Pangloss

Just to follow up on this, the usual reason for that is because the poster clicked on the "Insert Link" button and them immediately hit the paste button without removing the "Http://" bit that the forum software automatically (and unhelpfully) inserts at the beginning of the text box. I don't think there's anything we can do about that except to just remind people to watch out for it, but thanks for bringing it up. Dak fixed the links, btw. ------------ The second point I want to make briefly is regarding this: This is the kind of thing that really sickens me to see. It cheapens the debate here and reduces this discussion to nothing more than pointless bickering. And frankly those of you defending global warming ought to be the FIRST group of people slamming the poster for doing that. The FIRST. You shouldn't NEED a moderator to step in and take care of it, and frankly the silence speaks volumes of approval when people let something like that pass. Intelligent discourse is not about making the other side wrong. More people should pay attention to what their own side is saying and how it is conducting itself. Careful -- you may find yourself understanding where your opponents are coming from! Oh my, we wouldn't want that! Oh noes!

If Congress authorized it and the American people were solidly behind it? Nothing. And you can replace "Canada" with any other nation in the world. That's what scares people, and it scares them so much that they're willing to overlook the "congress" and "American people" variables even though they were absolutely required in the case of Iraq -- they'll pretend they were not required in order to accentuate the sense of fear. It's understandable, but in the end it's a fear of capability, not a fear of individual intentions or ideologies.

That's a perfectly reasonable point of view, but the Constitution does not define war that specifically. And a couple hundred years of back-and-forth between Congress and the Executive haven't straightened out the mess either. Note that Congress did authorize the invasion of Iraq in 2003, as well as all subsequent spending and disbursement of funds (i.e. occupation). They just didn't authorize "war". Whatever that means. We have the situation that we have. Bush hasn't changed it, he's only utilized it as it stands.

Well, certainly nothing symbolizes American freedom more than a man humping a goat. I don't think there can be any question about that.

Not that I know of, and such a law would (I assume) run up against established precedent in documented court rulings. I think it's pretty clear that we make many compromises on the subject of free speech, so we can't exactly sit back and say that we have free speech while other countries don't because of examples like Sayo's above -- that's clearly wrong because we also abridge free speech for various reasons. There may be a difference of degree, but what actually defines free speech in the US is established court precedent, not higher ideal.

I do, ... (Just my two bits, of course. We've talked about this before and I respect your opinion on it, which I remember to be insightful and well-considered.) ... but that's a compromise I'd be willing to make, mainly because it's not as if there's a shortage of ways for people to make their opinions known these days.

If I answered that question you'd probably want to put YOURS back on. And I need it to stay off for a while.

Sayo you're supposed to take this seriouly! Sure, Brian, it makes perfect sense to me, Dean.

Saw some of these pinheads tonight on ABC's "20/20". Apparently they're also being featured in a Showtime documentary next month. All of which pleases them to no end, I'm sure. The really sad part of the story was that the interviewer (John Stossil, of "Give Me a Break" fame) managed to convince them to let him interview their children. He had two 4 or 5 year old boys on the set, and unsurprisingly they were spewing the same vitriol that their parents were spewing a few moments before, including several comments about "fags". Then Stossil asked them "What's a 'fag'?" The boys looked confused for a moment, spewed some more of the same general vitriol, and eventually came around to the general conclusion that they're "pretty much the same thing as jews". (sigh)

A who, the who and that who?

Thanks for the links. I had no idea these people were even out there. That wiki article was really something. Cheering 9/11 and the Sago Mine Disaster because of America's tolerance for homosexuality?! Truly bizarre.

What OTHER degree would you seek, unrelated to your work or current area of study, if money and time were no object? Ever thought it might be cool to have a degree in "X", but it was just too far from your career to be worth chasing? I had this friend back when I was at Georgia Tech in the 1980s, and he got his Bachelor's degree in Nuclear Engineering. Then, for reasons I never quite understood, he went to LAW school. After that he went in a completely different direction and ultimately graduated MEDICAL school! He'll soon be the only MD I know with degrees in law and nuclear engineering! I've always had a hankering for politics, but what really "turns me on" is ancient history. I think if I ever went back to school in a completely different field it would be for a degree in ancient/classical history. Boring, perhaps, but there it is.

