversation with me. (Engineering is not a science, by the way. But I guess you know that.)
And if you’re unwilling to explain what your remarks mean, then I guess that about wraps it up here.
Posted by scott on August 01, 2010 at 1151 hrs
you seem to have no problem with the Islamization of the United States.
Here is just one example. Where is the ACLU and the Freedom From Religion foundation in suing these schools for the mythical separation of church and state. You even admitted it that the liberals/progressives are accepting of Islam just because.
I agree, religion classes should be offered in school in historical context. Examining the good and the bad of all.
And yes, I was immensely bothered by what GWB did. He wasn’t just unpopular with the left if you looked at his approval ratings.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 01, 2010 at 1152 hrs
Scott…see that sentence I reference earlier.
Posted by Deekaman on August 01, 2010 at 1155 hrs
Your example does not include the ACLU or the FFRF suing anyone. In fact, it cites the ACLU as saying the issue is “a difficult one” and “right on the edge.”
You even admitted it that the liberals/progressives are accepting of Islam just because.
I admitted what, exactly?
Examining the good and the bad of all.
I don’t think it should really be about “the good and the bad” of any of it. It should be about the factual history of belief in America and worldwide.
He wasn’t just unpopular with the left if you looked at his approval ratings.
Then I stand corrected. Still, I wonder if his low approval ratings among conservatives generally had more to do with his stance on Medicare part D than it did with his NSA wiretapping.
Posted by scott on August 01, 2010 at 1158 hrs
see that sentence I reference earlier.
Ok, you say I’m in denial and/or a liar and have nothing more to say on it. I look forward to your absence from this discussion going forward.
Posted by scott on August 01, 2010 at 1200 hrs
Repeat.
I’m done, thanks.
neomom, have a good time. You are kicking his @$$.
Posted by Deekaman on August 01, 2010 at 1223 hrs
You are kicking his @$$.
Dude, you owe me for a new laptop—unless you know how to remove spat-out Diet Coke from this one!
Posted by scott on August 01, 2010 at 1225 hrs
Actually Engineering is very much science - dealing with the properties of physics and mathematics - force, electricity, etc.
I’m sure Einstein would agree with me.
A “healthcare crisis” with a fix that does nothing for the problems.
It fixed one problem and not another.
I am assuming you are speaking of access. When in fact, that is not fixed at all. Many docs are planning on retiring or leaving practice because of this law. That will create a large shortage and does not even come close to improving access. Not to mention how ObamaCare now increases the federal deficit and will arguably reduce the quality of care while increasing the costs.
A “Financial fix” that is nothing more than perpetual bailouts for the financial sector.
I don’t know what you’re talking about.
Too big to fail is here to stay. Not to mention even Chris Dodd - its primary author doesn’t know how it will work - and doesn’t address the root cause, not terribly comforting.
Medicare, medicaid…both are broken beyond repair.
Wrong.
Um - yeah, they are. The only way to make them even remotely financially solvent is to hugely raise taxes - a feature, not a bug for most of the left. Or to ration care - a feature, not a bug for the new Medicare director Berwick “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care - the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.” Not to mention docs refusing patients because of the low reimbursement rates.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 01, 2010 at 1232 hrs
Your example does not include the ACLU or the FFRF suing anyone. In fact, it cites the ACLU as saying the issue is “a difficult one” and “right on the edge.”
That’s because the ACLU and the FFRF doesn’t sue in these matters unless it is a Christian group that wants to use a public school room for a bible study or prayer, or a public school wants to use a great big air-conditioned mega-church facility for their graduation ceremony.
I admitted what, exactly?
Sorry, I misunderstood your own blog post then:
There is a criticism of the American left that says we are sometimes blinded by our desire to accept everyone; that we are sometimes so into our cultural relativism that we fail to recognize tyrants and repressive governments for what they are. That criticism is valid. Time to wake up and admit that some cultures are doing better than others.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 01, 2010 at 1237 hrs
Actually Engineering is very much science
Actually, you are wrong.
That will create a large shortage and does not even come close to improving access.
We shall see if you are right or wrong. I’m betting you’re wrong.
Not to mention how ObamaCare now increases the federal deficit and will arguably reduce the quality of care while increasing the costs.
Again, I think you’re wrong, but that’s not the point. We were talking about access not quality or cost.
Am I to understand you’d like to prevent any financial firm from becoming too big to fail? If so, I think you’d better talk to your fellow conservatives and see if you can get them on board. (And I would hope you could find more authoritative links than the opinion of Benedict from Pasadena.)
That’s because the ACLU and the FFRF doesn’t sue in these matters unless it is a Christian group that wants to use a public school room for a bible study or prayer, or a public school wants to use a great big air-conditioned mega-church facility for their graduation ceremony
That’s completely wrong.
Sorry, I misunderstood your own blog post then
No, it’s I who misunderstood. I thought you were saying I was admitting that I myself did this. Which of course I don’t.
Posted by scott on August 01, 2010 at 1247 hrs
Actually, you are wrong.
