Republicans Against Science
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: August 28, 2011
Jon Huntsman Jr., a former Utah governor and ambassador to China, isn’t a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination. And that’s too bad, because Mr. Hunstman has been willing to say the unsayable about the G.O.P. â€" namely, that it is becoming the “anti-science party.†This is an enormously important development. And it should terrify us.......
Mr. Perry suggests; those (climate change) scientists are just in it for the money, “manipulating data†to create a fake threat. In his book “Fed Up,†he dismissed climate science as a “contrived phony mess that is falling apart.â€
.....Mr. Perry’s statement is, as it happens, just false: the scientific consensus about man-made global warming â€" which includes 97 percent to 98 percent of researchers in the field, according to the National Academy of Sciences â€" is getting stronger, not weaker, as the evidence for climate change just keeps mounting.
My comment: the pre-ponderance of evidence doesn't sway Republicans from what they want to believe!!
And the Republican electorate doesn't understand that they are being played:
So how has Mr. Romney, the other leading contender for the G.O.P. nomination, responded to Mr. Perry’s challenge? In trademark fashion: By running away. In the past, Mr. Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, has strongly endorsed the notion that man-made climate change is a real concern. But, last week, he softened that to a statement that he thinks the world is getting hotter, but “I don’t know that†and “I don’t know if it’s mostly caused by humans.†Moral courage!
Of course, we know what’s motivating Mr. Romney’s sudden lack of conviction. According to Public Policy Polling, only 21 percent of Republican voters in Iowa believe in global warming (and only 35 percent believe in evolution). Within the G.O.P., willful ignorance has become a litmus test for candidates, one that Mr. Romney is determined to pass at all costs.
My comment: too bad 79% of Republicans do not accept the indisputable fact of global warming as a man-made event, and 65% of Republicans do not believe in evolution due to their dogmtic religious ideas.
Can we say party of stupid?
The Chinese and other emerging market nations are laughing all the way to the bank!!
So if a researcher keeps trying to disprove global warming as entirely man-made, is he/she an idiot and should not be in science?
I mean, we should never argue another point of view or try to invalidate research. Einstein was right all along in his theory of relativity and Hawking did not find anything wrong with it with regards to black holes.
Einstein was right, Hawking was an idiot for daring to question the research and outcome.
For the record, I am an athiest/agnostic registered republican with an IQ well above the average. All that makes me is a speculator on what a symbiotic relationship such as man and earth is doing. I also believe that evolution is still not a proven theory, but it makes more sense than anything else we can think of.
Yeah, all republicans are dumb mindless religious idiots.
But for the record, Rick Perry scares me more than Obama.
I see the antiscience and anti fact republicans as the anithuman group also...everything they do and say is anti-we.....yes they are idiots when it comes to facts and science and reality...but i just with they could get off their stumps on the anti americanism.....america is about WE...US...togetherness....the republicans and the tea party seem to be about nothing but ME ME ME...OUR WAY OR THE HIGHWAY. when did we become a country that could care less about it's fellow man or woman?....if we follow the tpeople and republican...we may as well take us all the way back to the tudors.....im barrassed by them....the world laughs and it seems noone cares anymore.
How long before Bridge Troll posts "The Democrats do it too"?
Quote from: jandar on August 29, 2011, 09:31:30 AM
So if a researcher keeps trying to disprove global warming as entirely man-made, is he/she an idiot and should not be in science?
I mean, we should never argue another point of view or try to invalidate research. Einstein was right all along in his theory of relativity and Hawking did not find anything wrong with it with regards to black holes.
Einstein was right, Hawking was an idiot for daring to question the research and outcome.
For the record, I am an athiest/agnostic registered republican with an IQ well above the average. All that makes me is a speculator on what a symbiotic relationship such as man and earth is doing. I also believe that evolution is still not a proven theory, but it makes more sense than anything else we can think of.
Yeah, all republicans are dumb mindless religious idiots.
But for the record, Rick Perry scares me more than Obama.
The point isn't that Republicans are dumb but rather have a large segment that are "willfully ignorant" about man's roll in global climate change and evolution.
I see you trying to spin that the author is stating this as a no Republicans have any brains commentary but that is just not the way the article reads.
No one is trying to restrict questions about global climate change it may be the most studied global meteorological phenomenon of all time. I just see lots of "ditto heads" who plug there ears go La lalalalalalalal whenever the results of the studies come in. I will admit it seems to be less and less all the time.
Quote from: finehoe on August 29, 2011, 10:15:26 AM
How long before Bridge Troll posts "The Democrats do it too"?
Do they?
Quote from: stephendare on August 29, 2011, 10:45:04 AM
Quote from: finehoe on August 29, 2011, 10:15:26 AM
How long before Bridge Troll posts "The Democrats do it too"?
From signing on? I would guestimate that it usually takes about an hour to read threads then about 9 minutes of furiously googling examples of democrats engaging in behavior which carries a similar word in the search term and then 1.3 minutes of hastily posting it without necessarily deciding if it actually has anything to do with the original subject or point, and then 4 days of mulishly pretending that it does.
What a nice thing to say Stephen...
Frankly I do not identify with any of those mentioned in the article. As for myself... I am quite certain as to the evolution of mankind as a species... and equally sure about the evolution of life on this planet.
As for manmade global warming... As far as I am concerned... I am not so certain. Are we warming? Possibly. Do we contribute... possibly. Has it happened before? Absolutely. Do we know enough? absolutely not. Certainly not enough to subscribe to the silliness of Kyoto or the latest attempt to say "we are doing something". I keep my mind very open to new evidence... both pro and con.
americans have been conditioned to think in opposites--so the republicans, in presenting themselves as the anti-science party, push perception ov the democrats as the anti-religion party.
it works distressingly well.
And look what was posted this week:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100102296/sun-causes-climate-change-shock/
CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere.
