When does a Republican not run as a Republican? When the office sought is on the Wake County School Board. The admission that Deborah Prickett changed her party affiliation from Republican to Unaffiliated in order to run (successfully) for the Board of Education in Raleigh, because she thought that being Republican might hurt her chances, brings up an obvious question:
Why would voters conceivably think twice about electing a Republican, any Republican, to a school board, any school board?
Might it be that Republicans (especially in the South, bless its heart) don't really believe in public education and have extolled the virtues of being rich enough to afford private schools, or being brilliant enough to home-school your own youngins?
Or might it be that Republicans (esp. in South, yadda yadda), even when they believe that public education is okay, are a trifle concerned about the complexion of the kid sitting next to their own lily white offspring?
Or might it be that Republicans seem awfully willing to throw science out of the curriculum in favor of Creationism and to do what they can to prepare students in public schools for life in, say, the 12th Century rather than the 21st?
Whatever, now that Deborah Prickett is firmly installed on the Wake County Board of Education, she's gotten all brave and stuff and declared that she's actually a Republican and damn proud of it! Which only helps explain the severe right turn that educational policies have recently made in Wake County.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Stealth
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
104 comments:
We have discussed, on numerous occasions, leftist bias in the classroom, and some on this site have declared that it does not exist. Yet here, right in the meat of the post, J.W. declares that education should only be handled by leftists.
Republicans should not be allowed near our children, lest they interfere with the children's education by leftists. Got it!
Mike, I think if you scratch most creationists, YECs and ID'ers you will find a Republican under that claim of quality, family-values education for our children.
They push their philosophy on the classroom. We sue. They lose. They back off for a while and mumble. They come back. We sue. They lose etc. etc. etc.
Shyster,
Bias is bias. I understand that this is a liberal site, but come on!!!
No conservatives should be allowed to educate children??? This is not Venezuela!!!
If we are going to discuss politics with children at all, is it not appropriate to allow advocates for multiple philosophies to present their positions to the children, and let the kids make up their own minds?
Otherwise, what we are discussing is straightforward brainwashing. I don't think either of us supports that.
No conservatives should be allowed to educate children??? This is not Venezuela!!! * Mike
What do you have against Venezuela besides being a white Gringo who has no understanding of the Latin Culture against foreigh Corporations who seek to rob and plunder their assets in the name of Republican unfree markets! Stop defending Corporate fascists and for gosh sakes stop believing Sara Palin on how to educate children in the name of a Republican Polar Bear God....
I believe the point of this post is that the Republican in question has that endemic disease of the party, hypocrisy. She pretended to values she does not actually hold in order to get her foot in the door. Then she betrayed those voters who believed they were electing an actual independent. Republicans today don't seem to care for the idea of actual honest Democracy.
guest said it all
Rethugs today seem to also be devoid of character.
Mike D: Give it a rest on "leftist" educators. Educated people believe in science. Sorry.
Shyster: This is also not Argentina. "Sorry about that, Chief." - M.S.
<span>"Why</span> would voters conceivably think twice about electing a Republican, <span>any Republican</span>, to a school board, <span>any school board</span>?"
J.W.'s words, not mine.
A conservative political opinion has no place in public education. It's your forum. This is the blatant opinion of the forum.
Max,
I do not get my Venezuela news from Sarah Palin, nor do I get any news or any opinions from her, and I think you know this very well.
I get my Venezuela news mainly from venezuelanalysis.com, a pro-Chavez propagandized news site.
Guest,
If you did not have a horse in the race, you would take out the word "Republican", and replace it with the word 'politician'.
What I don't get is that Climate Change has somehow become a political issue. Conservatives don't believe in it because Al Gore started talking about, and he is a Democrat. Does this make sense in terms of scientific debate?
RV,
The funny thing to me is that those who deny global warming and criticize its advocates for using anecdotal evidence to form their theories now point to their own anecdotal evidence to disprove the same theories. Sometimes it seems like fans rooting for particular sports teams, finding any excuse to yell out that the other team sucks!
I think the whole business is a bit silly. It's always either hailing, or windy, or cold, or warm. It fluctuates, and it's called weather. We are all going to kill each other before the oceans begin to rise anyway.