Um… some further evidence? As I mentioned earlier, I’m pretty sure that Einstein would be pretty shocked that his work in math and physics were not science.
That will create a large shortage and does not even come close to improving access.
We shall see if you are right or wrong. I’m betting you’re wrong.
Not to mention how ObamaCare now increases the federal deficit and will arguably reduce the quality of care while increasing the costs.
Again, I think you’re wrong, but that’s not the point. We were talking about access not quality or cost.
It is pretty much a mathematical equation. Fewer doctors + more patients = longer wait times/less access. Also, if you went to the link, I don’t think it will be more expensive and add to the deficit, that was the CBO stating it. I would also factor that increased cost will also limit access. There is no free lunch, no matter how much you wish there were. Somebody has to pay for it at some point.
That’s completely wrong.
Care to show me where the ACLU or FFRF sued over anything Islam or Hindu?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 01, 2010 at 1259 hrs
oops - missed this one..
Am I to understand you’d like to prevent any financial firm from becoming too big to fail? If so, I think you’d better talk to your fellow conservatives and see if you can get them on board.
Actually there are an awful lot of conservative people on board with this. Not necessarily our so-called political class. Some of these conservative posers are already falling in the primaries because of their support of Too Big To Fail. See Bob Bennett in UT and Inglis in SC for a couple of the more prized victories on that front. When I start seeing the purges on the liberal side for things that stupid, then you can criticize us on it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 01, 2010 at 1306 hrs
Let’s start here:
Gravity is a theory, too. I think you don’t understand the way science uses the term, to be honest with you.
Scott, to have stated that essentially proves that your knowledge of science is quite limited. Gravity is a law, macro-evolution is a theory.
Perhaps you can start your education here with some basic definitions: Hypothesis, Law and Theory defined for the novice
Actually Engineering is very much science
Actually, you are wrong.
Again, you seem quite removed from reality in your argument. Every type of engineering I can think of deals with at least one discipline of science… usually many. Engineering is indeed loaded with science… well, except social engineering… perhaps your progressive nature is fooling you again.
It is. It is not science.
Science seeks to explain the formation of the universe. At best, all it has given us are a few basic laws, some rudimentary theories, and more question than ever before. Intelligent design is obviously something that you have no real knowledge of. You dismiss it outright and cling to the progressive Canon that tells you it is impossible, though it provides you with no evidence to back that up. Science can offer us nothing beyond vague hypothesis as to the nature and creation of our universe. Intelligent design offers an equally hypothetical alternative and is widely accepted by many. To avoid teaching that possibility in school because you find it heretical to secular fundamentalism is ridiculous and marks you as backward and intellectually fearful of alternative ideas.
One wonders if you were equally alarmed when president Bush violated FISA and the fourth amendment
One wonders why you are alarmed that President Bush did things you feel were illegal, but you are not EQUALLY alarmed when your president continues the same policies. ““If not, then your outrage is pretty hypocritical. ‘’”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 01, 2010 at 1324 hrs
Care to show me where the ACLU or FFRF sued over anything Islam or Hindu?
Sure.
there are an awful lot of conservative people on board with this. Not necessarily our so-called political class
Which conservatives are in favor of limiting the size of financial firms so they can’t become too big to fail? I really want to know.
Every type of engineering I can think of deals with at least one discipline of science
But engineering itself is not a science. It just isn’t.
Intelligent design offers an equally hypothetical alternative
Intelligent design is not science, either. (You’re not seriously going to argue that it is, are you?) And since it is not science it has no place in the science curriculum. Period.
To avoid teaching that possibility in school because you find it heretical to secular fundamentalism is ridiculous and marks you as backward and intellectually fearful of alternative ideas.
Does it now? Perhaps you just skimmed my remarks above, so I shall quote myself now for your edification: ” I personally think it would be great to teach religion in public schools.” I myself studied religion in college pretty extensively.
Posted by scott on August 01, 2010 at 1706 hrs
Intelligent design is not science, either.
I suspect that you don’t know what intelligent design is. For your edification below. btw, it is NOT the same thing as creationism.
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 01, 2010 at 1724 hrs
I suspect that you don’t know what intelligent design is
You keep saying that and it keeps getting more and more ironic. Especially when you follow it up with a quote that begins “Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program…”
Where is the quote from, by the way?
Posted by scott on August 01, 2010 at 1730 hrs
Here’s another quote. Wikipedia.
Advocates of intelligent design seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations,[11] arguing that intelligent design is a scientific theory under this new definition of science.[12] The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science.[13][14][15][16] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that “creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.”[17] The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[18] Others in the scientific community have concurred,[19] and some have called it junk science.[20][21]
Posted by scott on August 01, 2010 at 1732 hrs
OK - that’s one in MN. Glad to see they are starting to see the light. You do know that the ACLU was started as a communist front right?
Which conservatives are in favor of limiting the size of financial firms so they can’t become too big to fail? I really want to know.
Me, for starters. Most of the Tea Partiers as well. Libertarians. Like I said - the people want it, not necessarily the political class. On both sides of the aisle btw, I don’t exactly see Dodd/Frank et al pushing for that either.