The sun has more effect on Earth's temperature than man does. Imagine that!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/25/some-reactions-to-the-cloud-experiment/
Now, do yourself a favor and read up on this:
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1479
It seems that even sunspots are linked with hurricanes. Imagine that, that big ball of Hyrdogen that provides heat and light also affects earth in other ways.
Quote from: jandar on August 30, 2011, 08:31:10 AM
And look what was posted this week:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100102296/sun-causes-climate-change-shock/
CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere.
The sun has more effect on Earth's temperature than man does. Imagine that!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/25/some-reactions-to-the-cloud-experiment/
Wow, about cloud formation and aerosols.
QuoteThe take-home message from this research is that.......trace constituencies in the atmosphere seem to have a big effect on cloud formation, and that Cosmic rays also have an effect, a “significant†one according to CERN.
Trace constituencies from aerosols cause cloud formation, trapping heat on earth.....thereby causing global warming/climate change.
Nothing that disputes the effect of man-made global warming, excepts that it is enhanced by cosmic rays (per these study results).
Now what jandar?
and that Cosmic rays also have an effect, a “significant†one according to CERN.
You missed that part of your quote. Lol, Cosmic Ray have a significant effect, big effect. Semantics.
Quote from: jandar on August 30, 2011, 11:59:02 AM
and that Cosmic rays also have an effect, a “significant†one according to CERN.
You missed that part of your quote. Lol, Cosmic Ray have a significant effect, big effect. Semantics.
No I did not miss that at all. Look back and see that I mentioned the effects of cosmic rays..........are you claiming that man-made trace constituencies do not have an effect on global warming?
Because that is not what the research says. All it says is that cosmic rays enhance the effect of man-made trace constituencies.
But don't worry..........I understand that you are grasping at anything to let mankind continue its destructive path, rather than face up to the fact that we have been polluting our earth on a magnitude never before seen with devastating consequences that cause climate change............a fact that was NOT disputed by the CERN research!!!
I'm sure you would agree that the research at CERN should continue and even accelerate... :)
I love when people say solar activity and cosmic rays have more effect than man's influence. The logic I guess is if we aren't going to put out the sun or filter cosmic rays then why do we want to single out mans influence to be mitigated. The facts that there are other influences and cycles are not disputed. This is just an attempt to confuse the issue of should we stop polluting the earth in this way because of the effects of the pollution.
It can't be because republicans are more dense than others...do they really not believe the proven science or are they just holding onto ideas just because they want to be behold to principle?....is this principle worth our planet? I thought maybe we have a chance with the kyoto protocol but those days are gone and personally i think we've gone past a tipping point...how much damage weve done is to come i guess..i just think it's stupid to not take some serious steps to clean up the planet...even if we're all wrong...what can cleaning up the planet hurt?...
"The sun has more effect on Earth's temperature than man does."
Not sure what this has to do with the present climate change discussion though...
Of course the sun has more effect on the Earth's temperature than man does. The Sun has a mass of over 300,000 times that of Earth, and has a surface temperature of over 5000 degrees C. It accounts for 99% of the total mass of the solar system. Without the sun the Earth's temperature would be about -400 degrees.
But that's not the point.
The Earth's climate depends upon a very delicate balance of numerous factors to maintain the temperature within an extremely narrow range in order to maintain the climate as we know it.
So while in the huge view the Sun has much more effect on the earth than humans do, it does not take a very hard push from those humans to totally screw things up in an irreversible way that will cause great world wide problems, mostly in food production. When this happens, it will already be too late.
Sorry, Jandar, your contentions vis a vis cyclic variations in the Sun's output of various forms of radiation does not really make sense within the context of the climate change discussion.
And actually, CERN did not "invent" the internet. They merely used TCP/IP to connect their facilities internally, forming CERNET. The most relevant ancestor of the internet was ARPANET.
Global warming? Does it matter if we have gone past the tipping point? It is important I suppose, but not extremely in my view. Given the current state of affairs, wherein so many of our fellow humans seem to be drifting toward a mass insanity, offering so many untruths from all points of the compass, and engaging in so many stupidities, absurdities, and corruptions, and being indifferent to those who are suffering injustices at the hands of those in power or of those in positions of privilege â€" I consider it unimportant to wish upon the earth our continued existence. Do we, as compared to the other animals, have a special privilege to live; that is, as a species?
Just as it is possible, tolerable, and ultimately inevitable, for one individual to die, as it happens every second; it is also possible, and quite tolerable, for all humans to die, leaving none alive on earth; whether from some calamity or by human action or inaction, thereby leaving the current collection of animals just as they were before our species spoiled their Eden with our inclinations for the mean and atrocious behaviors only humans can perform.
I suggest that there is a small percentage of humans who do exhibit sufficient admirable attributes of behavior so that they would surely prove able to maintain acceptable habitation on the earth, including the discipline to avoid spoiling the earth; but the problem is that their number is far overcome by the weight of the stupidity and ignorance of the gross majority, those exhibiting the beastly behaviors, and indifference to all that is good and of integrity.
Therefore I must offer my opinion that I do not see any regret or fear whatever if each of us, all humans on earth, were to be brought to the condition of death by whatever means, even as from old age or of catastrophe, as we would be only one species of many that has been doomed to extinction for eternity. Who are we, as a species, to believe that we are so special that we must have eternal existence? What does it matter? And to whom does it matter?
In any case, if all humans were removed from earth by global warming, from too many nuclear bomb explosions, or by way of a large asteroid, a new human type species would evolve in similar form in several million years to have another chance to be good on earth, and to be good “to†the earth, because the current primate population will evolve to accomplish a similar intelligence as ours.
Of course, if the primates do not survive, and only the smaller more primitive mammals do, then the earth might be fortunate to be without a similar human presence for many more millions of years; thus giving the earth and the other animals a greater age of peace and tranquility, a longer period without the pollutions, insanities, cruelties, and beastly behaviors as exhibited by human types.
To digress, it is highly probable that the laws of the universe, being stable and sure, will cause any future human types to approximate our physical shape, and our mental abilities. These same laws will insure the evolution of the same technologies, the same sciences, and the same psychological dynamics, and thus, the same religions, and the wars about them.