That's awesome, good luck with that. I have no talent for human languages whatsoever. You know, you've given me an idea for a thread, lemme go start it right now.

Many schools do indicate more specific information though. I think MIT indicates the field, for example.

<glances out his window in South Florida and watches the West Antarctic Ice Sheet cruise by>

Ok, I think I see the distinction you (and mooeypoo) are making, and you're right, it's not the same thing. What about tanks (the military vehicles), as a development based on farm tractors?

Sure it can change -- you just need the right people. Nobody sleeps through my lectures. And I see some seriously tired students in my night classes. For example, pursuant to our general education expectation on critical thinking, I bring up a controversial subject from information technology/security in almost every class session and force the students to debate BOTH sides of the issue (especially when they strongly believe one way -- I just love to do that). And every class session includes a hands-on lab, 99% of which I create/invent myself. I have to admit, though, that I'm not "normal". Many of my fellow instructors use PowerPoint slides, labs and exams provided by the textbook publishers! I've seen the stuff the publishers crank out, and most of it's CR*P! I'll pull a question or a smidgeon of a lab from them now and then, but most of the time I throw the textbook in the nearest waste basket. (I do assign readings and homework from textbooks, though, and when I can I change the textbooks to come from way outside the normal publishers, like industry-standard reference books and such. There's just not enough time in the classroom to cover everything they need to know, sadly.) But it takes a lot of preparation to create custom labs and exams and lesson plans. I think it pays off huge, both for them and for ME, because it makes the job so much more FUN. I've TRIED teaching it "their" way, and it's so boring I could SHOOT myself. I made TWICE as much money in a BAD year consulting as I'm making now. Why would I do this if I were bored? BTW I'm not kidding about the students being tired. Most of 'em work 40+ hours and still come to class 3 or 4 nights a week. That's gotta be tough, and some of the busiest and tiredest ones are also some of the best students -- because they WANT it so bad. That's a powerful motivator for me to make the class as good as I can possibly make it. When I have a bad session I feel like I've let them down, and when I have a good session I'm on top of the world because I know what it will mean for them down the road.

As usual, you're "spot on."

That's interesting. It reminds me of something about the 2000 presidential election fiasco here in Florida that I had forgotten, which was that some people deliberately chose not to vote because they didn't like either candidate. They would vote on other races but leave that one blank. I wondered at the time if those close inspections of the punch cards that we saw so often on television were happening because of "sympathetic" indentations made by stacking the cards together with cards that WERE punched, or by other anomalitic indentations made by the equipment. But of course they never talked about any of that on the news. We did used to hear a lot about people who were "too stupid to vote", but that meme seemed to become politically incorrect about the time Jesse Jackson showed up to protest disenfranchisement.