RE: Educated People & Science
See below. I think it bears repetition, Mike. The silliness seems to come from the disbelievers.
Trends are measurable. That is called science.
Sorry, BikerBard,
Both sides take themselves way too seriously, and both sides, even your team, seem very, very silly to me.
Mike, washing your hands of scientific discussion because we are all going to kill eachother anyway is the silliest thing I have heard all day. Just stick your head in the sand if you want to see silly.
RV,
I agree wholeheartedly! I get lonely surrounded by silly people sometimes, and I get the urge to join in their silly fun!
"Clowns <span><span>to the left of me,
Joker's to the right,
Here I am Stuck in the middle with you." - Steve Miller Band</span></span>
Mike D: So you are you are now taking a condescending position when called out for being silly. You are repositioning to be above it all and just joining in on the silliness? Lame, Mike.
biker; its part of dicker's shape shifting. he won't take responsibility for being caught with his pants down. ever. quite representative of the right wingers; always right and never wrong.
BikerBard,
It is my understanding that scientific discovery typically occurs in the following manner:
1) Scientist identifies a problem or area of study.
2) Scientist performs background research to see what other scientists have determined about the particular subject.
3) Scientist forms an hypothesis that he or she plans to test.
4) Scientist develops experiment or experiments to test said hypothesis.
5) Scientist sets up conditions of experiment... specific, anomylous conditions under which he or she can observe results.
6) Scientist develops control group as a point of reference, to perform experiment under conditions which remove the anomylous conditions set forth for his or her experiment.
7) Scientist observes and catalogs reactions under the two conditions.
8) Scientist compares results of two experiments.
9) Scientist attempts to apply results to determine if original hypothesis was proven through experiment.
10) Scientist forms theory based on provability through experimentation of original hypothesis.
11) Scientist publishes documentation of hypothesis, experiment, control, deviation and error, and conclusion (including resulting theory).
Global warming research lacks the all important inclusion of a control group. Without a control group, conclusions cannot be made with any degree of certainty.
Unless you know of another planet Earth without humans, there is no way to filter out contributions from geothermal, solar, and other activity. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. If planet Earth's climate follows a cyclical pattern, be it 1,500 years or 10,000 years, it is not possible to perform direct comparisons to previous climatic cycles by comparing sensitive, modern temperature data collection with evidence buried under rock and soil from 10,000 years ago.
Modern global warming research, in its current form, is only returning untested hypotheses.
Is this "<span>washing [my] hands of scientific discussion"?</span>
Those who deny the existence of global warming by pointing to a particularly harsh winter, or even a decade-long cooling trend, are guilty of the same faulty science.
This, to me, is as silly as the unscientific practices of global warming advocates.
You are correct Mike. But be aware there has not been a decade long cooling trend recently. And I don't know who, if anyone is advocating for global warming. There are many people, mostly scientists who are seriously concerned that it is occurring and threatening our civilization. This is not the same as advocating.
Al Gore is openly selling the existence of global warming. The expansion of his fortune depends on his advocacy.
<span><span>Mike D.</span><span></span><img></img></span>
<span>Max,
I do not get my Venezuela news from Sarah Palin, nor do I get any news or any opinions from her, and I think you know this very well.
I get my Venezuela news mainly from venezuelanalysis.com, a pro-Chavez propagandized news site.</span>
<span></span>
<span>Well! Stop getting it from a CIA Control Site and start getting here from Cindy.....Now shape it up or I am shipping you to a Starbucks Coffee Planation in South Central LA!</span>
http://cindysheehanssoapbox.blogspot.com/2010/02/pre-order-todos-somos-americanos-today.html
Mike, Al Gore had plenty of money before he started this gig. And most of the people who are really really worried and trying to educate people are not making money off the controversy.
And Al is not advocating for global climate change, he is advocating for trying to mitigate it.
Mike: You have not written the definative word on science. This from Wilkepedia: "Science is a continuing effort to discover and increase human <span>knowledge</span> and understanding through disciplined research." That is EXACTLY what scientists are attempting to do with global warming. They did it with the ozone layer, and now we all wear sunscreen and look for skin cancer cells. UNHEARD OF 50 years ago. Now we are tackling rising sea levels and fading icecaps. Will result in problems some day. Scientists are trying to get us to stop being so damned short-sighted.