And too, it may be that our entire earth, by way of a large collision, will be destroyed completely. And this, again in my view, would be of little consequence. Why does it matter? To whom does it matter? We came from the rocks of the universe. And to the rocks we shall return. So, really, why all the fuss about global warming. Individual death is of no concern, as it has happened to every individual ever born, and will happen to every individual who is now alive. It is the individual suffering we should be concerned about in the here and now, not only for our fellow humans, but also for our wild creatures. What creature intentionally causes, or allows by indifference, suffering to other creatures, even to his own species? Do humans really deserve any special place in the scheme of things….. such as continued existence as a species?
http://www.youtube.com/v/MLNH1ULIKIU&feature=related
Ronchamblin,
That was a pretty garden variety 25 cent manifesto of existential nihilism.
Don't you have any kids?
If you are searching for the meaning of life, I can provide that answer for you.
Quote from: Midway on August 31, 2011, 07:49:06 PM
Ronchamblin,
That was a pretty garden variety 25 cent manifesto of existential nihilism.
Don't you have any kids?
If you are searching for the meaning of life, I can provide that answer for you.
Actually my intention was to keep my post to a certain level. But… yes, absolutely. There is no purpose or ultimate meaning to life. We humans are as the animals, as the ants, as the plants, and ultimately, as the rocks. We are the consequences of the laws of the universe. However, we humans have the ability to work, to build, to dream, to philosophize, to love, to have compassion, to forgive, to create, to be responsible, and the obligation to be rational.
So……….. what do you propose to provide me?
The meaning of life:
Life is a consequence of the complexity of carbon chemistry.
Thank goodness Midway. I thought your were going to suggest a visit to the FBC so that I might discover the meaning of life. Whew !!
You both just missed the meaning of life, which is readily contained within the screenplay of The Royal Tenenbaums:
Royal: Richie, this illness, this closeness to death... it's had a profound affect on me. I feel like a different person, I really do.
Richie: Dad, you were never dying.
Royal: ...but I'm gonna live
I get your drift Bucket, as there is some truth in it. Actually, I don’t know about you but I’ve always been uncomfortable with the question: “What is the meaning of lifeâ€. To me it’s one of those nonsense questions, wherein there are valid words, but their assembly forms nonsense.
Perhaps the word “purpose†would make more sense, but then I would also have difficulty in answering that question too. “What is the purpose of life?†Life in general, in my view does not have, nor does it have to have, a meaning or a purpose. We, as individuals have the very important purpose to survive as an individual. But then the word “objective†might be better in this case. “What is the objective of life?†The objective is to perpetuate one’s existence as an individual. One might conclude also that in conjunction with one’s fellow humans, one’s objective is to perpetuate the existence of the species.
And of course, one might suggest that one’s “objective†as an individual is to live, as one is able, to the fullest of one’s life, and in harmony with one’s fellow creatures. But… “meaning of life?â€â€¦. “purpose of life?â€. These two terms imply that some entity placed humans on earth for some purpose or for some meaning. And in my view, this fiction is simply nonsense, generated thousands of years ago in the era of mankind’s love of superstition, is overdue for the trash, and perpetuated even now by individuals who, in some way benefit; perpetuated by habits of thought and cultural momentums which not only suffocates learning and rational thought, but perpetuates conditions that promotes the conflicts and wars we endure even to the moment of this writing.
The Chicago Tribune's libertarian leaning Steve Chapman calls out conservatives for doing what environmental alarmists have often done. Ignoring science.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0901-chapman-20110901,0,1332482.column (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0901-chapman-20110901,0,1332482.column)
QuoteOver and over, we saw a pattern. Environmental and public health groups with a leftward bent said the sky was falling; conservatives and libertarians (me included) asked for scientific evidence; and the science sooner or later debunked the fears.
Back then, those skeptical about environmental warnings deferred to learned people who knew the subject best. Alarmists stoutly ignored them while scrounging up a few experts who would take their side.
But that was another century. Today, it's scientists who agree on the validity of a major environmental peril â€" climate change caused by human activity. It's liberals and environmentalists who can point to a broad scholarly consensus for their claims. And it's the skeptics who now revile the scientists as stooges and liars.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry is right in step with many conservative advocacy groups and commentators when he derides global warming as "all one contrived phony mess that is falling apart under its own weight." The conservative magazine National Review regularly heaps scorn on climate-change worries.
Whole column here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0901-chapman-20110901,0,1332482.column (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0901-chapman-20110901,0,1332482.column)
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on September 01, 2011, 02:48:00 PM
The Chicago Tribune's libertarian leaning Steve Chapman calls out conservatives for doing what environmental alarmists have often done. Ignoring science.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0901-chapman-20110901,0,1332482.column (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0901-chapman-20110901,0,1332482.column)
QuoteOver and over, we saw a pattern. Environmental and public health groups with a leftward bent said the sky was falling; conservatives and libertarians (me included) asked for scientific evidence; and the science sooner or later debunked the fears.
Back then, those skeptical about environmental warnings deferred to learned people who knew the subject best. Alarmists stoutly ignored them while scrounging up a few experts who would take their side.
But that was another century. Today, it's scientists who agree on the validity of a major environmental peril â€" climate change caused by human activity. It's liberals and environmentalists who can point to a broad scholarly consensus for their claims. And it's the skeptics who now revile the scientists as stooges and liars.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry is right in step with many conservative advocacy groups and commentators when he derides global warming as "all one contrived phony mess that is falling apart under its own weight." The conservative magazine National Review regularly heaps scorn on climate-change worries.
Whole column here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0901-chapman-20110901,0,1332482.column (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0901-chapman-20110901,0,1332482.column)
Thanks uberlibertarian for this great find.
Here a clear denounciation of Republican denialist ideology:
QuoteSiding with the 3 percent of scientists who question climate change may play well with a small minority of hard-right voters, but it doesn't serve the rest of us. There has always been a place in American society for the fringe dwellers -- the religious zealots and the conspiracy theorists and the committed Luddites. But that place is not in the White House.