Wikipedia? Really?
The definition that ASOL has is the more accurate one from the conservative standpoint anyway.
I will also reiterate that nobody knows the origin of the universe. Not even the National Academy of Sciences. So its not exactly “testable” either. Intelligent design could be one facet of it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 01, 2010 at 1741 hrs
Glad to see they are starting to see the light.
I want to know if you are starting to see any light. The ACLU has defended Christians many times. It has defended Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives. It has defended Jerry Falwell.
Me, for starters. Most of the Tea Partiers as well. Libertarians.
Ok, I counted you. Anyone else here? And I would dearly love to see some evidence that tea partiers want the government to limit the size of financial firms. I would also like to see some evidence that libertarians feel that way.
Wikipedia? Really?
What source would work better for you? All I (or you) need to do is go to Wikipedia and, instead of trusting it, click on the linked references. National Academy of Sciences or one of the other organizations might satisfy? Click them.
But of course they will not satisfy. Nothing will.
The definition that ASOL has is the more accurate one from the conservative standpoint anyway.
I was not seeking to define ID so much as to supply evidence of what actual scientists think about it’s claim to be science. They say it is not, and have some pretty plain and simple reasoning for it. Such as the fact that it’s not falsifiable. That right there means it is not science.
So its not exactly “testable” either.
All scientific claims are falsifiable.
Posted by scott on August 01, 2010 at 1756 hrs
Here’s another quote. Wikipedia.
Sorry, Scott… two things I pretty much ignore are your links to your own blog, and anything from wikipedia. I have a wikipedia account. Given ten minutes, I could whip you up as inaccurate and misleading of a quote as has ever been wikied. It may be occasionally useful to see who was in a movie, or get a link to a real bio, but as a resource, it is crap.
Neomom is quite correct. The definition I offered is quite accurate from the point of view of a conservative, or scientific researcher. If you’d like to discuss what it contains, feel free. If sources are all that matter to you, then assume it comes from The Knights Who Say Ni. It is very accurate, and it is pretty much what I go by. It’s far more accurate than describing the law of gravity as a theory.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 01, 2010 at 1814 hrs
as a resource, it is crap.
Uh huh. So what link would work for you? What authority meets your expectations? I call bullshit on your rejection of wikipedia. You know full well that all you or I need to do is go to that wikipedia article and click on the references. Shall we start with the National Academy of Sciences?
Of course you could have clicked it yourself, but hey, I get what you’re about: You’re going to reject it, too. And the next. And the next.
Posted by scott on August 01, 2010 at 1829 hrs
Yeah - I saw the ACLU just rushing to defend Rush Limbaugh against the invented racism quotes when the left did its propaganda campaign to prevent him from getting a silent minority investment in an NFL team. Isn’t it amazing that after being on air for over 20 years, they couldn’t find any real racism so they had to make it up?
Also, since the tea party is really a collection of several thousand local groups, it will be tough to get you a firm policy. But our “local” leans heavy Libertarian (as do I). Our take is that excessive lobbying by the big banks causing excessive government intervention and regulation - in concert with the CRA and the repeal of Glass-Steagal - caused smaller financial institutions to be non-competitive forcing mergers and viola! you end up with “too big to fail”. Yes, we really do talk about this stuff. Even better, that is the type of question we have been asking of our Congressional candidates.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 01, 2010 at 1840 hrs
eah - I saw the ACLU just rushing to defend Rush Limbaugh
Of all the head-exploding ways in which I’d like to tear into this entire paragraph, let’s stick to the issue at hand: The ACLU did in fact defend Rush Limbaugh. It seems as though nothing in your comment denies this fact, so I’d be inclined to leave it at that, but… it seems to give me an answer to the question of whether you are “seeing the light”: no.
ur “local” leans heavy Libertarian (as do I). Our take is that excessive lobbying by the big banks
Already I’ve lost you, somewhat. I wasn’t aware that business lobbying was a traditionally sore spot with libertarians. Can anyone explain this to me?
In fact, can anyone in this discussion at all explain to me about neomom’s claim that many tea partiers are in favor of limiting the size of businesses so that they don’t become too big to fail?
I’m serious. If this is the case I’d like to know about it and acknowledge that they may have a point. (Hell, even a liberal like myself isn’t too sure about taking such measures. Dayum.)
Posted by scott on August 01, 2010 at 1903 hrs
The ACLU filed a brief against Florida when it seized his medical records in 2004. I was being snarky on the NFL thing. Because not one of the supposed racist quotations used to bludgeon Rush with to prevent his involvement in an NFL team could be actually attributed to him.
There is a difference between allowing corporations to spend money on political ads and the corporatism of lobbying as it exists in Washington today. Libertarians are OK with the free speech of the first, not so much on the [lack of] constitutionality and rank corruption of the second. Hope that helps.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 01, 2010 at 1922 hrs
Uh huh. So what link would work for you?
What would work for me? How about discussing the text of the passage I quoted rather than avoiding it with an argument about how lame your links are?
