Pangloss

This is not a religious discussion board. If I've misunderstood your intent, Friend, please feel free to send me a PM and we'll discuss it.

Romance is like chess. One false move and you're mated!

How about they lose the franchise the moment they join the AARP? (grin)

He should have said "in the presidential election", which is what he was talking about in terms of young people exercising their vote. Presidential election turnout has been pretty high of late, and I believe something like 120 million votes were cast in the 2004 election. (Still a far cry from France's turnout in terms of percentage, I believe.) It is pretty pathetic that turnouts are so low in non-presidential elections, and that voter apathy is so bad that most people go to the poll not knowing the first thing about the vast majority of the candidates on the ballot. The walk into the booth where they discover precisely three things about each candidate: Their name, their party affiliation, and whether they are an incumbent (the last piece of information maybe not even meaning anything to them, not having access to the Wikipedia at that exact moment). They read those three pieces of information and then cast their vote and walk away, not even bothering to remember how they voted over the ensuing years. It's almost worth lowering the voting age just to get some fresh faces in there and see if they can do something about it.

Would that include sales tax?

Surely the only way to address those questions is by INCREASING the use of carbon credits? People print their own money, and in theory that makes the cash in my wallet less valuable. Doesn't mean I'm going to stop using it. What it means is that I'm going to complain about it and ask the government to fix it. I think people do get a false impression from carbon credits, and it's much like the situation with rooftop solar panels, ethanol, or buying a hybrid automobile. On the other hand, people are more aware and more interested in stopping global warming today than they've ever been before. All we really need to do is channel that interest in the right directions. And what if between all these half-baked measures, and a million more half-baked measures, we actually accrue enough real-world change to solve the problem?

An excellent point.

theCPE, if you attack like that again I will issue you an infraction. DH didn't insult you; there's no cause for you to insult him. That's not civil discourse. Well put, Phil.

But the question is would you ban it because it's annoying or because "the science says it's dangerous"? It may sound like hair-splitting, but I think these situations are important because stuff like this undermines the credibility of science over the long haul. Between overinflated importance assigned to statistical studies that clearly don't account for all the variables, and scientists who are willing to sell their credibilty for increased income, the perceived value of scientific research has taken a beating.

I can see the hackles raising already on this, but frankly I don't really care. I quite enjoy tackling issues that are politically incorrect in the scientific community. It's been my experience that scientists are no less hypocritically inclined than any other group of people, and this community, much as I love it, has done nothing to disabuse me of that notion. With that in mind, I got a kick out of John Stossel's newest episode of "Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity" last night. One of the segments was about BRIEF exposure to second-hand smoke. Some may recall that in a recent discussion right here at SFN, it was declared by anti-smoking advocates that even a few minutes of exposure can ultimately cause exactly the same damage as extended exposure (to their credit, they didn't claim that it WILL cause it, just that it might). I challenged that assertion as scientifically unsupported. So do many scientists and cardiologists. Even the ones who favor banning smoking from the workplace (where exposure would be more prolonged). http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1955237&page=1

There are a thousand ways a President with a firm belief in ID and an opposing position on evolution can cause drastic and damaging change on the country. He controls the entire government bureaucracy. Virtually every appointment at every single agency "serves at the pleasure of the President". That includes the Department of Education. He can also sign or veto any piece of legislation put before him, and plays a major role in the budget process. He also appoints federal judges and Supreme Court justices (subject to legislative approval), and those appointments are lifetime in length. Or "she", of course.

Anti-Americanism clearly played a role in the election, because it was used by the Socialist candidate to paint the Conservative candidate in a negative light. The fact that it was unsuccessful suggests that anti-American sentiment is less important to French voters than voting against a female candidate. It's obviously a generalization and is not intended as a summary of the entire voting picture in France. I'm well aware that many Socialist party measures have been unpopular. But I think it's clear that they still have a tremendous voting base, and are extremely unhappy about this potential shift in French government. The political situation is analogous to that in the United States at the moment, with extremists upset about election results and the power of mainstream/moderate voters. But I just can't resist a dig about anti-Americanism being offset by opposition to a female candidate. That's just too rich and obvious a dynamic to ignore. It's like sticking it to those three Republican candidates on the subject of Evolution over in the other thread -- just because they made that statement doesn't mean they'd put Creationism in public schools. But the dynamic is clear and obvious, and absolutely noteworthy.

Wow. I guess it's a good thing she isn't black, or the left would be seriously conflicted.

I read somewhere yesterday that Imus is now suing is former employer, saying that he was doing exactly what they employed him to -- be controversial. Doesn't that constitute a retraction of his apology?

I appreciate this info. I missed it in the media's rush to paint all Republicans with the same brush. This is clearly an important distinction between the candidates.

