For the most part I agree that most modern religions have decent goals and try to teach people how to behave in a society, and that it’s the actions of a few zealous members that give it a bad name, but I was not thinking of that when I wrote what I did... But you seem to think that its never the religion. If you want to qualify that with the term, "mainstream" religions, then I would agree. However, there have been belief systems that I would consider dangerous. In addition, there are instances where the leaders of a religion are culpable in the actions that are contrary to what the institution preaches. A perfect example is how the Vatican had at first refused to acknowledge the problem of pedophiles in the ranks, and it was only due to considerable pressure from hi-profile cases that it finally admitted, barely, to a problem. This does nothing but destroy the people's faith in that institution... I've also heard that more people have died in wars fought over religious disputes as opposed to territorial ones... And those wars were likely supported or condoned by the leadership. It's not so cut and dry Ed.
Also, I hope you aren't accusing me of being anti-american, since that would make you a hypocrit. I would think you'd be more careful with what you yourself have experienced due to your involvement with CF/LENR! That statement is bordering on the same kind of tactic that the mainstream physicists used with many of your CF colleagues... "I admit that many Democrats also are equally to blame." Great, now we're getting somewhere; at least your willing to admit that both parties are part of the problem... "Nevertheless, the policy starts at the top. The Bush policy was to let Congress and the free-enterprise system have freedom to do what ever they wanted...[snip]" Pretty much the usual liberal/democrat talking points... Well, I'll take the opinion of Dr. Sowell, an accomplished, self-made black-american economist over a scientist. To quote him: ======================== BEGIN QUOTE ======================== >From Dr. Thomas Sowell... (http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell#ColumnistBio) Fact Number One: It was liberal Democrats, led by Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, who for years-- including the present year-- denied that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking big risks that could lead to a financial crisis. It was Senator Dodd, Congressman Frank and other liberal Democrats who for years refused requests from the Bush administration to set up an agency to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It was liberal Democrats, again led by Dodd and Frank, who for years pushed for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans, which are at the heart of today's financial crisis. Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, five years ago. Yet, today, what are we hearing? That it was the Bush administration's "right-wing ideology" of "de-regulation" that set the stage for the financial crisis. Do facts matter? We also hear that it is the free market that is to blame. But the facts show that it was the government that pressured financial institutions in general to lend to subprime borrowers, with such things as the Community Reinvestment Act and, later, threats of legal action by then Attorney General Janet Reno if the feds did not like the statistics on who was getting loans and who wasn't. Is that the free market? Or do facts not matter? Then there is the question of being against the "greed" of CEOs and for "the people." Franklin Raines made $90 million while he was head of Fannie Mae and mismanaging that institution into crisis... [Article continues but I think you get the point.... Or not] ======================== END QUOTE ======================== Next Ed says: "As I note above, the "facts" you state are not complete, hence do not count. I would ask why you would ignore the complete picture?" Not ignoring it Ed, but now that we agree on the fact that there's enough blame to go around for both parties, how do we fix it? What's the solution? Even if BO does get elected, he's not going to make that much difference. I would propose that without term limits, there is no hope for real change... "Bush says he is conservative but his actions are not conservative. The Congress says they are not socialist but the bail-out is the most socialist action ever taken in this country." No arg from me with those statements! Well, almost none. The entire entitlement system is probably the biggest socialist action taken in this country... But agree that the bailout comes in a close second! I would think that you'd support it since the majority of people who will benefit will be those in the lower income brackets... "Obama proposes to do what has been done with taxes since the income tax was created, i.e. take from one group and give to another. The only issue is which group pays and which group benefits and by how much..." You open up a whole can of worms that I know a canful about... But perhaps some other time. The history of the income tax is a very interesting read... "Bush and McCain favor the wealthy (trickle- down), Obama wants to now favor the middle class (trickle-up). This policy would seem to have benefit to the country now that the Bush policy has been shown not to work very well" The diff between us is that, even though giving lip service to enough blame oto go around, there is absolutely no mention of specifics in any of your posts that I can remember... It's all Bush's fault! I reject that, as does Dr. Sowell; Congress has more influence on the domestic economy that the prez ever will, and that's the way it should be. RE: you comments on budget for science being frozen. >From the govt's own statistics, the budget for science has had modest >increases thruout Bush's admin except for the yr-2008 estimate... How much should we be spending in science? Isn't $50 Billion enough? And I love science... I challenge you to change your mindset, and instead of a constant increase, why not work on reducing the overhead and implementing other intelligent ways to run large organizations! Can you say, Spaceship One/Scaled Composites????? A very good example of the fact that the private industry can do most anything MUCH MORE cost effectively than government... 