On Thursday 26 January 2006 11:51, Alma J Wetzker wrote: > What we need to do is *LISTEN* to other people as though we are hearing > things for the first time. We need to develop a sense of wonder about > what we hear. If I may, Become childlike. That is why certain traits > are associated with scientists in the hard sciences. (Unfortunately, > many confuse childlike with childish.)
I agree with you that we need to figure out how to remove ourselves from religious-like ties we have to a political party. I think that it would be a mistake to become childlike. There are still many many many many evil, wicked, selfish, self-centered, or otherwise motivated folk willing to brainwash the masses (ie. anyone they can) for suboptimal ends. No sir, I will continue to think and agree with what I can and be cautious to measure the implications, and listen to others who do the same, not to follow, but to chew, digest, and spit out any bones I encounter. I have in recent years started doing the same with all my beliefs. Yes, including my faith. In all things where people feel strongly, A+B=C can be turned into saying that A+B+C=D. Many facts are mixed in with a few unrelated, often unfounded assumptions to come up with results which simply do not make sense. Believe it or not, but that's why I'm more willing to believe in creation than Big Bang or most other explanations of how we came from nothing. At least in creation, no bones are made about how. All evolutionary theory I read or hear spouted simply feel pushed, like the facts were coerced or mixed with some wide-spread assumptions/perspectives to somehow support D from A and B. > > I may be prejudiced, but I believe that programmers and computer > technical folk have a advantage in this because the field is usually a > strict meritocracy. We just need to apply the same outlook to politics. > Not as easy as it sounds. I agree that we need to elect officials for other reasons than we do. I would wager, however, that in most things in life, particularly in areas with as much money and power at stake as politics, the hard details are more difficult to come by or even agree upon, and determining who was responsible for what "positives" is often muddled. Take for instance, any major benefit which happened between 1992-2000. Dem-believers would say it was because Clinton was president. Rep-believers would posit that it was the Republican majority. Both are likely right to some degree or another, but who can tell? And this government is *one huge system*. One area may do well, but at what cost to the rest of the system. eg. Politicians who are so proud for getting so much out of the federal government for their area, regardless of need. And with so many different beliefs about governance, it would be like evaluating software where the 400Million customers couldn't agree on specs. So we huddle around with other people who think like we do (or their next of kin, freshly indoctrinated) and we end up with the party system we have now. No solutions here, just thinking out loud. -- Matthew Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.eisgr.com/ Enterprise Information Systems * Network Server Appliances * Security Consulting, Incident Handling & Forensics * Network Consulting, Integration & Support * Web Integration and E-Business _______________________________________________ [email protected] Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