Right in one. I have heard some fairly persuasive arguments for allowing people to vote at a younger age. They're usually washed out by points about parental control and popular entertainment bias. There's an argument to be made that adults aren't much better at making the choices either, but that's a two wrongs argument and therefore flawed.

Sure it does -- anti-Americanism has apparently been a prime factor in the election. The Socialist candidate has used photographs of the Conservative candidate in the White House and many statements and opinions to try and paint the Conservative candidate as favoring American policy and Bush in particular. She's playing on anti-Americanism. Absolutely. The fact that French voters are voting for him anyway speaks *volumes* about the French attitude towards America right now. It tells us that they place their anti-Americanism just slightly below their hatred for the idea of having a woman run the country. I realize these are just socio-political trends and don't speak for individuals. I don't accuse all French people of hating women or Americans. But I think a country's voting habits speaks volumes about its socio-political environment. Don't you?

I read tonight that France appears poised to elect a conservative president and overturn decades of socialism in favor of a pro-American capitalist who pledges tax cuts, crackdowns on crime, immigration reform, reduced government ownership of industry and public funding for religious organizations. And I didn't suddenly wake up at that point, either. I kept dreaming, and learned that he also proposes capping tax rates at 50% of income (instead of 70%), eliminating welfare for unemployed workers who refuse to take work offered to them, reforming copyright law, and eliminating the budget deficit. (Well I guess he's not a total Republican....) But no, it's really not a dream, it's actually happening. Bizarre, isn't it? He's actually favored to win in the runoff election this weekend. The polls say more than a million French voters would have to change their minds in order for him to lose. So how could this man possibly win? You're gonna love this, it's the best part of all: Because his opponent is a woman! That, apparently, is the price of France's anti-Americanism. They'll do anything to keep a woman out of the presidency, even going so far as to embrace (gasp) capitalism! Of course, as this story points out, the Socialists won't go quietly, unsurprisingly pledging violent rioting if he wins. And that's from the Socialist presidential candidate... herself! Stories like this just make my whole week. http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/world/05/05/5France.html

Snail, you're not talking about "patriotism", you're talking about "nationalism". There is a difference.

Joost? Jawn. Wake me when they get around to HD.

In fact in some cases it's twice that. But so what? You're talking about a hair over the average annual income, and most of it financable at below prime, not to mention grants and scholarships. Quite a bargain, really.

I think you have to decide that for yourself. My impression from interviews I've seen is that he believes in their agenda and will promote it as president. That means more faith-based public initiatives (churches getting federal funds), for example. He'd push for prayer in public schools, oppose same-sex marriage, and support the death penalty. (Though I believe he's pro-choice on abortion.) What it would probably not mean in Newt's case would be the kind of denial of science we've seen under Bush 2. Gingrich supports fetal stem cell research, opposes creationism, and takes other pro-science positions. He's an ardent supporter of space exploration and development. (I actually met him at a science fiction convention in 1984, where he sat on a panel discussing space policy along with author Larry Niven.) In one sense if he were to be elected he could present a more positive role model for right-wing fundamentalists. I always felt that if Bush had lead that movement instead of followed it he'd have been more successful. However, on the subject of energy science and the environment, I doubt he would be popular amongst that aspect of the scientific community.

Some interesting questions being asked in this thread. I like an elevated discussion. One thing that I think people recognize here is that while I think we would all agree that it's bad when individual voices have no say in government, it's also bad when successful enterprises that have tons of relevent experience aren't listened to either. We want government to pay attention to that voice of experience and knowledge. We just want to make sure that it also understands that that voice has, by definition a very specific ulterior motive. I'm actually reminded somewhat of the trade-off that the founding fathers made between the House and the Senate. They had to look at whether the most populous states should have the biggest voice in legislation, or whether all states should be equal in that regard. Obviously the comparison is not 100%, but I think there's a point to be made here about the value of compromise. (But I don't think we want the same kind of compromise here that the founding fathers chose for congress! Eek, my analogy REALLY breaks down at that point....)

I've actually voted for Newt Gingrich before, but I don't think I would vote for him now that he's aligned with the Christian right. He does seem to still have that common-sense perspective and raw intelligence that prompted me to vote for him back in the 1980s, but I'd have to take a hard look at it. Hillary vs Newt, and the whole business of Newt's resurgence would be a bizarre set of events. Reminds me of Teddy Roosevelt in 1912.

I don't have a problem with public education as an investment. If people are too stupid or lazy to figure out a way to educate their children, I'm more than happy to rip that responsibility right out of their hands and shove it down their throats so that my children will have someone with a modicum of intelligence to exploi--... I mean employ. What I have a problem with is waste and inefficiency, and people who refuse to acknowledge the fact that we do everything BUT ignore "the poor".