The idea of irreducible complexity is quite intriguing, and I have yet to see any reputable research that refutes it… just more scientists of your political ilk that refute if as a matter of course. If it touches in any way on the hated realm of religion, it must be ignored.
Since science has been totally unable to form a cohesive argument on the nature of the origin of the universe, the intelligent design hypothesis is as good as any. Are you incapable of making a reasonable argument against it?
I know, “the experts tell you”. Yeah, we have been down that road many a time. If that is where we are going, and you are unable to make a reasonable argument (like the global warming discussion) against it, I will concede that the experts that you will cite will disagree with me.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 01, 2010 at 1929 hrs
How about discussing the text of the passage I quoted rather than avoiding it with an argument about how lame your links are?
Really. So um.. how about discussing the text of the passage i quoted rather than avoiding it with an argument about how lame my links are?
I will concede that the experts that you will cite will disagree with me.
And by “the experts you will cite” you mean “the experts.”
I know in advance I won’t see your comments there, but this idiocy has moved me to blog about it on my own site.
Neomom, I was unaware that libertarians had a problem with corporate lobbying in Washington. Truly. I wish someone could enlighten me with some links or something.
Posted by scott on August 01, 2010 at 1942 hrs
scott - this is just but one excerpt from our local tea party chat board…
Let’s change the dialogue between us and government by insisting on the freedom to keep what we earn and spend, save and invest as we please and not be taxed for it…
Close to a trilion dollars is drained from this economy in compliance costs and tax lobbyists. How many people would be hired if this overhead was not there? How many jobs would be imported, not exported if there were no taxes on businesses here including the 7.6% matching funds based on every employees salary?
It is not just “big business” that pays these hundreds of billions, but any group of people that have representation on “the Hill” seeking a tax variance.
Yeah - we don’t really like corporatism…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 01, 2010 at 1956 hrs
It sort of sounds to me though like the real objection is to regulation and only indirectly to the “compliance costs” and lobbyists presumably resulting from it.
And that’s where I get skeptical of your claim that tea partiers and libertarians are in favor of the government regulating businesses such that financial firms don’t become too large to fail. It sounds to me like they’re just railing against regulation in the first place—an old story—not advocating for new regulations.
Posted by scott on August 01, 2010 at 2004 hrs
It sounds to me like they’re just railing against regulation in the first place—an old story—not advocating for new regulations.
That’s probably because we want simplification. Not simply more piled on top. If you’ll note the last sentence in my post from the board, you’ll see the issue with all the different groups lobbying for special treatment. But I can’t sell to you if you aren’t in the mood to buy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 01, 2010 at 2016 hrs
It’s just not clear enough.
And nobody else here has a thing to say about this pheonomenon. The idea that tea partiers want the government to prevent too-big-to-fail. Not a peep. Which, if my experience here is any lesson, means they don’t agree with it but don’t want to be seen siding with me on anything.
I’m ready to be corrected at any time, however…
Posted by scott on August 01, 2010 at 2021 hrs
Unfortunately, too big to fail is just more Democrat fear mongering. Democrats have been itching to find a reason to seize more control of the financial end of the economy… never let a crisis go to waste is what gave us too big to fail.
When a larger corporation goes bankrupt, the valuable pieces of the corporation get split off and bought up. The failing parts generally fail… which is good for everyone in the end. It corporate Darwinism…. that should appeal to the left… evolution in action… survival of the fittest. The market share left behind is picked up by other businesses, or, failing that, new businesses that spring up from the ashes.
Artificially interfering in that process just leaves us with ailing giants like GM, or corporations gobbling up tax dollars for profit… as occurred with much of TARP.
If they fail, let them. There might be short term problems, but that always resolves itself. Government sticking their noses in and adding more bureaucrats will certainly make things worse all around.
If the Tea Party movement is for that, then they are not as fiscally conservative or politically savvy as I had thought.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 01, 2010 at 2222 hrs
too big to fail is just more Democrat fear mongering.
if it’s some big Democratic plot, how come Democrats aren’t proposing an end to corps of that size and instead just proposing an “orderly” way for them to be liquidated?
If they fail, let them.
If you’re saying that we should have let the large banks and the auto makers fail ... well, I don’t agree. That kind of corporate Darwinism would have made our most of economy extinct. You think shit’s bad now? Jesus.
Posted by scott on August 01, 2010 at 2227 hrs
If the Tea Party movement is for that, then they are not as fiscally conservative or politically savvy as I had thought.
That’s not what I meant, nor can I speak for all the tea party movement. What we have discussed is that excessive government regulation along with corporatism created too big to fail.
We completely agree that the bailouts of GM and Chrysler should not have happened. There are mixed feelings about TARP, primarily because the Feds have so completely bastardized any sort of markets there. Nobody is sure what would have happened. But we do know that TARP was never used as was legislated, and that has never been investigated.
