ParanoiA

Anything in law, political science, history and economics. I agree with your first paragraph, in that they should be able to get up to speed on subjects that are relevant and current. Perhaps that's the most important feature of an office holder, in my mind. When you look at current events and issues, they're all over the place. War, abortion, global warming - all of them different studies entirely. A responsible office holder needs to learn about these subjects, not simply be "advised" on them. And when I say learn, I mean learn. This means absorbing material from ALL sides of the issue, critical thinking, critical questioning - and taking the time to do this. An office holder shouldn't be afraid to say they're not sure where they stand yet as they are investigating and learning about the matter at hand first - will never happen in my wildest dreams. I think I've said this before, that an office holder should be an expert in law, history, economics, political science. We shouldn't be trying to find someone that thinks like us - that's ridiculous - we should be trying to elect people that are impressively intelligent on this stuff. So when we make stupid ascertions about taxes and revenue, they calmly force down their smile and correct us.

Funny, I was looking for this very topic - I think. This thread is focused on the moon so I'm not sure it's the same thing. Are you all saying that regardless of an objects weight, all objects fall at the same speed (that is, if air friction is removed)? Not sure I'm wording that right. I remember in my intro to physics class, that I didn't do very well in by the way, that objects "fall" at the same speed, it's just that friction from the air "catches" one object more than another, seeming to indicate that more weight equals speedier descent, when it's really about momentum and friction. Am I making any sense? It's like I know what I mean and can't say it right. I poked around in wikipedia looking for the constant we used for gravity, trying to remember this stuff, but I can't find it. Seems like it was 9.15 or something base 10 to the -26 power or something like that...

It's an opinion site. They're not balanced by definition. Peak Oil, US Imperialism?? Just activitist mentalllity stuck on overdrive...

Seriously, credibility matters when it matters. Does it really matter for this discussion? I think it's safe to say armygas is in the military at some capacity and has served active duty on the side of the planet we're all talking about. Even if he's a total liar and he's really George Bush disguising himself as a solider, it makes no difference here. Prove the logic wrong, not the man.

I guess I didn't point out I was assuming this power in my example. He's not abusing the power if he's actually passing a law that he, himself, has to worry about getting caught breaking. In other words, he's basically suspending his personal life when he walks in his office, passes laws with respect to his stated beliefs and so forth, without any regard to personal gain or loss by these laws. As long as he's not excluding himself from these laws - like granting immunity to legislators, and you didn't include anything like that in your example. So he's obviously under threat of the same law himself. No, you're not getting me here, and I, you perhaps. You're attaching a value judgement to legallity. I'm saying that I can vote, as a congressman, to keep marijuana illegal without that meaning I think that marijuana is wrong. There may be other reasons why it shouldn't be legal, and if I'm truly keeping my personal life separate from my work life, then I'll vote to keep it illegal. My smoking, off the job, is my own risk I take as I'm bound by the laws I pass. Actually, I agree. But I also admit this is a more emotional, envious position, not a logical one. By "correct message" I meant as in the message he was elected on. So, if he's been going on and on about how gay marriage is great and was elected to office, then his message should show up in law making decisions, like legalizing it even though he's demanded his son not marry his gay lover, bribed them or something. He's a hypocrite, but he's done his job - remember we were talking about "job capacity". I would agree that someone's hypocrisy pretty much destroys their omniscience to identify morality and suggest it. But, we're talking about the capacity to fill the job position of passing laws in accordance with the things they said they stood for when they got elected. It's presumed you've identified your own morality and voted for the candidate that best represented it - or, probably more accurately, the least worst of the lot. "Deserve" doesn't have anything to do with the law. That's the driver for it, as we consider it wrong, but his job is to pass laws consistent with what's good for the public - not with what's good for him. It doesn't matter if deep down inside he really doesn't think it's wrong, it matters that he passes the laws for the public good. And I really don't either and don't vote for those people. In fact, anyone preaching morality, liberal or conservative, just rubs me the wrong way.

Actually, insane_alien speaks for me too. I'm just not concerned with it. I violate taboos regularly and look down on society for being twits about it. Doesn't really bother me...

I will agree with the point that Saddam tried to kill one of our presidents, and we passed the opportunity, apparently, to retaliate. But Iraq violated UN resolutions, not US ones. Iraq corrupted the UN through the oil for food program, correct, not the US. Iraq shot missles at our air force under UN command, not the US (which is partly why I don't agree with these ridiculous pre-alignment arrangements like the UN, we lose our sovereignty basically). Again...Iraq was in trouble with the UN, not the US. The US, making it our problem, was right out of the blue...