Living in denial in the face of evidence isn't a sign of leadership -- it is a sign of delusion and it should disqualify you for serving as president.
There is also a healthy tradition of skepticism in America, but skepticism is not an excuse for inaction. It should be the beginning of a quest to find answers. If Representative Michele Bachman doubts the existence of climate change, she should travel to the Arctic in the company of researchers. If Governor Perry doubts that the globe is warming, he should walk the scarred plains of Texas with those who have studied the links between climate change, more frequent droughts, and intensified wildfires.
The fact that they don't journey to find the answers tells me they aren't skeptics at all: they are just closed-minded. They don't want to pursue new information or collect the facts on the ground. They want to stay within the confines of Tea Party ideology.
Casting doubt in and of itself shouldn't disqualify you from becoming the president of the United States. But willfully rejecting the facts, when the consequences of doing so will be devastating, should.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/heather-taylormiesle/climate-change-gop_b_964740.html
Quote from: ronchamblin on September 01, 2011, 09:29:48 AM
I get your drift Bucket, as there is some truth in it. Actually, I don’t know about you but I’ve always been uncomfortable with the question: “What is the meaning of lifeâ€. To me it’s one of those nonsense questions, wherein there are valid words, but their assembly forms nonsense.
Perhaps the word “purpose†would make more sense, but then I would also have difficulty in answering that question too. “What is the purpose of life?†Life in general, in ........
The purpose of life is to reproduce...
Any other questions, Antisthenes? :)
A chicken is an egg's way of producing more eggs.
Ignorance of Science and lack of Education on simple facts is not new.
It's been replaced with social networking, drama,cinema,publicity stunts and highly stylized personal grooming shown to us every day by the "House wives from Hell".
Science= 0........Hottie=power and attention.
I'm an Amateur Astronomer who does Public outreach at schools and other events.
The ignorant comments send us reeling at times. (picture some smartphoneass holding his smartphone up to a known planet and challenging us with :" Are you sure? this App says it isn't!") :o :'(
Ignorance of science and lack of education is the Republican party's method of choice for the maintenance of a permanent political majority.
That's why their top priorities are defunding education and opposing abortion / birth control, so that they can have legions of slack jawed hillbilly nitwits that will vote for them no matter how they are abused.
This will offset the union workers and ethnic minorities who (unfortunately) had the opportunity of becoming better educated as a result of previous government "largesse" and started voting in their own self best interest.
Ladies and Gentlemen and children of all ages;
I submit for your viewing pleasure the following video, so that you may be introduced to your next President of the United States of America:
http://www.youtube.com/v/e77xjH6VO7E&hl
Beautiful video Midway. This politico/economic mess has me worried, and stumped frankly. I’m more concerned about the “political†problem because its solution, which is very unlikely any time soon, could release, finally, a consistent string of correct decisions regarding the “economyâ€. I presume that there “are†correct decisions targeted to affect the economy which “could†be made by our government. A string of these correct decisions would move our economy to a position of improvement and solution.
This allows me to say that the poor state of our economy is a direct result of incorrect decisions made by our government over the past several decades. The decisions of course, although covering many areas of our society, also include the ones affecting the regulation of banking and Wall Street.
Admitting that there are many aspects to an “economyâ€, and that the entire scenario is complex, one might still suggest that an economy will function properly and with stability over long periods if, for the most part, it is left alone to flow according to the pressures of supply and demand, according to the dynamics of finance, distribution and international trade. This ideal condition of stability might require only the occasional “control†by way of governmental decisions so that unwanted extremes do not take the economic machine to a sustained condition of imbalance.
Obviously our economic situation, including unemployment, the national debt, and individual debt in the housing market, is in terrible shape, and could get much worse. Most of us are aware that we are vulnerable as a nation, and as individuals, and that we could face much harsher economic realities.
My view is that our government, because it is infused with too many individuals intent on achieving and maintaining their own wealth and the wealth of those who support them; because it is structured to satisfy the financially powerful individuals and corporations; because it has achieved over many decades the momentum and habit of corruption, it cannot serve the interests of the people, nor can it make the decisions necessary to cultivate and maintain a healthy economy.
Our government is corrupt. We are the victims of worsening conditions brought about by it. Our current very precarious economy has been brought to the brink of collapse because of several decades of actions and inactions by our inept and corrupt government.
The established governmental machine, running amuck in a sea of corrupt and inept politicians and lobbyists, cannot be “fixed†by a few well-meaning legislators or a president, and this is because its structure of corruptness is too entrenched, too rigid to be affected by those few who wish to make decisions having genuine motives for the good of our country and our people.
This entrenched corruptness and ineptitude will continue to allow our government to be ineffective, to make poor decisions on most fronts, including our occasional wars, until there is a major enlightenment, a realization of what has been happening in recent decades. A serious collapse, much more serious than that which we now endure, may produce the will, the momentum, and the mechanism to clean up the corruption within our government. Only then can our economy be addressed with the correct decisions to affect a recovery and a stabilization that we all deserve. Could there be a revolution, similar to France in 1789, where some heads would roll? That possible event would be interesting as hell. Would it be fun for some of us. I have fantasies of seeing some particular heads roll.
But of course we, as sheep, bound and somewhat helpless by our distance from the governmental machine of corruptness, must for the most part, simply wait to see what happens, and hope for the impossible; that enough of the idiots in Washington will stop playing the games of favoritism and “politicsâ€, so that they can begin a movement toward sanity in government.
I imagine that there are those in Washington, in finance and other powerful positions, who are worth perhaps 15 million. And I suspect that many of these same individuals, in order to become worth 15 billion, will do “anything†to get to that 15 billion dollar level of net worth, even if it includes causing many millions of our citizens, who work very hard all day, to drop below the poverty level; even if it includes causing the suffering and death of millions of our citizens, and the citizens of other countries.