And I agree with Bridle RE Al Gore. He is just the scapegoat for the disbelievers.
Mike - RE the scientific method. Here it is in a nutshell.
Observe something
Develop a question
generate a hypothesis that addresses your question (via induction)
Create a testable prediction based on your hypothesis (deduction)
Test or observe
Not all hypotheses and predictions are amenable to laboratory testing. Some must be observed. If your hypothesis is that humans evolved in Africa, you would predict that the oldest hominid fossils would be found in Africa. You would predict that human populations in Africa have the greatest genetic diversity. You would predict that sub-populations migrated out of Africa and could be traced by their DNA. Then you would make observations that attempt to disprove your hypothesis. If none of your observations disproves your hypothesis you may accept it.
A well supported hypothesis has evidence from many different observations. Eventually it becomes a theory.
Global climate change is supported by many different types of measurements and observations.
<span>Environmentalist: The Earth is warming.
Skeptic: Then why was my heat bill higher in January?</span>
Huckle Buck:
Here is your answer: Polar icecaps are melting = more water on the earth = more moisture = more SNOW = colder swings of temperature = need for more heat in your house.
You are being ironic, yes?
I believe he was indeed engaged in farce, Bridle. Otherwise, that's exactly what I was laughing about: applying anecdotal evidence to disprove a theory that one objects to on the grounds that it was formed upon anecdotal evidence.
If what you guys say is true, there should be no need to apply political and social pressure to those minority voices who attempt to publicly reject the theory. There should be no need to manipulate and suppress data that might disprove the theory, as the overwhelming evidence which supports the theory should be able to speak for itself. There should be no need to release promotional documentaries. There should be no need to advocate the theory on MTV.
Applying political and social pressure, manipulating and suppressing data, and encouraging popularity for a theory in the general population... these are fundamental components of scientific discovery???
The problem is there is a huge powerful lobby that is working to discredit the science. Check out the book "Sleeping with the Devil" if you can. It will give an idea about how much power the oil industry has and how much influence in our government. Scientific findings are often incompatible with ideology or established structures. Look how much trouble Galileo got into when his scientific observations contradicted church dogma. Darwin delayed publishing his seminal work for decades because he was so worried about the reaction from the establishment. For another example, look up the history of Nikolai Vavilov during the period of Lysenkoism in Russia. Because the Russian government was mired in ideology, their scientists who didn't toe the official line were persecuted, their biology programs were setback many years, and widespread suffering deaths resulted.
So, yes, sometimes we do need to counter the lies and ideology that are putting us all in danger.
Bridle,
No Way. Abandon truth, abandon scientific principle, abandon the moral high ground and resort to subterfuge and subversion because there is a counter-force who is willing to engage in the same behavior?
Are there two Bridles on this site? You cannot possibly be the same person who argued against torture in another thread just an hour ago!
<span>"The thought that people in my country, in my employ, did such things in my name, makes me extremely angry." - Bridle
</span>
Mike -It's OK to get angry. It's OK to fight injustice. Don't you agree? It's not OK to torture. Where did you get that I support torture?
I think what Mike D. was trying to say is that if you are going to maintain the moral high ground in the fight against terrorism, regardless of how barbaric the enemy is, then you ought to also maintain the moral high ground in the fight against global warming, regardless of how unscrupulous the oil industry is.
Unless al'Qaeda is not the enemy, but the oil industry is, getting back to my original question. Is al'Qaeda your enemy?
Mike D: You recently spoke words for me. Now you are posturing for Bridle? Why don't you just take care of Mike D.? The rest of us will speak and care for ourselves, without your assistance.
BikerBard,
What ideas put forth by Bridle have I misunderstood or misrepresented?
It could be farce or irony, but I doubt it because this is exactly what I have been hearing from people. Such as, "I wonder if Al Gore is selling any books <span>this</span> winter". This seems to be the conservative attitude toward the whole concept of climate change. Al Gore started it, so it has to be a profit-driven lie.