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 estimate estimate Department of Defense 61,510 66,467 69,323 71,755 69,856 Other national defense 3,835 4,179 3,720 3,726 3,079 Total national defense 65,345 70,646 73,043 75,481 72,935 Non-defense General science, space, and technology: NASA 8,037 6,880 6,807 8,438 9,445 NSF 3,439 3,638 3,707 3,943 3,894 Atomic energy gen'l sci 2,701 2,809 2,966 3,013 3,192 Subtotal 14,177 13,327 13,480 15,394 16,531 Energy 1,387 1,272 1,156 1,241 1,409 Transportation: NASA 551 834 722 736 669 DOT and Other 571 472 588 590 512 Subtotal 1,122 1,306 1,310 1,326 1,181 Health: NIH 24,498 26,039 26,695 26,974 27,580 Other 1,726 1,541 1,570 1,554 1,558 Subtotal 26,224 27,580 28,265 28,528 29,138 Agriculture 1,694 1,758 1,779 1,795 1,734 Nat'l resources/envir 1,612 1,878 1,529 1,633 1,699 All other 1,818 2,079 2,233 2,743 2,384 Totak NON-defense 48,034 49,200 49,752 52,660 54,076 -Mark -----Original Message----- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 7:24 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colin Powell and Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan On Nov 3, 2008, at 1:13 AM, Mark Iverson wrote: > Ed, > No biggee. And I didn't mean to insult your patriotism; what did I say > that was untrue of religions and also made you feel that way? You seem to blame a religion for the actions of a few of its members. All religions have members who distort the basic views of their religion to justify their actions. It is very dangerous and, I suggest, anti-American to take this approach. > > > For the most part, I agree that sincere and informed people should be > able to discuss politics w/o questioning a person's patriotism... > However, there are many insincere people who use the sincere person's > conscience and sense of fairness to manipulate and/or suppress their > point of view. Do I think this is happening on this forum? No, but > it is used quite extensively these days in many venues and garb; it is > insidious. Agreed > > > I keep my mouth shut most of the time, so when I do open it, its > usually based on facts, reason, and a reasonably well thought out > position. And I admit that when I disagree with someone, my sarcasm > tends to leak out... Hey, I'm human just like the rest of you > characters. > > RE: the policies of the current Republican administration... > Why is it that you and some of the other Vorts seem to completely > IGNORE the fact that there is a bicameral Congress that also is > responsible for what happens in this country??? These "facts" are ignored because Congress until recently was control by Republicans who shared the administration's view point. I admit that many Democrats also are equally to blame. Nevertheless, the policy starts at the top. The Bush policy was to let Congress and the free-enterprise system have freedom to do what ever they wanted. In addition, his policy was to send as much manufacturing overseas as possible and to reward such businesses with tax advantages. He also reduced taxes on the rich, who pay fewer taxes than expected anyway because of the many loopholes. His policy was simpleminded and extremely damaging to the country. Yes, Congress went along as anyone would expect them to do, which has gained them the unpopular rating. However, in any organization, a competent adult must be in charge, which was not the case for 8 years. > Not to mention the > FACT that this very same DEMOCRATICALLY controlled House & Senate have > an approval rating that is MUCH lower than the > administrations??????????? The House has been controlled by the Democrats for only 2 of the last 8 years. This change occurred only because the Bush policies were so bad. It takes longer than 2 years to correct the damage especially when a veto is being used for the first time. > The fact that I haven't seen these two FACTS even get mentioned in > all the political rants makes me wonder just how 'objective' you guys > are when it comes to politics, thus, I see the political postings as > just noise, and thus my rather blunt and sarcastic methods to improve > the SNR. If you don't maintain the same level of openess and desire > to consider ALL the facts when talking politics, then this isn't > helping to resolve or solve or enlighten anyone. As I note above, the "facts" you state are not complete, hence do not count. I would ask why you would ignore the complete picture? > > > As you rightly point out, this doesn't seem to happen when the topic > is science/techy. If you hope > to have the political discussions help, then again, put them in a > separate group dedicated to > informed political discourse in the hopes that others who are > interested in politics will see it and > learn/contribute. The political discussions on this list, some of > which are engaging and thought > provoking, will inevitably stay right here... And anyone interested > in a good political discussion > isn't likely to come to a fringe-science forum! True, but this is the forum we have and some of us are concerned about subjects beyond science, some of which impact on science or on the ability to do science. > > > "Unless this discussion is done without excessive emotion and by > using the facts..." > Wholeheartedly agree. But as I pointed out above, there are some > very simple and VERY obvious FACTS > that do not get mentioned here; at least not prior to my doing so. > Is this forum composed of only a > socialistic/liberal viewpoint? If so, then political discussions > are nothing more than preaching to > the choir, and serving no 'positive' purpose but to make you all > feel some sense of 'resonance'. :-) I would like to suggest the labels such as liberal or socialist be avoided because the meanings have been so corrupted to be useless. Bush says he is conservative but his actions are not conservative. The Congress says they are not socialist but the bail-out is the most socialist action ever taken in this country. McCain calls Obama liberal as if that is bad. Obama proposes to do what has been done with taxes since the income tax was created, i.e. take from one group and give to another. The only issue is which group pays and which group benefits and by how much. This balance has always been changed as the need changed. Bush and McCain favor the wealthy (trickle- down), Obama wants to now favor the middle class (trickle-up). This policy would seem to have benefit to the country now that the Bush policy has been shown not to work very well. > > > RE: your comment about how politics will affect our lives as well as > the ability to do science... > Nearly all basic research is done by government agencies and > academia; rarely does the business > sector do applied, let alone basic research. Congress holds or > strongly influences the purse > strings for DOE, NSF, NASA, NOAA, DOD, DARPA, and any of the other > govt agencies that spend money on > science. If reason and objectivity were at work here, then you > should be discussing how to reform > (the currently democratic) Congress, not the president, and it > should take aim at both parties. As > far as academia is concerned, it is a bastion of liberal thinking, > so if you're worried about how > science is going to get done, I suggest you start addressing those > that really control it, and stop > blaming the president. Thanks to the failed policy, no money is available for new research and the budget for science is frozen. In addition, the Bush administration has been anti-science from the beginning. In addition, the appointed heads of many agencies have been political hacks who have not advanced science. This is not the fault of Congress. I detect a lack of understanding of how the government actually works. As for liberal thinking academics, I don't know what this means. Do you? > > > Can't wait for the electron to be over and we get back to science... Agreed > > > No hard feelings, I hope! No hard feelings as long as we can communicate without personal attack. Ed > > -Mark No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.8.5/1764 - Release Date: 11/3/2008 7:46 AM