As far as regulation, there needs to be some, or else there would be anarchy. But I almost believe it would be easier to write new and simplified ones and then completely obsolete all those currently in existence. But the government (and liberal/progressive) response to failed governement is always more government.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 0640 hrs
if it’s some big Democratic plot, how come Democrats aren’t proposing an end to corps of that size and instead just proposing an “orderly” way for them to be liquidated?
Maybe a few Democrats aren’t stuck on stupid. Some of the blue dogs seem quite reasonable at times… though queen Pelosi is quite able to force them into bad votes. Perhaps some Democrats are even looking toward the November election and don’t want to have to justify yet another bad position.
In general though, the idea was developed to offer a good reason for more government and more control. It’s propaganda with little basis in fact.
If you’re saying that we should have let the large banks and the auto makers fail ... well, I don’t agree. That kind of corporate Darwinism would have made our most of economy extinct. You think shit’s bad now?
Just more fear mongering… typical. Things are far worse now than predicted by Barack and most economists. That is a direct result of the governments mismanagement of fiscal policy. The economy has gone through dips before and we survived in tact. Large corporations have failed before, and we survived it. In fact, the only other time that a turn down has brought such a crushingly bad economy was the last time we tried to use government to buy out the economy. Hm.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 0705 hrs
scott - I want to revisit the “science” issue a little. You need to use some of that open-mindedness of yours to realize that in today’s hyper-politicized world - both scientists and academics have agendas.
I believe you were arguing early on in these comments that liberals dominate academia and the arts. Just because you generally agree with those agendas doesn’t make their work any less subject to criticism than when you shoot down something funded by someone/something you disagree with (ala the original subject of this thread - Sandra Bullock).
That has been what has truly been brought to light with the East Anglia e-mails, or the coming demise of science blogs or the JournOList archives where a Law Professor was advocating having the Feds yank Fox News’ FCC license.
I would also like you to go back to my question in #47 that you have conveniently ignored - and why you also dropped the enfranchisement meme.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 0718 hrs
Science has built-in mechanisms which, over time, weed out ideas that are wrong—regardless of anyone’s “agenda.” It’s empiricism. Publicly observable, repeatable observations of the real world. Observations that anyone—regardless of their preconceived ideas—can reproduce and see. It’s certainly not perfect. But its track record beats the pants off any other method of knowing about the world that’s ever been thought of before.
When long-established science can be dismissed because the people doing science have “agendas,” then you’re basically saying we can’t know anything. Not only is it not true, it leaves us in a state where we can each have our own private truths, whatever we feel like. Now that’s where people’s “agendas” really come in.
By the way, the “climategate” scandal was found to be complete BS. But I suppose you’re going to tell me that the journalists and academics and scientists who did the investigation have “agendas” and therefore can’t be trusted. Or something.
I didn’t directly answer the question in #47 because it’s an enormous one. In short, I don’t agree that the “Great Society” single-handedly caused the plight of the poor in America. You might have an interesting case to make on one or two issues, but come on. Are we to credit it above the loss of middle-class wage earning manufacturing jobs and other economic factors? Here at comment #84, I just don’t feel like going back to the ground floor and having a discussion about first principles.
ANd I haven’t dropped any “meme.” I stand by what I said. Liberals throughout history are the people who want to expand enfranchisement to more and more people. Conservatives have always been—and still are—the people who do not want to do this. See slavery. See women’s suffrage. See gay rights.
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 0829 hrs
Hmm…nice way to end your comments, scott. You believe conservatives are inherently racist, sexist, bigots. So much for your thoughts about educated, open-minded liberals.
Turn off your computer.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 1020 hrs
You believe conservatives are inherently racist, sexist, bigots.
No I don’t. But I believe racism, sexism and bigotry are inherently conservative.
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 1025 hrs
Wow…well, at least we all know, without a shadow of a doubt, what you believe.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 1037 hrs
So tell me. Was it the liberal position to be against emancipation of slaves? Was it the liberal position to oppose women’s suffrage? Is it the liberal position to oppose gay marriage?
I know that you guys would like the word conservative to only ever mean “I like small government” or something. But it has broader meanings, too.
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 1058 hrs
Just a minor point here scott: in post #84, you say that “conservatives have and always been the people...” (emphasis mine)
Thus, you don’t refer to it as an ideology as you do in post #86, but rather, as the “people” who consider themselves to be conservatives. Hence, my comment that you believe conservatives, as a people, are racist, sexist, bigots is valid.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 1103 hrs
I’m sorry, that just doesn’t follow.
Liberals throughout history are the people who want to expand enfranchisement to more and more people. Conservatives have always been—and still are—the people who do not want to do this.
And
You believe conservatives are inherently racist, sexist, bigots.
No I don’t. But I believe racism, sexism and bigotry are inherently conservative.
Are not contradictory.
But how about answering some of my questions in 88?Of course everyone here is hypersensitive that I might be saying that they personally or modern American conservatives as a group, would like slavery back and would take away a woman’s right to vote. And of course I’m not saying that. It’s wrong on its face and only an idiot would say such a thing. I certainly never have.