Mike, This is what you implied Bridle was in favor of: "manipulating and suppressing data" and then took her to task for abandoning the moral high ground. The only problem is, Bridle never advocated for that.
mike dicker continuing to make stuff up.
Mike D.,
You've described one of many research methods. Not all research uses control groups. For the record, though, GW research does make comparisons in much the same way you describe.
Another thing I forgot to mention, Mike: You said science is about "proving" hypotheses. Not true. It's about rejecting null hypotheses. Big difference. Usually, the result of the kind of experimental method you described is a low probability that the observed difference was the result of mere chance, meaning it is most likely that there is a real difference caused by whatever factor is being studied. It's not proof, but probability. Most of the greatest scientific contributions of all time have been the result of this type of analysis, and it would be foolish to suggest they're wrong merely because they're not "proven."
<span>"If what you guys say is true, there should be no need to apply political and social pressure to those minority voices who attempt to publicly reject the theory. There should be no need to manipulate and suppress data that might disprove the theory, as the overwhelming evidence which supports the theory should be able to speak for itself. There should be no need to release promotional documentaries. There should be no need to advocate the theory on MTV.
Applying political and social pressure, manipulating and suppressing data, and encouraging popularity for a theory in the general population... these are fundamental components of scientific discovery???" - Mike D.</span>
<span>"The problem is there is a huge powerful lobby that is working to discredit the science. Check out the book "Sleeping with the Devil" if you can. It will give an idea about how much power the oil industry has and how much influence in our government. Scientific findings are often incompatible with ideology or established structures. Look how much trouble Galileo got into when his scientific observations contradicted church dogma. Darwin delayed publishing his seminal work for decades because he was so worried about the reaction from the establishment. For another example, look up the history of Nikolai Vavilov during the period of Lysenkoism in Russia. Because the Russian government was mired in ideology, their scientists who didn't toe the official line were persecuted, their biology programs were setback many years, and widespread suffering deaths resulted.
So, yes, sometimes we do need to counter the lies and ideology that are putting us all in danger."</span> - Bridle
In simple form, RV, BikerBard, and Craig:
"<span><span>There should be no need to apply political and social pressure to those minority voices who attempt to publicly reject the theory. There should be no need to manipulate and suppress data that might disprove the theory, as the overwhelming evidence which supports the theory should be able to speak for itself. There should be no need to release promotional documentaries. There should be no need to advocate the theory on MTV." - Mike D.</span></span>
"<span><span>The problem is there is a huge powerful lobby that is working to discredit the science... </span></span><span><span>So, yes, sometimes we do need to counter the lies and ideology that are putting us all in danger</span></span>" - Bridle
I made up nothing.
to quote mikedicker; mumble, mumble, mumble, bullshit, bullshit, mumble, et, al.
Craig,
Your posts grow deeper and more philosophical by the day.
"Truly, you have a dizzying intellect." - The Man in Black (Princess Bride)
Mike, Bridle said "sometimes we do need to counter the lies and ideology that are putting us all in danger". She did not say to do this by manipulating and suppressing data. You buried that phrase in your paragraph and now are trying to say that Bridle is in favor of this and is therefore an unethical person.
RV,
I believe Bridle to be a highly ethical, warm and thoughtful, intellectual, friendly person, and I thoroughly enjoy the conversation we get to engage in on this site.
Sorry,
Guest was me.
Correction: Guest was I.
Mike D: You did posture for Bridle by "jumping the shark.". You have put words in my mouth on at least two occasions. Just apologise and move on.
AND I believe "me" (direct object) is correct usage here. ;)
BikerBard,
My parents taught me that a sentence is grammatically correct if constructed as "It was I who jumped the shark" because a pronoun that follows a linking verb acts as the subject of the sentence.
Would you say "It was him who put words in Bridle's mouth", or would you say "It was he who did it"?
Now, does anybody know what the definition of "is" is? ;)
Looks like he is backing up what he says. I don't see the same from you.