I already tipped my hat to that. Oliver North has sported that list for years. So, tell me why everyone made such a big deal out of Iraq compared to these others. There is a difference because these other conflicts involved direct issues, direct events - recent events - that led to these attacks. Iraq was seemingly right out of the blue. Iraq had commited no war sin with us at all. Nothing. He was in trouble with the UN, and we in the US acted like it was our problem, because we wanted to invade for other reasons.

Did you give that any thought bombus? What is your pacifist answer for a country that invades another country just to rape and pillage and then leave? You're advocating that it would have been a great idea to allow him to simply withdraw since he made the offer. What was to be his punishment? Let me guess...more sanctions (to punish his people with)? When you establish a precedence of negotiating with an aggressor who viciously attacks a country like that, it emboldens every other aggressor with similar thoughts. Just invade, kill, rape, destroy - then leave...no problem, no consequences - they'll be happy you withdrew and leave you alone. If you're going to play world police, or sign a treaty to resist aggressors, then you have a responsibility to do it. Personally, I don't agree with pre-established alignments and military commitments, but since we're here, let's be realistic.

To make a law and to violate one is two different acts. I might advocate not allowing marijuana to be legalized, all the while I'm smoking a joint. Maybe because I believe as long as it's illegal it won't get widespread. The fact I'm advocating a law against it does not necessarily mean I think it's wrong. Hypocrisy seems to be one of those things we all get pissed about - rightly so - but has little logical application. The message is the point. Why do I care if the messenger is guilty or not - as long as he's spreading the correct message? He will be guilty whether he spreads a message or not. So there is no net loss there. In fact, since he violates his own message, he's probably in a better position to convince others - empathy with their rationale. How would he be able to keep it any more private than the other men you speak of? Both the hypocritical lawmaker and the out-of-wedlock fathers have equal opportunity to "hide" their indiscretion. Both are bound by the same law. If the hypocritical lawmaker can hide it, so can the other guy.

I wouldn't trust anyone that gave me a deadline with something as dynamic and precarious as military conflict and occupation. That's what a greasy, lying, pandering, car salesman politician would do - make believe he "knows" when all this will end. I'm far more concerned with being realistic. Sometimes that means you really don't know, not because you're incompetent, but because of the nature of the issue. Like weather forecasting...I can't say "there's a 30% chance I'll get this project completed on time, sir" to my boss either...

That reminds of that Dawkins speech that was posted here for such a long time, I really enjoyed it. Makes total sense, to me anyway. Ha, that's awesome. To see a moose and 2 calves during a space movie is just...cool. Funny thing is, I think I enjoyed the implications of the Dawn of Man scene more than anything else in the movie. So well executed without any dialoge. Gosh I sure wish there were more movies like this out there...

A committed liberal at work told me yesterday that America has demanded access to half of the oil available by Iraq, or something to that effect. Or maybe it had to do with revenue. I can find no information on this at all. Does anyone know if there's any truth to this?

By success, I mean by getting elected and staying elected. A successful politician in america is someone who appears to be all things to all people - generally speaking. For instance, a real person makes mistakes when they talk and doesn't write 100 pages of drivel to sound smart and talk like a robot during delivery. The only way a politician can speak for 45 minutes and not say anything wrong is to basically say nothing at all - which is exactly what we get - 45 minutes of talking that could be reduced to 3 minutes of meat and potatoes. We are really silly people. We are regularly lied to by media 24/7 and we accept it. Burger King's food doesn't look like on the commercials. Life insurance companies don't really care about me. And AT&T doesn't really have a force of thousands of friendly, pretty people totally dedicated to kissing my ass like they show on the commercials. Successful politicians are people who understand that and play that game. Most would argue that's just how things are and they are doing what they have to do to get elected. I say that's exactly why I don't want them. Ron Paul is probably more like them than I realize, but I appreciate his effort to try to be "real". When he talks, it's not sideways or pandering, it's straight forward and if you don't agree then you just don't agree. There are a couple of things I don't agree with Ron Paul about, but then there's at least that many things I don't agree with in any politician - so I'll take the guy that puts his money where his mouth is and votes like he preaches.

