Pangloss

Yup. And we already do in the US, but of course the demand to continue managing them responsibly grows every day, while our attention often flags and wanes. We need more good people going into Forestry, for example, to keep the paper companies honest. That was a classic tragedy of the commons scenario and we were lucky to escape that debacle. And we could face it again if we don't ensure that the rules are enforced. It would be nice if we could somehow shine a positive light on the importance of government service (like regulatory officials) and make it popular again. And then of course there's the international scene. Other countries lost the forestry battle, and still other countries are still threatened but have a chance if enough effort is made. We need to continue to export technology and encourage and support more joint treaties that deal with these issues, even if they are slightly disparate (causing us to make more effort than others). Such is the opinion of an annoyed-with-government, right-of-center, well-above-average-income taxpayer. If I can be convinced, most other people can as well. Public education and (especially) intelligent, objective, open-minded discourse are the keys.

That is completely unfair, and a gross misrepresentation of what I said. The hair-splitting I accused you of is saying that Adam and Eve can't be literally interpreted and declaring it to be a myth aren't the same thing, and I only used the word myth in that context after someone on YOUR side of the argument did so. At NO TIME have I said that to challenge one point of religion is to declare all religion a myth. You are deliberately and directly putting words you know to be false in my mouth, and I don't appreciate it. Once again I find myself telling you that if you had done what you just did to me to anybody else on this board you'd be staring at a login prompt at this very moment. And dude, I'm willing to bet that I've been an avid James Burke fan and reader for a heck of a lot longer than you have. I watched Connections when it was FIRST RELEASED in this country, and was eagerly awaiting TDTUC even BEFORE it was released here. AND I've read both books, and EVERY SINGLE SciAm article he wrote. So don't even think about lecturing me on James Burke. I can quote the last chapters of BOTH of his books from MEMORY. You are one seriously bad debate loser, bascule. Wow.

That's not what they say in the eastern Andromeda galaxy!

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gsGpI3VcZk2quvxVBKkyZ3CVf7WgD8S1IEPG0 Apparently advocates for the blind are up in arms about hybrid cars being too quiet to hear. I guess I can empathize, but I think reducing noise pollution has to be a good thing for everyone. Maybe we just need to apply a little technology to the problem. (Hmm... would deaf people complain about invisible cars?)

I wasn't there, so I have to keep an open mind about what may have actually taken place (e.g. did the students come in with an agenda and surprise/force the teacher and then deliberately misrepresent what he said). But I am saying that it sounds like what happened here. I see people introducing all sorts of irrelevencies into this thread, essentially asking why they shouldn't be forced to acknowledge a great truth that simply isn't relevent to the course. Someone made the point that it should be relevent to the course because of religion's impact on western civilization, and my point there was that if that's the case then wouldn't he also be forced to expose "truths" that AREN'T acceptable to this particular social group, e.g. abortion causes the loss of potential life. The point being that this position is hypocritical because in fact it is not necessary to convey course material without insulting students in their beliefs. But ultimately my point is that the job of a teacher in a free society isn't to force compliance and eradicate all politically incorrect opinions. It simply is not. The hint of dictatorship in the name of science in this thread is just mind-boggling. It certainly feeds into my long-standing opinion (expressed here many times before) that the self-proclaimed defenders of free speech in this country (the political left) are in fact its greatest deniers and violators. And apparently the best response anyone can come up with for this line of reasoning is "well there's a difference between saying Adam and Eve isn't a literal truth and declaring it to be a myth". My apologies. Well, western civilization studies typically begin with Greco-Roman history. It's expressly separated from East Asian or African studies, origins, etc. But okay, if you want to widen the subject to "all history", I've already agreed with what I think you're saying on this point. Let me quote myself: The "answers" in that earlier example being requiring the students to learn specific answers supported by science that might contradict their beliefs. But I think even there you can do that without involving yourself in their personal beliefs. When a student asks "well my mommy told me that Adam and Eve were real", you say "well this is the information we have from science, and this is what we're studying in this course; you can investigate that question elsewhere if you like", and then you move on. You refuse to engage them in a religious discussion. REFUSE. THAT is how you control the classroom and stay on subject and get the much more important job of learning done. Put it this way: Do you think the uninvolved students in that classroom learned what they were supposed to learn that day? And if not, who's fault is that? What this teacher did was allow some religious zealot dictate what got learned that day. How can that be a good thing? What the heck do you people do when your students ask you whether they should vote for George Bush? I can't believe any of you would engage on THAT subject, but how is it NOT arguably relevent to ANY course you're teaching? Hmm? Come on, this is obvious.