Please understand, in these particular cases, I am one who would love to see some heads roll. I would fight to operate the machine called the guillotine. In fact, if conditions evolve to the point wherein a guillotine is needed to serve sweet justice for this kind of individual, and if it is difficult to find a guillotine, I will volunteer my time to design and build one. I’ve always loved to build things.
While I don't share your bloodlust, I certainly agree with the substance of your post.
Remember: the French Revolution ended up killing far more than were culpable in France's economic woes. (Bolshevism?) It also saw Napolean Bonaparte fill the void left in it's wake. Who would be our new Emperor?
There is very little ideology in DC. Almost any of the principled ideologues in congress would (attempt to) serve the purpose of dismantling the MIC/Bankster oligarchy.
This is why any principled liberal should be pimping Ron Paul. Give me Bernie Sanders as well. Ideology means nothing until the truly entrenched oligarchy is removed.
End the wars and defeat the banksters. Then we can have the discussion about the proper role of the constitution and government.
I completely agree with Midaway, and buckethead, and partly with ronchamblin!
Willfully creating ignorance is the name of the game among Republicans simply for the sake of power.
The core of our problems is that we are all fighting over a smaller piece of an ever increasing pie. In order for us to accept this we are given all kinds of boogey men to blame for our troubles:
1. the poor
2. the immigrants
It's easy for people who are scared and disorganized to be vulnerable to demagogues.
It is also easy to feed uneducated/ignorant people bald lies, expecially when they are repeated often enough:
Here are some of the lies being fed by the GOP:
Lie #1: "Trickle Down" Tax Cuts
Big Corporations are already sitting on over 2 trillion dollars that they are not investing. Their record profits aren't being used to "create jobs"
Lie #2: Shrink government to create jobs
How do fewer people building our roads, fewer teachers, fewer firefighters create jobs?
Stock meaningless GOP response: "government gets in the way," but they can't explain how that works.
Conclusion: Shrinking government results in fewer jobs.
Lie #3: Taxes on Rich hurt the Economy
Lie #4: Debt Boogeyman
Long term debt is because of healthcare costs. Medicare for all will bring down healthcare costs. Pay for healthy outcomes, rather than pay for upping the number of expensive procedures.
Lie #5: Social Security is a ponzi scheme
Lie #6: We need to tax the Poor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8uf-ZXLABE
http://www.youtube.com/v/S8uf-ZXLABE
[/quote]
Quote from: buckethead on September 18, 2011, 07:00:48 AM
While I don't share your bloodlust, I certainly agree with the substance of your post.
Remember: the French Revolution ended up killing far more than were culpable in France's economic woes. (Bolshevism?) It also saw Napolean Bonaparte fill the void left in it's wake. Who would be our new Emperor?
There is very little ideology in DC. Almost any of the principled ideologues in congress would (attempt to) serve the purpose of dismantling the MIC/Bankster oligarchy.
This is why any principled liberal should be pimping Ron Paul. Give me Bernie Sanders as well. Ideology means nothing until the truly entrenched oligarchy is removed.
End the wars and defeat the banksters. Then we can have the discussion about the proper role of the constitution and government.
While my guillotine idea is part fantasy, it offers a small degree of urgency to our predicament. And yes, there are individuals in congress who would, if the entrenched “system†could be breached, take action against the special interest favoritism, against the “bankstersâ€, and all others who gain mercilessly at the expense of the average hard working Joe.
What will it take to breach the entrenched established oligarchy? My guess is that at some point, before the total collapse of our economy and societal order; there will be, because the increasingly obvious will become knowledge to all but those most blinded by ignorance and religious attachments, an increasing awareness of the disastrous and failed condition of our governmental structure and performance. This awareness will increasingly penetrate into the minds of more of our sleeping population, even those formerly held captive by the absurdities and propaganda of the established rightists (sounds Soviet doesn’t it).
The increased awareness of obvious abuse and failures of government; the increased recognition of the value of rational thought, the abandonment of religious entanglements and the reliance on prayer in our government, the abandonment of the ridiculous and shameful projection of one’s “fabricated†religious attachments as a means to gain the support of the sheep who have very little knowledge of the sciences or of history â€" all of these trends will increasingly cause occasional flights or departures by former complacent “rightests†to something else; to any position or camp where their efforts and decisions can be based on a genuine desire to form a better country, to realize a better society for “all†of our citizens.
Many are blind. Some can see. It should be the task of those who see, to help the blind to see also. But yes, Bucket, although I am not completely knowledgeable about Ron Paul’s thinking and position, I am inclined to look to him as one who might be capable of leading our country. I will look further at his positions. And I do not know of Sanders at this point. In any case, the current governmental structure of corruption, favoritism and entrenched habits of making absurd decisions, will not allow “anyone†to effectively make the decisions necessary for the ultimate good of our country and our citizens. The shell of habit must be broken.
Obama is overcome by the entrenched establishment of absurdities. Perhaps we do need an Emperor as you ponder; one who would not worry about the next election, and would force the use of his or her power so that perhaps reason and rational thought would reign supreme, overcoming the entrenched motives of greed and power, and overcoming the motives of those who wish to maintain the status quo only because they are favored by it.
Quote from: FayeforCure on September 18, 2011, 09:56:27 AM
I completely agree with Midaway, and buckethead, and partly with ronchamblin!
Willfully creating ignorance is the name of the game among Republicans simply for the sake of power.
The core of our problems is that we are all fighting for a smaller piece of an ever increasing pie. In order for us to accept this we are given all kinds of boogey men to blame for our troubles:
1. the poor
2. the immigrants
It's easy for people who are scared and disorganized to be vulnerable to demagogues.
It is also easy to feed uneducated/ignorant people bald lies, expecially when they are repeated often enough:
Here are some of the lies being fed by the GOP:
Lie #1: "Trickle Down" Tax Cuts
Big Corporations are already sitting on over 2 trillion dollars that they are not investing. Their record profits aren't being used to "craete jobs"
Lie #2: Shrink government to create jobs
How do fewer people building our roads, fewer teachers, fewer firefighters create jobs?