I'm not so sure hypocrisy is logically relevant to the job. The charge of hypocrisy doesn't make the stated position wrong. In fact, your second example would actually prove him to be quite objective and keeping his personal life separate from his political one...

We get the government we deserve. We, americans, are idiots. We judge candidates on their pop culture cool factor and how well they talk, listen for lip service on our favorite topic that we know nothing about in the first damn place, we encourage people who don't pay attention to politics at all to go vote with "rock the vote", we reject candidates that yell "Booyah!!!" in excitement cuz that's "not cool" apparently, we judge our candidates on complete bullsh!t and then act all surprised when things get messy. We'll never get it right because we're spoiled brats overflowing with resources half the world struggles to get a fraction of...similar to how I see my fat american countrymen struggle to get squeezed into their SUV that serves as their only means to move their overgrown carcass...

Honestly, after the ruthless massacre, mass rape and pillaging of the citizens of Kuwait - the part you left out - military conflict was necessary. The alternative is that any country can invade any other country - terrorize it's people and destroy it's infrastructure - without any retaliation, as long as they leave right afterwards...

Just watched 2001 A Space Odyssey last night. I've never seen this movie and after watching it, I really have no idea how this one stayed off of my radar - I loved it. I loved the emptiness, cold, sterile, realism. Why isn't more science fiction done this way? Particularly since it's touted as the best sci-fi film ever. Anyway, I got to wondering how you scientists view science fiction. The themes in "2001" were cool - to me, a non-scientist. The dawn of man scene was really neat - again, to me, a non-scientist. These concepts seem interesting to us, the non-scientist public, but do they seem the least bit interesting to you scientists? I wrote a short story many, many years ago exploring the idea that man's physiology does not contain the capacity to understand the universe, or why we're here and so forth. That the deepest questions we ask are as meaningless and trivial as the deepest question a dog could come up with...IE "where's the beef?". That man asks questions that only a "man" would ask and is no more in a position to understand all of "this" than the dog. Are these kinds of science fiction concepts interesting to scientists as well? Or is this just elementary exercise? Have most scientists already pondered the ideas expressed in books and flim (from schooling and so forth) and moved on? Or do you all enjoy this stuff as much as the rest of us?

You don't believe an assassination plot against a former president of the united states deserves a response? I'll back up and say perhaps it doesn't warrant the destruction of the country and it's citizens, but I don't see retaliation for Bush Sr. as a poor excuse. No. You said you can't fight an idea and I responded that you can. I never said you should. I've said, quite consistently, irrational nations don't deserve any attention. I do believe freedom is a fundamental desire of humans and the best state in which to enjoy quality of life. Of course it would be nice to spread this idea, but that's best done by example. Military force is not freedom.

Not sure. I think they're going for "stability". I'm not sure what that would really look like and I don't believe we'll ever know because our media will sensationalize a slug crawling along the sidewalk if they could - it's their business. So' date=' if there's an insurgent with a sling shot and a pocket full of marbles, they'll still report it like it matters and we'll still interpret it as imminent defeat. Depends. In WWII some of the fiercest fighting was towards the end of the thing. If we measured our success in 1945 with the same logic folks are using to claim defeat today, we would say we were losing the whole damn time. Gee...what a shock to receive a Japanese surrender after being so blatantly beaten by them... Yes, it's a stalemate when they're losing troops as well. We can't both be losing at the same time or else we're measuring winning and losing on a goofy measuring stick. Nah, it's just official mumbo jumbo. We're not going to try Saddam on every person he killed in his miserable life - not enough time or energy to do such a ridiculous thing. Similar to how we don't try serial killers on all of their crimes here in the states. You just try them on plenty of counts to get the result you want, as there's not much point to the rest. Of course, this is also a strategic tactic here in the states as well. Bush didn't lie about anything, he believed there were WMD's. They made complete asses out of themselves with that ordeal, it's obvious. I'm not sure their weren't WMD's. We only gave Saddam about 6 months or more to hide and move the freaking things. Besides, if he's willing to lie and all of these other criminal things people accuse him of - then why in the hell didn't he plant some WMD's on Iraqi soil? He's bad enough and evil enough to do all of these other things, but he's above planting evidence to cover his ass? And Halliburton? Oil company profits? Why don't you just throw in your fav JFK conspiracy theory in the pot while you're at it? This war is horrible for oil companies in the long run. It's put more of a focus on getting away from oil than anything that's happened in the past - including global warming. Look at the hybrids hitting the market now. You think ANY of this would be happening without this "oil stain" war? Out of the millions and millions of ways to make money in America, you think their grand scheme was an invented war? I have a hard time believing people would go to so much trouble to start wars, get smeared in the news, spill blood, ruin an already stigamatic view of the oil business - when they could have enjoyed just as much profit without a fraction of the effort in other business ventures. It just doesn't make sense. It's good thriller fodder, but not much else. I don't know, probably not. But a more focused concept like hating jews, or hating black people can be virtually wiped out with enough time, patience and pursuasion. Well that's certainly a fair enough analysis. Keep in mind though, that profits will be earned whether at war or peace - either way. It's not as if we need war to make money, it's that there is money in war. So, yeah Bush's buddies that bought and paid for him are making out like bandits for now. I firmly believe they are dedicated to the basic ideas in PNAC, and they have wormed themselves into a place to make profits while they put it in motion.