If George Carlin lives west of the San Andreas fault (which seems likely), doesn't that make him a hypocrit? I appreciate that, but that's different from saying Carlin was "spot on" -- he actually said "they got what they had coming to them". It was a mean and vindictive thing for him to say, and I think if he had said it about Katrina victims, who did exactly the same thing, he would have had to issue an apology by morning. He got away with it because of the perception of economc differences between the two groups. It's politically incorrect to criticize the poor when they make bad decisions. The middle class or upper class, not so much. In looking into this further, though, I think he just made a mistake, and he isn't correcting his mistake because it's not necessary under the rules of political correctness. In this video, from an HBO show, he actually talks about how if there's a wildfire he doesn't want it put out. He says in the video that he "doesn't want the firement to get hurt or nothin'", he just doesn't want it put out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pe4XVVUbiA I guess he doesn't really mean people direct harm, he just wants nature to have it's day. Okay, I'll give him credit for consistency. But he's still a hypocrit. Maybe he'd be the first to admit it, I don't know. -------- The thing I have to wonder is, shouldn't it be the Katrina victims who get the MOST criticism, rather than the LEAST? I wonder if people have any idea how much money I pay for homeowners insurance, or how hard it is for me to get it. But I don't complain about the cost -- I live 12 miles inland and outside of evacuation zones, btw, and pay far less than THOSE people. But it makes SENSE that if the risk is higher, so should be the COST. DUH. Furthermore, when something happens to me, as opposed to a typical 9th Ward dweller, it costs YOU less. The disaster of Katrina couldn't happen here, at least not to the degree that it happened where it did. We're prepared. My state reported in the black the same year that eight hurricanes hit it! Sure we took a little FEMA aid, but it went to the idiots who weren't prepared. And so what? Government is for the occassional helping hand. That's part of it's purpose. The ironic thing is that people see Carlin as a liberal -- in fact he's not a liberal at all! He thinks everyone should be left to their own devices! You're poor and get stuck unprepared? TOO BAD. You're down on your luck and get shafted for it? TOO BAD. Snooze and lose, buddy. His message works with liberals anyway because he focuses on the thwarting of nature theme and the idea that the harm will come primarily to people who can afford it. And he's absolutely wrong on both counts. EVERY ONE of us is "thwarting nature" every single day, and most of the people who are harmed the most by natural disasters are the ones who can LEAST afford it. THAT's why Carlin is wrong.

Sure he has the right to say it. And I have the right to call him on it. Do I deserve to be hit by the next hurricane? Bear in mind I don't even live anywhere near the coast, but my house could still be wiped out. In fact I've seen hurricanes pass over my house and watched the resulting storm knock over trailers in ATLANTA. Did they deserve that? What about Hurricane Katrina victims? I didn't hear George Carlin saying they deserved it -- why not? They certainly lived below the flood plain. What's the difference? Isn't Carlin's objection based on "man thwarting nature" or some such wacko nonsense? As if he isn't thwarting nature by his very existence at his age. Wanna help us with the population problem, Georgie? I know a way you can stop contributing to that problem right now, Mr. Carlin. Is that really how we want to look at it? Be mean to people until they behave the way they're supposed to? On top of that, is his point really even valid? Do we need every single person in this country to move on top of Manhattan bedrock or Kansas farming soil above the flood level?

The automobile results in, what, 20,000 deaths per year in the US alone?

It's not bunk, it just has to be taken in perspective. Guesses and extrapolations (e.g. how many storms existed but were not seen during the pre-satellite years) should be recognized as such. There's a reason why five different computer models of tropical storm path prediction are regularly shown on local TV instead of one. But when five computer models show Tropical Storm Pangloss (!) heading for Miami and intensifying into a Hurricane within two days, we can't sit around and debate whether it's going to hit NORTH Miami, as one model predicts, or SOUTH Miami, as another one does, or whether it will be Category 1, as one model predicts, or Cat 5, as another one does. We ALL board up and we ALL get out of the way! Similarly, if a group of scientists guesses that X number of storms were at sea in those pre-sat years and that it means that "we're seeing double the amount of hurricanes our great grandparents did", we need to listen to that and we need to put serious effort into studying causal linkage mechanisms between GW and hurricanes. As long as discussion is open and new data is presentable and nobody's being demonized as "Global Warming Hurricane Linkage Deniers", I'm satisfied and more than willing to consider a linkage possible and even likely (at least likely enough to spend my tax money on). I thought that was helpful what you said in the Creationists-GWDeniers thread about how it should always be possible to present contradictory evidence. That's what science is all about.

Link includes video: http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20153859,00.html At least seven people are DEAD because of those fires. This was on one of the most popular daytime television programs in the country. I think Carlin is an idiot and a jerk. What a completely moronic and insulting thing to say. I think there's a perfectly valid point to be made that housing development methods contributed to these problems -- nobody seems to disagree with that point. But this is the kind of knee-jerk idiocy that drives people AWAY from doing the right things, like building housing more intelligently and fighting global warming. What the heck was he thinking?