Another Poster: <amusingly refers to China as Manchuria> Pangloss: Perhaps, but Manchuria has been deliberately manipulating the price of tea. Bascule: They don't call it Manchuria anymore, they call it China! HAH! YOU LOSE! SLAM-DUNK! BWAHAHAHAHAAAA! Pangloss: <lists several other relevent points> Bascule: <ignores them because he has no answer; reiterates the point about Pangloss referring to China as Manchuria and accuses him of not understanding modern geography, an obvious logical fallacy> Pangloss: <points out that Bascule has just used a logical fallacy> Bascule: <asks for a definition of said logical fallacy> Pangloss: <paraphrases what just happened> Bascule: <will now politely explain that he has never once mentioned China> Sorry bud, I'm just not interested in this kind of RevPrez-like "debate". You're just obfuscating and leading the topic away from an absolutely valid and logical question that you simply have no answer for. I reiterate my point, which has yet to be refuted: If it's valid for the teacher to, in the course of discussing the impact of religion on western history, declare that all religion is mere MYTH and insist that the students must AGREE that it's myth in order to pass the course, then it is also valid (and in fact necessary) for the teacher to instruct them that abortion kills a potential human life, and that all students must agree that it is so in order to pass the course. That's because abortion has been a pivotal political development issue in the history of western civilization. The reasoning is exactly the same. And so I reiterate my point -- YOU DON'T NEED TO BROACH THE LEGITIMACY OF THESE TOPICS IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN THEIR IMPACT ON WESTERN HISTORY! Dak the answer to your post #90 above is that if they want to foolishly believe that the story of Adam and Eve was a real event and can still answer their examination questions correctly then they have fulfilled the requirements of the course, end of story. When it comes to understanding truth, you simply CANNOT bludgeon people into submission. You can only show them the logic and hope they will understand. We're talking about the difference between freedom of choice and dictatorial repression. FORCING people to "see the truth" is such an outrageous oxymoron that it begs the question of why we're even discussing it. Education and indoctrination are two very different things. Do you want them to see the truth, or do you want them to repeat your answers back to you and nod obediently like good little drones?

The underlying premise of your point being that you see private contractors as samurai, an honorable and heroic occupation. Interesting.

You would give them an honorable death and elevate them to the status of heroic defenders of our nationalistic beliefs, then?

Wow, thank you for illustrating why I won't tolerate RevPrez and his influence on these boards. That post was classic RevPrez, through and through. Please check and make sure he didn't steal your password? Pointless hair-splitting. Calling it a myth and saying it should not be taken literally are, for our current purposes, the same thing, and I was responding to a specific use of that word by someone on YOUR side of the argument. So I don't appreciate this deliberate attempt to make me look bad just to elevate your own faulty logic. Knock it off. What, he's only supposed to discuss natural selection? He can't discuss abortion? Why not? You're dodging the question and you know it. And by the way these pointless, completely off-subject comparisons that you keep making in various threads aren't fooling anybody. Again with the logical fallacies that you just hate when other people use. Just because I disagree with you, Bascule, doesn't mean I don't understand what you're saying. If you can't argue a point on its merits than don't reply at all.

Hey y'all be nice. It's a reasonable suggestion but not everyone wants to disclose their occupation, Guest026. Thanks anyway.

K, that's enough of the ad-hom. Move along. Rev we're ok with you sticking around so long as you're raising interesting points politely, but we're not cool with you stirring up trouble and annoying people and refusing to acknowledge their valid opinions just because they differ from yours. You know the rules, and everybody here knows your game. In fact as far as I'm concerned I'm willing to suspend most of the rules when applied to you, so that means they get cart blanche attacking you when you're being a jerk and I'm not going to allow you to respond in kind. Call it the RevPrezRule if you like. If you can't behave yourself on that basis then we'll just have to throw you back in silent mode again.

Says a lot about what I think of Al Franken, doesn't it?

Not really, at least not in this case. I'm actually ok with it when he makes people laugh at conservatives (and the odd liberal now and then), but in this example he's run a long way from the truth just to imply that pure partisanship is a good thing. It isn't, and he's hurting America when he does that. In short, he's no better than Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken. He didn't used to be that way, but the 2000 election blew a fuse for a lot of the loony left, just like the Clinton years did for the wacky right.

Believe it or not, you just stumbled right into my point. Oh my god, somebody finally got it! Thank... uh... the Flying Spaghetti Monster! If it's valid for the teacher to, in the course of discussing the impact of religion on western history, declare that all religion is mere MYTH and insist that the students must AGREE that it's myth in order to pass the course, then it is also valid (and in fact necessary) for the teacher to instruct them that abortion kills a potential human life, and that all students must agree that it is so in order to pass the course. That's because abortion has been a pivotal political development issue in the history of western civilization. The reasoning is exactly the same. And so I reiterate my point -- YOU DON'T NEED TO BROACH THE LEGITIMACY OF THESE TOPICS IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN THEIR IMPACT ON WESTERN HISTORY! Have I finally made my point?