Interesting perspective. I still can't be for it, although I agree it's kind of nice seeing republicans go down for it. However, it was wrong then and it's wrong now, in my opinion of course. Ron Paul is my candidate so far, so maybe I need to get me some of them stickers... Ultimately you're right I think. Perhaps I'm being too indifferent about it since I don't think infidelity nor prostitution has any business being legislated in the first place. The government should have nothing to say on a matter between two consenting adults. But, there are all kinds of laws we don't agree with yet we are expected to follow them, so....

Am I the only one getting sick of the overblown and quite disturbing practice of the reporting of politicians and their affairs? Why is it any of our business? What does it have to do with their job capacity? My employer doesn't inquire about whether I'm paying hookers or cheating on my wife. Good thing too, because it's none of my employer's business and, contrary to republican belief, is NOT an indication of my trustworthiness in a job capacity. Just because they're a public office holder, suddenly we have to know all about their personal life? I'm not buying it. I'm not buying the idea that their personal life is required to be in an order that I find satisfactory to get a job in politics. And no, appeals to their constituent representation and tax payer money don't move me either. I don't care if they have sex with chickens, I want them to do a good job at politics, legislation, compromise, strategy and etc - you know...the actual skills that matter to that job. Am I way off here?

I don't know that it takes away the military card as much as it validates them. This policy of chasing down countries pursuing nuclear weapons seems absolutely futile. Kind of like that Wack A Mole game. We need to concentrate on anti-missle defense and similar because that's a technology most of these rogue states don't have the capacity to compete in - unlike nuclear weapons. Yeah, that's an excellent statement. I still resent the preemptive strike. I realize there are some technicalities in the past that might qualify as attacking countries that didn't attack us - like Germany in WWII - but the american way was never to attack first. That's a stain we'll never get rid of.

And how many accept their culture and values imposed on them by their environment without critically thinking it out? This is what social animals do. It's not a weakness or a negative. Conformity aids cooperation and survival success in social groups. Those of us who choose to challenge conformity really only challenge a handful out of thousands of things we conform to without even thinking about. Then we get on a soapbox and preach about how everyone else conforms. That's right. And you still didn't answer my question. Would you recongize it? You seem to be struck in awe over the idea of ugly truth - like no one here "gets it". Ugly truth is elementary, not revolutionary.

My sentiments exactly. I think their intention was to focus and inflame terrorism over there, with this occupation. This is another reason why I struggle to understand why folks would think we're "losing" something here. It just seems to me they expected it. Don't mistake this analysis for my being for it. I'd rather spread freedom with persuasion, not force. And I don't believe the middle east, or at least a handful of particular countries in that region, are rational enough, nor mature enough to interface with. They should be ignored. We didn't crush a nation, ruin a government and put its leader to death over 148 people, we did it because we believed they had WMD's and it worked well with our ideas of fighting the war on terror, while putting a piece of the project for a new american century in motion. Bush ran on the Iraq issue, and I'm convinced the neocons had their minds on this before 9/11 and used it to further that end. Actually, you can't fight an idea with the military. It's winable, but not with force. Winning hearts and minds is the most effective. Leading by example seems basic. And then there's always propaganda and the disinformation game. I'm just not sure these people are really worth dealing with at this point. We've got the guys responsible for 9/11, we're on our way to kicking out the neocons, so I'd prefer to just pull out, concentrate on our own borders and trade with nations that are mature enough to deal with.