Boy you really showed him a thing to two with that retort
(sigh) http://hubpages.com/hub/Grammar_Mishaps__I_versus_Me
BikerBard,
Your link has absolutely nothing to do with the special grammatical case mentioned. Yes, I believe we all know that "I" is used when it is the subject in a sentence, and "me" is used when it is the object. Thank you, Professor Obvious! :)
This, from Wikipedia, deals a little more directly with the special case:
Both "It is I" and "It is me" have been common in English usage for centuries, the former tending to be used in more formal contexts, and there has been considerable debate among grammarians about which is "correct":
From the beginning in the 18th century, there were two camps. The earlier, apparently, is represented by Priestley 1761 [The Rudiments of English Grammar], who favors accepting it is me on grounds of custom... Lowth 1762 [A Short Introduction to English Grammar] heads the partisans of it is I, who clearly had Priestley outnumbered: Baker 1770, Campbell 1776, and Lindley Murray 1795 were on the side of the nominative. And these were the commentators whose preachments were accepted as gospel by the schoolmasters.<sup></sup><span>[</span>2<span>]</span>
This preference could be due to the model of Latin, where the complement of the copula is in the nominative case.<sup></sup><span>[</span>3<span>]</span> The practice of trying to model grammars of English on that of Latin has, however, fallen out of favor, and linguists today describe each language on its own terms.
Fiction writers have occasionally pointed out the "mistakes" of their characters in an authorial comment. In "The Curse of the Golden Cross," for example, G. K. Chesterton writes, "'He may be me,' said Father Brown, with cheerful contempt for grammar." And in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, C. S. Lewis writes, "'Come out, Mrs. Beaver. Come out, Sons and Daughters of Adam. It's all right! It isn't Her!' This was bad grammar of course, but that is how beavers talk when they are excited."
I believe Mike is correct in this case. One would use me, her, him as the direct object of any verb except the verb to be. So when you ask "Who stole the cookie?" The answer is " it was he who stole the cookie, not I " But it would sound too fussy in many contexts. There is prescriptive grammer, and descriptive grammer. I like to try and be correct but it aint always easy.
So, back to the conversation, if nobody minds.
When discussing al'Qaeda, I asked a direct question concerning whether or not al'Qaeda is the enemy. After asking a couple of times, the closest I could get to an answer was something vague. I don't remember exactly what it was, and I'm not going to search back through every post for the exact words unless someone wants to accuse me of speaking for others, but I believe the closest I could get to an answer was something about "anybody killing anybody is wrong". Verbal identification of al'Qaeda as the enemy was avoided.
Now, let's jump to the discussion about global warming, with attention to the ease with which an enemy can be verbally identified. Bam! Oil Industry! Just like that. No need to question. No need to prod. The oil industry and its powerful lobby, that is an easy enemy to name.
The problem is, in the minds of the overwhelming majority of Americans, the question concerning al'Qaeda is simple, straightforward, and easy to answer, while the global warming question is complex, unproven, and possibly fabricated by people with questionable motives. The people do not understand how you can answer a complex question so easily while not answering such a simple one.
Try not to get offended, and stay with me until I finish, please, because here comes the important part. While George Bush was in power, the general population did not expect you to answer questions. You could sit back and lob those questions in, point a finger at Bush, and let the people destroy him with their own doubts.
But now, you are in power. People expect you to be willing to stand up and answer questions they consider to be very simple ones, such as "Is al'Qaeda the enemy?" They know you have the courage to stand up, the conviction to speak with certainty, and the ability to identify an enemy; they see you identify the enemy with great vigor when the issue is global warming.
So, what do they do when you refuse to answer their questions? They look for people who are willing to answer for you and explain why you refuse to answer the questions that are so important, yet so simple, to them.
Who do you think they turn to? Who do you think is willing to answer the questions you refuse to answer? Who do you think is eager to provide an explanation for why you refuse to answer such simple questions?
All questions do not have simple answers. Climate change is not caused by a single factor. In addition to burning fossil fuels, add cutting down the rainforests, over-population, shipping jobs overseas, not buying locally produced food for starters. I'm sure other people can add more factors. Whoever said our enemy is people who kill others is telling it right. It is not just Al Qaeda. There are other terrorists, some homegrown. Remember Timothy McVeigh. The Virginia Tech Massacre. Columbine. Complexity is hard to grasp, so we try to break it down into smaller components. But then we can't see the forest for the trees.
well said rv, and don't forget to include those who decide that they get to impose their views and lifestyles on others, invade their lands, use the land for trash storeage instead of better design, take the future income of others and give it to bankers, and so on.
al qaeda is only responding to our original agression if you listen to them and explore our actual, instead of taught propaganda, history.