There is a parallel, however, between conservative positions of the past and conservative positions today. They didn’t want to expand rights then; you don’t want to expand them today. It’s a different group of people on the table, the issues change a little. But the parallel does exist. And if it makes you a little uncomfortable, I think that’s just as it should be.
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 1120 hrs
Holy crap - come in at lunch and find out that I’m racist and sexist and a bigot.
Nice.
scott - contrary to your self-grandiosity - you are one of the most close-minded people I have ever run across. You need to go back to your echo chamber.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 1140 hrs
That’s always you guys’ first response: You’re calling me a racist! Waaaah! it would be nice if you could stop hiding behind your fainting couches and give a thoughtful response to what I’m saying.
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 1146 hrs
You believe conservatives are inherently racist, sexist, bigots.
No I don’t. But I believe racism, sexism and bigotry are inherently conservative.
Are not contradictory.It would be nice if you could move beyond your own bigoted caricature of who you believe us conservative bogeymen are. Perhaps you should be a bit more uncomfortable with yourself over some of these comments. I think I had you pegged correctly way back in comment #5.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 1220 hrs
I think I have you pegged in comment 92. Instead of actually discussing my point you find it more convenient to make me explain again and again that I’m not calling you a racist—which I most definitely am not.
I’m reminded of this great quote by Joe Conason
If your workplace is safe; if your children go to school rather than being forced into labor; if you are paid a living wage, including overtime; if you enjoy a forty-hour week and you are allowed to join a union to protect your rights- you can thank liberals. if your food is not poisoned and your water is drinkable – you can thank liberals. If your parents are eligible for Medicare and Social Security, so they can grow old in dignity without bankrupting your family – you can thank liberals. If our rivers are getting cleaner and our air isn’t black with pollution; if our wilderness is protected and our countryside is still green – you can thank liberals. If people of all races can share the same public facilities; if everyone has the right to vote; if couples fall in love and marry regardless of race; if we have finally begun to transcend a segregated society – you can thank liberals. Progressive innovations like those and so many others were achieved by long, difficult struggles against entrenched power. What defined conservatism, and conservatives, was their opposition to everyone of those advances.
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 1310 hrs
So tell me. Was it the liberal position to be against emancipation of slaves?
Actually, that would have been the Democrat Party who brought you slavery and segregation. It was Democrats who fought for both of those institutions, and it was Republicans who tried (and succeeded) in changing them. The emancipation movement was one of the greatest allies of the suffrage movement.
You continue to try to blur the line between the modern fiscally conservative political movement and your own imagined definition of what conservative idea are. Those two things are VERY different… no matter what your ideology tells you.
I know that you guys would like the word conservative to only ever mean ?I like small government? or something. But it has broader meanings, too.
It’s an intellectually dishonest endeavor to continually attempt to muddy that water. Small government conservatives are not in favor of racism (even in the form of quotas), disenfranchisement (even in the form of lax voting laws that allow cheating) or sexism (even in the form of mocking women who won’t parrot the feminist meme). Trying to link the two is playing petty politics with semantics.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 1358 hrs
Actually, that would have been the Democrat Party
Wrong! It was the Democratic Party.
But either way, it doesn’t change the fact that it was a conservative position.
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 1404 hrs
Your “modern fiscally conservative political movement”—aside from the fact that it’s not actually fiscally conservative—is that it’s also the same movement who is against gay rights. So don’t sit there and tell me that you’re all fiscally conservative but socially liberal—you’re not. If you were, you’d be called Libertarians, Michael Badnarik would be president, gay marriage would be old news and marijuana would be legal in every state.
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 1432 hrs
So don’t sit there and tell me that you’re all fiscally conservative but socially liberal—you’re not.
Actually, if I’m understanding your point correctly, there are a lot of us that are advocating fiscal responsibility and reduction of the federal government, while still being fine with things like gay rights. I’m perfectly fine with same sex marriages, and not threatened by it at all. Most of the people I interact with are the same or very similar.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 1448 hrs
Well, jason, that’s a very liberal position to take on gay rights. Wouldn’t you agree?
By the way, you must not interact much with other commenters here.
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 1451 hrs
scott,
I told you my view on your thoughts. I think you have very skewed viewpoint on modern day conservatives. In a way, I think you have a very “conservative” viewpoint on modern conservatives. You hear the most outrageous and boisterous of Rightwing nuts, because they get the press, and then apply that color, perhaps in more muted colors against the rest of the groups on the right side of the political spectrum.
Seems to me to be similar to close-minded people who think all Muslims want to kill everyone else… simply because a small tiny fractional group who happens to be Muslim, also wants to kill others.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 1501 hrs
You hear the most outrageous and boisterous of Rightwing nuts, because they get the press
In my defense, a lot of them are here in the comments of this very blog. And a disturbing number of them are elected members of congress. Likewise with very prominent members of the right-wing media. In right-wing America, crazies are ascendent. I’m not just cherry picking the few nuts waving signs on the street corner.
But I reiterate: Your views on gay rights can only be described as liberal. Am I right or am I right? And is it not fair to say that those who hold the opposite view hold a conservative one?