Yes and not only have they run the spectrum, they've also shown us that social and economic freedom aren't necessarily connected. Witness Pinochet's bizarre combination of brutal repression and market economics. Conservatives don't like to be reminded of that one because they like to run around implying that conservatism = market economics = success, and liberalism = social economics = failure. But in fact there's no particular reason to equate social freedom with individual economic purchasing ability. That's hardly the only example, either -- China has become the premiere example of this, and they're not alone either (Cuba seems to be heading that way, for example). The harsh reality of the modern world is that the fact that you can buy "Freedom Fries" at a local McDonalds says little about whether or not you can stand on the street corner and complain about their saturated fat content without being arrested. All of which greatly complicates the question of whether or not the world is becoming "more fascist".

Doh! I phrased that rather clumsily, didn't I? Actually it IS, it's ALL MINE, and you're taking every cent of my $12 billion and giving it away! Grrr! <shakes fists> Anyway I don't really see a problem with the Heritage article, but if you find a thorough rebuttal of it somewhere please feel free to pass it along.

I saw a piece yesterday about Blackwater guards saving the life of the Polish ambassador following an attack. I would imagine that the responsible and professional security contractors would welcome a little enforcement in their industry as well. They're certainly getting the short end of the publicity stick these days.

Sure, the data comes from the US Census Bureau. The analysis comes annually from Robert Rector at the Heritage Foundation (the author of America's Failed $5.4 Trillion War on Poverty) (We've spent a lot more than that now, btw -- that book's over a dozen years old!). He certainly has a point of view on the subject, but his data is all verifiable and sourced. The updated version was just posted a couple of weeks ago, which I guess is why it was on my mind. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg2064.cfm And yet you want to give people who earn three times as much as these people $12 billion of my money.

We'll give them a chance to go on Dr. Phil first, and/or apologize to Oprah.

Maybe I should rethink my position here. We are increasingly under the thumbs of liberal political correctness on one side and conservative political correctness on the other. The conservative responsibility cops versus the liberal it's-Bush's-fault-not-yours cops. I guess if I'm forced to acknowledge varying degrees of fascism (still a non-sequitur in my opinion), I guess I'll go with that. One thing that's always interesting about fascism discussions, by the way, is that liberals see them as a conservative problem and conservatives see them as a liberal problem. I've always seen fascism as kinda wrapping around behind the pole. In other words, if you go far enough to the left, you come to fascism, and if you go far enough to the right you come to it as well. The opposite pole of where the two extremes meet, you might say.

The proposed legislation, by the way, would have expanded the program to cover all children within a target family income THREE TIMES THE POVERTY LEVEL. The poverty level, as you all will recall from previous discussions here, is a level that includes two cars, a house, a job, a TV and DVD player, and a home computer (but for some reason they can't afford a couple hundred a month for healthcare). This bill would have covered children in families making THREE TIMES that amount. Next up: A bill that covers the mothers of children who are covered by this legislation. Because, you know, we can't have these children becoming homeless just because their moms can't get healthcare! And then of course the dads would be next. And what about those people not blessed with children of their own? Gotta save them too right? Yeah. Fiscal responsibility. Sure. Incidentally, polls showed something like 72% approval for this law, which is the why it was so popular on the Hill. But I really couldn't help but wonder about those poll questions. WHATEVER the wording, is there any doubt that the question was interpretted as, "Do you support children having access to doctors and hospitals, or do you believe they should be beaten down and spat upon like human garbage"?

Right, which, if you had your way, would be by wearing a bunch of electronics gadgetry on the front of your shirt. This whole thing reminds me of a hillarious Saturday Night Live "fake advertisement" sketch. I wish I could find the video for it, but they don't put all their skits online yet. It basically involved a husband meeting his wife at the airport, and she handed him a cool new product that's supposed to make it easier to keep track of all your different cellular telephones, blackberries, pagers, PDAs, etc etc etc. It was a utility vest covered with eletronics with all the wiring visible, and a great big hand-held red plunger button to control it all! The last shot was of the guy running through the airport trying to catch his airplane and hopping over a security checkpoint and all the guards were whipping out their guns. (hehe)

Hahaha! Dewd you are so 1337!

YT, I have to say I'm a little shocked at the obvious hypocrisy of this statement. After all, you don't see me claiming that in YOUR country this poor innocent student would have simply been GUNNED DOWN, do you ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes So back it off a notch, for Pete's sake.

How else are they supposed to KNOW what's inside a package without looking? I empathize with people having to argue with revprez's annoying tactics, but it's no excuse for ridiculous blanket statements. Those of you opposed to what happened to this person are much more interested in higher ideologies and perfect-world ethics than you are in the real-world, down-to-business issue of what can or cannot be done. You want a low-wage security guard to make a split-second (ok, "brief inspection" -- non-intrusive!) decision over whether something that looks like a toy (to you!) might actually be a bomb or not. I think that's ridiculous. Trying to cast this as some sort of higher discussion is just moronic. You do something stupid at an airport, you get inconvenienced, for a few minutes or a few hours, depending on whatever the local officials see fit. That's it. There's no higher political issue, no ideological territory to turf out, and no ugly trend to be concerned over. It is what it is. Get over it, peeps.