"The enemy" is a vague and indefinable term. The only reason to use that term is to whip people into an emotional frenzy in order to manipulate them. George Orwell got it right in his book, 1984. Corrupt governments use whomever is "the enemy" to keep the population in a constant state of frenzied fear. Al Qaeda is an abstract concept, not a definable thing. To claim that an abstract concept is an enemy is ridiculous. The people in Al Qaeda who plot to kill are criminals who should be brought to justice. It's likely that not all people in Al Qaeda are willing to kill. Just as it's likely that not all people in the Republican party are trying to destroy our progressive culture.
The killers in Al Qaeda, the radical fringe who want to violently overthrow our duly elected president, the abortion clinic bombers, the elected officials who lied us into a war, are my enemies.
bridle;
much applause for your words, so much on target.
was the quote in 1984 something along the line of; oceana was our enemy and had always been our enemy.
curious how when we lost the global communist threat we found/needed the global terrorist threat to fill in the blanks or our military, industrial, intelligence monster would have starved.
Exactly. And no doubt you remember what President Eisenhower said about the military industrial complex.
There's a difference between simple and simplistic. It's hard to give an honest answer to a simplistic question.Take for example the question, Should bad people go to jail? That cannot be answered without a whole lot of clarification. Our society, particularly the advertising culture likes simplistic ideas, slogans, sound bites, that arouse emotions and are incompatible with analytical thinking. People have been trained to believe that complex problems can be solved in the 18 minutes (minus commercials) that a half-hour sitcom runs.
I believe that ever since the mid-80's the Republican party has been run by a coalition of corporate oligarchs, who are very good at creating sound-bites, images, and other tricks of the advertising trade. The evidence shows that this strategy is very good at getting them into power, but terrible for actual governing the country.
Mike D.: I fear your world is becoming VERY "black & white."
BikerBard,
Please do not fear for me. After all, I am here, sharing with and learning from those who hold many views that differ from my own.
Also, if you read this thread closely, you will notice that I am not discussing my understanding of the world. I am discussing what you, riding control of the legislative and executive branches of government, will face if you don't listen to the mood of the country.
If you continue telling people what they think, instead of asking them what they think, you will face the single sharpest shift in control of the legislature that the United States has ever witnessed, no matter how many times Olbermann cries racism to a viewing audience of 75 people.
If you cannot begin to draw black and white, right and wrong comparisons that make America right, and al'Qaeda wrong, then a greater and greater percentage of Americans will realize that everything Beck and O'Reilly say about you is right. I think that you listen to people who tell you what these guys say, tell you they are evil, and tell you not to watch anything but the sound bites they supply you. But the truth is, most of the time, what they say about you is exactly what you and Bridle say about yourselves (when you finally open up to me in this forum).
You succeeded at making Bush bashing very popular. But now people are listening to your ideas, and sometimes listening for them.
I am not the brightest guy in the world, but I am bright enough to know that if you think you can sell "al'Qaeda is not the enemy" to the American people, you are absolutely off your rocker.
And people who fly planes into government buildings.
They are enemies of America too. I agree with Joe Biden that paying taxes is patriotic!
isn't it curious when planes are flown into buildings no one asks why someone would do such a thing. they only focus upon the act itself.
perhaps those doing the flying feel, for some reason, there is not another way to go. this might lead to asking how they got to that place.
seems its quite popular, at least by how loud the accepted major media cheer, to be the victum. we always speak of victums as though they had no iron in the fire created by enemies. how many ask whether we have done anything to motivate and perhaps even create, "our enemies". we certainly motivated the original inhabitants of this land by our invasion of their homes, but you never hear of this in any john wayne movies, ad infinitum. if we were the shining beacon on the hill we might investigate our own actions as well as those of others.
Investigating our own actions is hard to do. It is very hard to admit one's own errors. Somehow it is easier to lash out at others in anger. Now Craig we will probably be accused of being unpatriotic. Of somehow hating our country by admitting that it has made mistakes. But how can we grow as a nation without self-examination?