Stock meaningless GOP response: "government gets in the way," but they can't explain how that works.
Conclusion: Shrinking government results in fewer jobs.
Lie #3: Taxes on Rich hurt the Economy
Lie #4: Debt Boogeyman
Long term debt is because of healthcare costs. Medicare for all will bring down healthcare costs. Pay for healthy outcomes, rather than pay for upping the number of expensive procedures.
Lie #5: Social Security is a ponzi scheme
Lie #6: We need to tax the Poor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8uf-ZXLABE
http://www.youtube.com/v/S8uf-ZXLABE
[/quote]C'mon, Faye!
You gave me Robert Riech to bolster your position?
Labor Secretary under Bill Clinton as China gained most favored trading partner status?
The same guy who chummed around the NAFTA issue? I won't blame him for repealing Glass-Steagal but he wasn't too far from the oval office when it happened.
I saw a few things in your post that were false premises but for the sake of our common interest, I'll refrain from making an issue of them. After all, we agree on the larger issue which must be dealt with before any other discussion is worth having.
Quote from: buckethead on September 18, 2011, 10:43:58 AM
You gave me Robert Riech to bolster your position?
But what part of this video is untrue?
I did not watch the video. I do read him three or four times a week. He actually has some reasonable things to say, but most of his more cogent points end up so slathered in ideology they lose power.
To find one good point in a ten minute rant is about as good as it gets with him, especially considering his former position of power as meaningless rhetoric spewer as the administration he was part of committed so many blunders directly relating to labor.
It all adds up to a loss of credibility, imo.
Enjoyed Mr. Reich’s talk. His ideas are addressing some important realities. I’m not familiar with his past associations. However, given the recent events and trends, I allow for anyone to change his or her opinions. He did not address however, the issue to which I tend to give attention, which is that of the “mechanism†to action; that is, the means through which we can force these needed changes. As I’ve been stressing â€" it is currently almost impossible to breach the wall of stagnation in our government. This is partially the words of a cynic, but it is also the truth, as if it were not we would have seen some progress toward economic solutions during recent years, and there would be some optimism about our efforts to recover from the current mess. Our current leadership scenario is stagnated by its structure, wherein infighting and favoritism prevents needed actions. In the old days, revolution would occasionally breach the wall of stagnation. But that was the old days -- except of course the current events in some African and Middle East countries.
Just as in our own city, with its efforts to revitalize the city core --even if we have the ideas and the goals set before us, they are of no consequence if there is no viable machine or mechanism through which the ideas and needs can be realized by decisions resulting in “actionâ€. Whether in the national scene, or in our own city government, good leadership in the form of a mayor or a president, or even by way of individuals in congress, is of little consequence “if†the mechanism of government is plagued by entrenched attributes and unnecessary complexities (bureaucracies) that, by their very existence, obstructs needed decisions and actions.
Throughout history the occasionally enlightened Czar, King, or Dictator accomplished great things, even occasionally for the citizens, because of the simplicity of the mechanism for achieving “actionâ€. I do not suggest this kind of governmental structure, but it makes the point of the necessity to at least approach its simplicity â€" its ability to form a singular focus for action. In the decision making process, there was no infighting by those greedily wanting to get a bigger piece of the pie. The Czar or the King was a singular force for action.
This is why I at times avoid details of specific needs and goals, as these are repeated over and over, and focus instead on achieving or establishing the mechanism through which all of these needs and goals “can†be reached. It’s much like the fellow who knows he wants to cross the ocean, and attempts to do so without a boat or an airplane. I prefer to build the boat or an airplane first; that is, the effective mechanism to accomplish the objectives set before me, and then decide upon which shore I wish to land. This kind of thinking is why I am always right. ;D
Faye; I believe you meant to say a bigger piece of an ever smaller pie?
And Ronchamblin, if you want any of the proletariat to understand what you are saying, you will need to limit your discourse to monosyllabic words.
Quote from: Midway on September 18, 2011, 12:26:26 PM
And Ronchamblin, if you want any of the proletariat to understand what you are saying, you will need to limit your discourse to monosyllabic words.
Surely you jest Midway. I always try to use simple words because I know few others. In any case, everything written should be according to the anticipated reader, and according to the most efficient way for the writer. I never attempt to search for a word to use simply because it might cause some to believe that I wish to project some kind of artificial sophistication. Simplicity in all realms achieves the best results, and sometimes the only results. :)
I guess I left this out.... ;)
You know, it really comes down to what the conservative (white) establishment sees as the end of a white majority that has been in place for the first 240 years of this country's existence. It is a major demographic upheaval, and the ruling class won't give it up without a fight. What you are seeing on Fox News is that fight, labeled as a return to "traditional values", like say for instance segregated schools, that's a "traditional" value. Or perhaps a poll tax, that's very "traditional".
Ah yes... racism...
Race? Absolutely! Why not? The dynamics of our political scenarios has always included a race component; just as it includes extreme inequalities of wealth and power. If we had a big pie, we could show the entire politico/economic problem; wherein the pie is divided up, showing the size of the piece concerned with race, with religious issues, with wealth distribution, with each component of the overall problem. The size and shape of the race component has changed over the past few decades. The size is surely smaller and the shape has changed somewhat, but it's still with us.
QuoteYou know, it really comes down to what the conservative (white) establishment sees as the end of a white majority that has been in place for the first 240 years of this country's existence. It is a major demographic upheaval, and the ruling class won't give it up without a fight. What you are seeing on Fox News is that fight, labeled as a return to "traditional values", like say for instance segregated schools, that's a "traditional" value. Or perhaps a poll tax, that's very "traditional".
Ya... it's whitey trying to keep everyone else down.
Race might be used against rank and file Americans as a means of dividing peoples with otherwise common interests, but race is not the driving force behind any major policy initiatives.
Economics, however...
Take the bucket off of your head.