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 1509 hrs
(Engineering is not a science, by the way. But I guess you know that.)
Engineering is not a science?
So how should my Bachelors of Science in Engineering and Masters of Science in Engineer truly read?
You better look that one up on your beloved Wiki then thank me for correcting your ignorance.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 1551 hrs
I had a long couple of paragraphs typed out, but fuck it, it’s a waste of time, as you’re just going to keep spinning and twisting. Enjoy your word-fencing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 1552 hrs
No, engineering is not a science. At most it could be described as an “applied science.” But by this criteria, so is education, management, finance and military history and a whole host of other professions who do not generally do any science.
Wait, I have an MA in education. I’m a scientist! I’m putting that on my business card.
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 1600 hrs
In my defense, a lot of them are here in the comments of this very blog. And a disturbing number of them are elected members of congress. Likewise with very prominent members of the right-wing media. In right-wing America, crazies are ascendent. I’m not just cherry picking the few nuts waving signs on the street corner.
Yeah - like half of the “D” members of Congress have a firm grip on reality. NOT! See Barney (Fannie and Freddie are sound) Frank, Maxine (Franklin Raines did an awesome job at Fannie and lets Socialize the oil industry while I’m getting a bailout for my husband’s bank) Waters, Alan (Republicans want you all to die) Grayson, and Hank (if more people are on Guam it will tip over) Johnson for some of the highlight reels.
And damn, if it wasn’t that right-wing JournOList (the O stood for Obama) that was colluding on messaging to help Obama get elected.
Give.Me.A.Fucking.Break.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 1702 hrs
Wait, I have an MA in education. I’m a scientist! I’m putting that on my business card.
Hm, you’d think a guy with a master’s degree and a whole pocketful of scientific opinions would know the difference between the law of gravity and a theory. Sorta makes you wonder as to the scientific credibility of the commenter.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 1740 hrs
like half of the “D” members of Congress have a firm grip on reality. NOT!
No, I think that’s about right.
Sorta makes you wonder as to the scientific credibility of the commenter.
That might carry some sting if it wasn’t coming from a guy who clearly doesn’t know science from religion. You think intelligent design is science, brother. That’s one thin notch above putting saddles on dinosaurs.
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 1748 hrs
Oh yeah - I forgot Pete (I wouldn’t waste my urine on my constituents” Stark.
Here is Stark at a town hall July 24, 2010 getting completely pwnd and then stating that the “federal government can do most anything in this country”. Kind of proves lady i quoted in #27 absolutely correct. Liberals/Progressive may stay mostly out of your bedroom, but they will woven through every other aspect of your life.
Damn isn’t this country full of right-wing crazies? (sarc)
I will take my constitutional conservatism over modern liberalism/progressivism any day of the week.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 1757 hrs
If you think all of the above examples of your vaunted elected Democrats have a grip on reality…
shit, you are just delusional.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 1759 hrs
Wait, I have an MA in education. I’m a scientist! I’m putting that on my business card.
And here is why scott can’t tell Arts from Sciences. He thinks an MA has something to do with being a scientist. Last I checked, scott, that degree you have is a Master of ARTS.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 2037 hrs
That might carry some sting if it wasn’t coming from a guy who clearly doesn’t know science from religion. You think intelligent design is science, brother. That’s one thin notch above putting saddles on dinosaurs.
Well then, I assume that you will now regale us with the truth behind the origin of the universe. Clearly you must have some intimate knowledge to offer such a dismissal of other theories.
So, let’s have it? The universe, why and how?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 2040 hrs
And here is why scott can’t tell Arts from Sciences. He thinks an MA has something to do with being a scientist.
Cute. And too clever by half. Engineering is only a science in the sense that it is an “applied science.” Among other applied sciences, education is one. The name of the degree I have does not indicate otherwise.
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 2044 hrs
At most it could be described as an “applied science.”
At most? It would be easier if you would just admit you are wrong.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 2222 hrs
I would do that—but I am not wrong.
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 2225 hrs
Clearly you must have some intimate knowledge to offer such a dismissal of other theories.
I am not dismissing anything. I am simply saying that the explanation offered by ID is not a scientific one.
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 2228 hrs
Yes, you are and too arrogant to admit it too. Nice combo defeat.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 2228 hrs
I’m curious about you, Dr. Where’d you get your PhD?
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 2230 hrs
Admit you are wrong and I’ll tell you. Nice attempt to change the subject away from your incredible incorrectness.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 2231 hrs
I have admitted everything I’m going to admit: that engineering is an “applied science”—as are many other disciplines that people don’t normally think of as science per se and involving lots of people who often don’t do any actual science.
But I’d still like to know where you got your doctorate. Let me not be coy about it. I’m kind of wondering if you’re really what you say you are.
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 2234 hrs
Thanks for admitting you were wrong.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 2247 hrs
You don’t really have a PhD do you?