It is now fashionable to be angry with our government. This man apparently fell apart under pressure. I wonder how many so-called patriots think the IRS deserved what they got.
rv;
ego doesn't allow for the possibility of being less than we tell ourselves we are.
angry is easy and adolescent.
are you resting easy in the face of ensuing unpatriotic accusations?
i have been accused of being unpatriotic before and have no trouble hearing that crap. senator joe mccarthy made quite a name for himself with such crap and he, as others who wave the bloody shirt, are transparent and laughable. unless of course for those other neanderthals who need to have enemies.
self-examination, successfully done, is one of the few ways to grow and prosper, i believe. the alternative, is to have nationalistic cheerleading such as done by faux news where we tell ourselves how great we are. seems i have heard other empires and wannabes do the same. britan, germany, ussr, israel, uganda, south africa ad infinitum.
Mike:
Wow! I didn't know I had that much power! I, riding control of the President AND popularizing "Bush-bashing?"
Can I mint money in my own image?
Next time I see you, point out one of those enemy "alQueda" fellers to me. =-O
BikerBard,
I'm not sure I'll be able to point out a supporter of al'Qaeda to you, but you seem to be getting pretty chummy with Mr. Dudley, so if you two turn into traveling companions, perhaps I will be able to point out an Hamas sympathizer to you. ;)
Mike D. - Black and white comparisons are easy to draw if you don't mind thinking simplistically. I do mind thinking simplistically. Sloganeering and sound bite philosophy is great for advertisers who are selling worthless crap, and it also works well for getting demagogues in power. But it's dishonest and destructive in the long run.
Do you believe we must stoop to that in order to keep the right-wing nuts from totally destroying the country?
Mike:
And what, now you don't support Israeli raids on Palestine? The door swings both ways, no?
Bridle,
Yes. If your party's representatives care to maintain support for their leadership, they must learn to remove ambiguity from their message. It's not a Republican vs. Democrat issue. It's a quality of leadership.
BikerBard,
I have no clue what you are talking about.
Mike D. Would you be comfortable with leadership that creates false dichotomies, and paints a simplistic view of reality? Not many issues can be condensed into sound bites while remaining true to reality.
Bridle,
I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying it's the way it is.
hamas is no different than the african national congress was when it was fighting an apartheid state. in both cases its necessary to descend to the level of your opponent to have any chance of being free from death and oppression from a corrupt state. israel was born of removing the previous inhabitants from their homes by any means they found necessary. south africa did the same.
alquida, if they actually exist as a large "organization" speak of how they fight us because we invade them. investigate history beyond what you hear on our cheerleading "news networks" or government propaganda and you will see that alquida speaks of real aggression by us and our "allies". things that if we were subjected to them would have us all up in arms, invading others for real cause instead of our empire building which has bankrupted us and made us hated where we used to be loved.
I actually agree with your assessment. The Democrats have seriously lagged behind Republicans in condensing their platform to a simple message and staying focused.
But that is why I like the Democrats more. They are less homogenous, more individual, appeal to a broader, more diverse spectrum. They tend to see both sides of arguments.They are more intellectually honest and candid. (In general)
So the paradox is this. In order to be elected, they must stop doing what makes them worthy of being elected.
Yuck.
RV- How is it people who claim to support the military don't want to pay the taxes that actually support the military. Is it reasonable that a soldier in the US army must rely on food stamps to feed his family?
<span> "its(sic) necessary to descend to the level of your opponent" - Craig Dudley</span>
Craig,
Probably no one else will call you out on it because you are useful tool to the general goals of this site, but absolutely no one else who participates here would agree with your sociopathic justification of bloody violence.
<span>"its(sic) necessary to descend to the level of your opponent" - Craig Dudley
</span>
By the way, your cute African National Congress buddies, while not as bloody and violent as your Hamas buddies, still enjoy engaging in the very thing you pretend to fight against, you pathetic coward. This, from Wikipedia:
"The ANC (African National Congress) has been heavily criticized for awarding large state contracts, involving tens of billions of Rands, to its party funding vehicle, Chancellor House. At times, the decision to award the contract was made by the same state employees who sit on the ANC fundraising committee. Chancellor House is named after Mandela's former work premises.