There are only a few thousand people, probably much less than that, that really run the country, and its not the president or congress.
We almost agree there, but the President and Congress are complicit in "running" the country.
along with those "few thousand".
They are not complicit, they act on orders, they are foot soldiers.
As if they are soldiers? Bound by an oath of loyalty? Duty? Honor?
I disagree.
Another difference is the fact that they actually wield power whereas a foot soldier may ONLY obey orders.
Absolve politicians if you wish, but that absolution exists only within your mind.
Our dilemma is solvable within the confines of our current governmental system, if only the voters stop voting for the machine which threatens us.
You already know my guy is part of the threat ;) (That's the easy part)... Now you must ask yourself whether your guy is as well.
Quote from: Midway on September 18, 2011, 12:23:39 PM
Faye; I believe you meant to say a bigger piece of an ever smaller pie?
No actually the pie is getting bigger all the time...........ie record profits.
It's just that the ordinary worker is getting a lesser share of an ever increasing pie.
THAT is our fundamental structural problem. See graph below:
(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2011-08-26-corp_prof_comp.png)
What you are seeing is "workers" by which I assume you mean laborers as opposed to white collar types and investors, are not participating in an ever increasing portion of the economy coupled with stagnant real wage growth.
The globalization genie is out of the bottle.
Do you offer a solution to put the genie back into the bottle? Perhaps some suggestions for ways of adapting?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/ever-increasing-tax-breaks-for-us-families-eclipse-benefits-for-special-interests/2011/09/15/gIQAgdjcaK_story.html?hpid=z1
QuoteAs President Obama and congressional Republicans argue over how to rewrite the U.S. tax code, the debate has revolved around “loopholes†for corporate jets and ending “carve-outs†for well-heeled special interests. But if the goal is debt reduction, that’s not where the money is.
Broad tax breaks granted to millions of families at all income levels dwarf the corporate giveaways. Over the past two years, largely because of these popular benefits in the federal income tax code, the government has reached a rare milestone in tax collection â€" it has given away nearly as much as it takes in....
Quote from: buckethead on September 19, 2011, 07:25:20 AM
Our dilemma is solvable within the confines of our current governmental system, if only the voters stop voting for the machine which threatens us.
prove it.
Join me, and together we will.
This “tax the rich†question interests me, as it brings forth another question concerning what the rich might “owe†to the society within which they made their millbillions. It’s much like the individual who drives upon the road, enjoying its smoothness, and then doesn’t wish to contribute payment for it through taxes, or perhaps demands a payment of only pennies.
A modern society, stabilized in citizen behavior, economic function and transportation infrastructure; and a society safe from foreign intrusion, from epidemics, can be created and maintained only through great cost and sacrifice. While it is true that the individual millbillionaires, and the multibillionaire corporations made their seemingly obscene wealth by means of legitimate hard work and creative use of their initial assets, and in some cases via unethical operations, one might ask how much do these moneyed giants owe in taxes to their society, their nation, and their fellow citizens who provide the necessary consumer base for their products and services â€" all being contributors to the establishment and maintenance of the stable environment and infrastructure within which these giant money makers can make their millions and billions.
As a part of their gross income, should these millbillionaires pay a smaller percentage of gross income in taxes than the middle class? A friend, who grossed some gross amount of income per year complained to me about four years ago that his net income would be only about $890,000 for that year, and that he was maneuvering methods to pay less taxes. I sort of lost it for a moment, and said to him, “You mean that you can’t live on a TAKE HOME pay of $890,000?†I asked him about his concern for the families and individuals on the edge of poverty. What is this mentality?
In any case, the very fact that most of the millbillionaires currently pay in taxes via percentage of gross income about the same as the middle class, or even less in many cases, is obscene, and indicates that they believe they make their money in isolation, apart from the society within which their wealth is made, and certainly without regard for the costs of creating and maintaining that stable society. The current tax rate distribution also indicates that there are far too many legislators in office who have little concern for our nation as whole, little concern for our fellow citizens who by misfortune or other causes, are being forced to endure poverty, or to endure an unnecessarily heavy tax burden.
The obscenely wealthy. The privileged elite, secret power. The real government. The greedy. The ignorant. The deluded. The complacent. The flawed governmental structure. I began this evening to sketch my design for a guillotine.
But seriously. How is it that we have a power structure, a government, in this country that obviously is simply incompetent, or non-functional? How or why has this happened? How can it be? This two-party stalemate and infighting is insane. Is it simply that too many legislators give in to greed, and to the lobbyist pressures? Is there a racial component? Is there a religious component? Is there too little knowledge of the sciences, a resolution of which would at least reduce the religious component, which in turn would reduce the level of hogwash, delusions, and lying, which in turn might allow for sensible legislation and cooperation, which in turn might save this economy, and this country from further deterioration.
Our governmental structure has been allowed to evolve to a flawed structure wherein there is no way to get out of the mess we are in. There is no mechanism for efficient and effective debate and consensus. There is no mechanism for making the right decisions to achieve the best direction for our country, or to accommodate the needs of our citizens. We float in a sea of an ineffective flipflopping of congressional control which results in nonsense and an insane condition of stagnation. We are dead in the water, polluted water, and have no functioning engine to move us on.
I just found this interesting short video of Robert Reich's talk about the economy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTzMqm2TwgE&feature=player_embedded
Quote from: ronchamblin on September 19, 2011, 10:37:50 PM
I just found this interesting short video of Robert Reich's talk about the economy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTzMqm2TwgE&feature=player_embedded
Yup, the economy explained in just 2 min. and 15 seconds, for everone to understand.
Faye, I must tell you, for several years you appeared to be kind of a loon with your political views. It just didn't seem like any of that was actually possible, and there were probably better explanations for what was going on with any given thing. But the more I've learned, that we've all learned I think, about the agenda in Washington, and the agenda in our own state under Rick Scott, the cheering for the "freedom" to die of curable diseases because you can't afford health insurance, etc., the more I've realized that you were actually right all along. I'm about as liberal in many ways as it gets, and I still didn't think what's actually happening was really possible. But it is.