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 2249 hrs
Why does it bother you so much that a higher educated person than you forced you to admit you were wrong? You do realize the delight you are giving to your frequent adversaries here. It must be amusing for them to see you beaten with cold hard logic then watching you squirm attempting a petty retaliation by questioning my education. Good luck in life with that attitude, sir.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 0844 hrs
So you don’t have a PhD at all, do you. No crime in that. I don’t have one either. But I am wondering why you are pretending that you do. What was the purpose of that?
As far as who has been proven wrong… you keep saying I have been and I guess for you that makes it so.
Whoops, gotta go teach a class. The life of a scientist calls….
Posted by scott on August 03, 2010 at 0925 hrs
You don’t really have a PhD do you?
The fact the he chooses not to answer your antagonistic and overly personal questions does not indicate anything of the sort. You are being rather a pinhead, and I applaud him for ignoring your insulting accusations… though your dismissal of things without any evidence is certainly not anything new for your idiom.
Clearly you must have some intimate knowledge to offer such a dismissal of other theories.
I am not dismissing anything. I am simply saying that the explanation offered by ID is not a scientific one.Not only did you knowingly quote that out of context, but you also completely avoided the question behind it (#111) because you have no ability to offer even a reasonable response.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 0932 hrs
I just think it’s highly suspect that someone with a phd posts anonymously while still hoping to add weight to his comments by touting his education. People with actual phds get the most respect for them by just being open about where they got them. If I had to guess I’d say the whole thing is a sham. (And to little effect, I might add. Nothing he’s said has added anything substantive to the discussion.)
Not only did you knowingly quote that out of context,
I don’t see what your objection is. You said I dismiss other theories (presumably meaning ID). I respond that I’m not “dismissing” it so much as asserting that it isn’t science. Which it isn’t. (And why does mr PhD not weigh in on that front, I wonder?)
Posted by scott on August 03, 2010 at 0938 hrs
Scott, if I had to guess, it is most likely some db who is trying to be cute. If there was any legitimacy to this person, I don’t think their email would be “phd@phd.com”
Intelligent design is NOT science. I repeat, IS NOT SCIENCE. For something to be science, it must be testable by the scientific method. Which, you CANNOT do with intelligent design. For something to be science, you have to be able to observe the evidence and be able to measure it. How do you observe or measure a “creator”. And by the way, how can you defend intelligent design when it was created to get around creation-evolution situation?
And engineering is also part of science, as in a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study. But if you are going to say engineering is part of science, so is education.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1012 hrs
I prefer anonymity while posting on the internet. Thank you for respecting that. I have taken the time to change my email address to equalize my legitimacy with ‘liberalssavetheworld’.
My only purpose for commenting was to point out Scott’s error about Engineering not being a science. I succeeded. I realize your ego is damaged so feel free to lash out some more if it satifies your primitive need to feel superior.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1520 hrs
I know the academic world is hard right now, but why would somebody with a Ph.D. waste their time debating a definition on this forum?
For the sake of discussion, from OED:
b. Contradistinguished from art: see ART n. 8.
The distinction as commonly apprehended is that a science (= {elenis}{pi}{iota}{sigma}{tau}{ghacu}{mu}{eta}) is concerned with theoretic truth, and an art (= {tau}{geacu}{chi}{nu}{eta}) with methods for effecting certain results. Sometimes, however, the term science is extended to denote a department of practical work which depends on the knowledge and conscious application of principles; an art, on the other hand, being understood to require merely knowledge of traditional rules and skill acquired by habit.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1526 hrs
“So how should my Bachelors of Science in Engineering and Masters of Science in Engineer truly read?”
Doesn’t sound like a doctorate to me.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1535 hrs
I think it’s time to let it go. if the author of those comments has a phd I’m the fucking pope.
Posted by scott on August 03, 2010 at 1536 hrs
Thank you for respecting that. I have taken the time to change my email address to equalize my legitimacy with ‘liberalssavetheworld’.
Nice dodge. I will point out that I am not the one claiming by your moniker that YOU have a phd in engineering. And if an email was sent to my email, I would actually get it. I have communicated with dooley who has turned into a loon, zach from blogging blue and owen here. So if you want to hear from me send me an email, I will respond. I highly doubt that you actually have that as an email.
What is funny is that you “claim” victory over scott with engineering being a science, but you forget that if you put engineering as science, you MUST also put education as a science. Which, from what I remember, you claimed wasn’t included. So you, are wrong. And no, me pointing out that you are wrong is not an attempt to “feel superior”. Just a matter of facts.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 04, 2010 at 0900 hrs
So you, are wrong.
Oh no… I hate to do this, but you are wrong in pointing out that I am wrong. I never stated education was not a science. I only pointed out that engineering is a science.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2010 at 1319 hrs
Gotta go see my accountant. He’s a premier scientist.
Posted by scott on August 06, 2010 at 1320 hrs
Seems to me to be similar to close-minded people who think all Muslims want to kill everyone else… simply because a small tiny fractional group who happens to be Muslim, also wants to kill others.
Posted by coach outlet store online on August 22, 2010 at 2311 hrs
Total Entries: 19654
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/10/2012 02:32 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 110
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/11/2012 04:59 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).