The ANC was also criticized for the setting up of a formal scheme whereby businessmen and members of the public could buy "face time" with various government ministers, with the costs ranging R3,000 to R7,000 for an individual and R12,500 to R60,000 for businesses. The scheme is run from the ANC headquarters, Luthuli House (formerly Shell House), with all money going to the party."
Craig "Halliburton" Dudley and his buddies in the ANC. :-D :-D :-D
Here's a clue, Mike. YOUR unending support of Israel which you have written about many times here, is NO DIFFERENT than Craig's support of Palestine. Two sides of the same coin.
And wasn't Haliburton supported by Cheney/Bush/Rove?? ;)
biker;
i am not writing what i do in support of palestine so much but more in saying there are several different standards being used here in our glorious land.
we invade those who don't do what we demand and support those, in many cases worse than the one we invade, who do. our client states are little different than the ones we invade but our propaganda, like in 1984, leads us elsewhere.
what is the difference between south africa and israel in this instance. in both cases a group came from outside, took over the land and started killing, with various methods, the original inhabitants.
in both cases there was an apartheid aparatus installed. we did the same with indians.
no one answers this but only respond with propaganda.
The US government has a terrible history of supporting oppressive regimes and it is the direct cause of most of our troubles, financial and security. George Washington told us that "... a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils." Our attachment to Saudi Arabia, one of the most oppressive despotic regimes on the planet, is the direct cause of the two wars and consequent financial collapse we are experiencing. How many people know that 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi? http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/07/egypt-gaza-strip-viva-palestina
Haha, BikerBard.
I think it was actually owned by them! ;)
Bin Ladin is Saudi and the whole Al Qada movement is originally Saudi. It is an outgrowth of the fundamentalist Wahhabi branch of Sunni Islam. The Saudi government supports the radical Islamists financially in the hope that by feeding the dragon, it won't attack the rotten corrupt Saudi monarchy.
I agree we do need to suck up to Saudi Arabia as long as we are addicted to oil. They could bring down our economy in hearbeat, as nearly happened in the 1970's.
But we could be working a heck of a lot harder to find alternate, renewable, nondestructive, nonpolluting methods of energy production. For this reason and many others.
While I have mixed feelings on the issue, I think Obama's recent change towards nuclear power is a step in the right direction. We have given in to the oil conglomerate to drive the issue. We need to wean ourselves from Exxon-Mobile's grasp. (I haven't bought Exxon gas, although my family owned an Exxon service station, since the late 60's, after I found out that Nixon owned stock.)
BikerBard,
What is your preferred petroleum corporation to buy from?
Mine is "I sold my car in 2000, so I don't buy any".
Good for you!
We need a Manhatten project focused on solar energy. Nuclear energy requires massive installations, a grid to deliver energy, and dangerous materials. Nuclear plants are vulnerable to natural disasters and terrorists. Solar energy can be created where it is used, and it is already powering nearly every living organism on the planet.
I am in total agreement with you, Bridle. I'm not comfortable with nuclear energy. And the sun's energy is FREE if we can figure out how to harness it.
I wish I could do that, but I live too far out of town to walk to work.
That was me up there.
Mine is, "On the road again!" I get my new 'made in the USA" Chrystler "we bailed your ass out" van on Friday!
I look forward to seeing you in it, BikerBard. :)
Be not angry that you cannot make others as you wish them to be, since you cannot make yourself as you wish to be. ~Thomas à Kempis, Imitation of Christ, c.1420
That is such a good thought. We all need to remember that constantly.
I find it humorous that as we discuss, in this thread, how it is difficult to describe good and evil in black and white terms, because everything is complicated and grey, just one thread above this, J.W. has proclaimed the thread "All Insurance Companies Are EVIL".
So maybe it's not so difficult after all, which again begs the question, who are your enemies?
Here, let me start your list for you:
1) Oil Companies
2) Insurance Companies
3)
4)
5)
Please feel free to continue. ;)
Money is the root of all evil.
Or, to be more accurate "For the love of money is the root of all evils" 1Timothy 1:10
Post a Comment