I suspect much of this country is in for a very rude awakening.
Thanks Stephen. When you get a chance, and if you are willing to give me secret info, would you please convey to me the method of placing the video as you did? This would be better than my simply placing the url. 8)
Quote from: ronchamblin on September 20, 2011, 02:49:37 PM
Thanks Stephen. When you get a chance, and if you are willing to give me secret info, would you please convey to me the method of placing the video as you did? This would be better than my simply placing the url. 8)
He's explained it to me like 17 times and I still can't get it to work right. So good luck on that one, lol!
http://www.youtube.com/v/o64Fz-KW1Dk
For youtube videos it is pretty easy...
1) Select the flash button right above the :)
2) Copy the embed info... see below.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/o64Fz-KW1Dk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
3) Cut the bolded section and paste into the flash brackets.
4) Change the /embed/ to /v/
5) Replace the 200,200 with the 560, 315 in the embed code
Finally PREVIEW before posting... enjoy! :)
Oh, wow! Thanks ! I'm gonna try this now;
1) Select the flash button right above the :)
ummm...ok
2) Copy the embed info... see below.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/o64Fz-KW1Dk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
done
3) Cut the bolded section and paste into the flash brackets.
Uhhh....lemme think.....ok I think I got it...
4) Change the /embed/ to /v/
This one's tough....oh! there it is!
5) Replace the 200,200 with the 560, 315 in the embed code
All right! now let's see if it works;
http://www.youtube.com/v/IAaDVOd2sRQ
Hey look! I'm posting movies!
I knew you could do it... :)
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 20, 2011, 12:34:36 PM
Faye, I must tell you, for several years you appeared to be kind of a loon with your political views. It just didn't seem like any of that was actually possible, and there were probably better explanations for what was going on with any given thing. But the more I've learned, that we've all learned I think, about the agenda in Washington, and the agenda in our own state under Rick Scott, the cheering for the "freedom" to die of curable diseases because you can't afford health insurance, etc., the more I've realized that you were actually right all along. I'm about as liberal in many ways as it gets, and I still didn't think what's actually happening was really possible. But it is.
I suspect much of this country is in for a very rude awakening.
Thank you sooooooo much ChriswUfGator. It truly is incredibly hard to believe the inane destructiveness of power hungry politicians and some of their insane policy changes that serve corporatism rather than the people. It's been so insideous over the past 30 years, that the gradual "drip, drip" went unnoticed by most.
Though I credit many insightful sources online for my own realization, I also think that as an immigrant I have been a bit more studious of the changes that were going on in the US.
I am sure many people thought I was exagerating ( to put it kindly), and as much as I hate to be vindicated, I value people like you and stephendare sharing your changed perspective about me.
It is hard to be a lone voice locally against conventional wisdom, even if we always shared a liberal perspective.
BTW, I still remember when the word liberal was a dirty word here in Jacksonville. I had to remind my neighbors about the value of "liberty and justice for all" as the root of being "a liberal."
That's just the problem. Most people don't realize how bad things can get and how badly it will affect them, until they are shown. They need an object lesson to understand what's really happening. Then a couple of years later, they forget all about it because they become fascinated with staring at the latest small shiny object from China.
Quote
Scientists Revolt
Rick Perry officials spark revolt after doctoring environment report
Scientists ask for names to be removed after mentions of climate change and sea-level rise taken out by Texas officials
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Friday 14 October 2011 08.05 EDT
Article history
Rick Perry's administration deleted references to climate change and sea-level rise from the report. Photograph: Evan Vucci/AP
Officials in Rick Perry's home state of Texas have set off a scientists' revolt after purging mentions of climate change and sea-level rise from what was supposed to be a landmark environmental report. The scientists said they were disowning the report on the state of Galveston Bay because of political interference and censorship from Perry appointees at the state's environmental agency.
By academic standards, the protest amounts to the beginnings of a rebellion: every single scientist associated with the 200-page report has demanded their names be struck from the document. "None of us can be party to scientific censorship so we would all have our names removed," said Jim Lester, a co-author of the report and vice-president of the Houston Advanced Research Centre.
"To me it is simply a question of maintaining scientific credibility. This is simply antithetical to what a scientist does," Lester said. "We can't be censored." Scientists see Texas as at high risk because of climate change, from the increased exposure to hurricanes and extreme weather on its long coastline to this summer's season of wildfires and drought.
However, Perry, in his run for the Republican nomination, has elevated denial of science, from climate change to evolution, to an art form. He opposes any regulation of industry, and has repeatedly challenged the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Texas is the only state to refuse to sign on to the federal government's new regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. "I like to tell people we live in a state of denial in the state of Texas," said John Anderson, an oceanography at Rice University, and author of the chapter targeted by the government censors.
That state of denial percolated down to the leadership of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. The agency chief, who was appointed by Perry, is known to doubt the science of climate change. "The current chair of the commission, Bryan Shaw, commonly talks about how human-induced climate change is a hoax," said Anderson.
But scientists said they still hoped to avoid a clash by simply avoiding direct reference to human causes of climate change and by sticking to materials from peer-reviewed journals. However, that plan began to unravel when officials from the agency made numerous unauthorised changes to Anderson's chapter, deleting references to climate change, sea-level rise and wetlands destruction.
"It is basically saying that the state of Texas doesn't accept science results published in Science magazine," Anderson said. "That's going pretty far."
Officials even deleted a reference to the sea level at Galveston Bay rising five times faster than the long-term average â€" 3mm a year compared to .5mm a year â€" which Anderson noted was a scientific fact. "They just simply went through and summarily struck out any reference to climate change, any reference to sea level rise, any reference to human influence â€" it was edited or eliminated," said Anderson. "That's not scientific review that's just straight forward censorship."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/14/rick-perry-texas-censorship-environment-report
"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean â€" neither more nor less."
Substitute Rick Perry for the egg.