Pangloss

Nope, I am not opposed to the entire stimulus bill, and as I acknowledged in the previous thread I recognize that it's a gray area as to what constitutes "legitimate" stimulus spending and what does not. As I said in post #11 of this thread, I respect that some people will disagree with me on this issue. And guess what? Gray areas are a two-way street, and in fact you've not shown a real or measurable impact on America, which has a different level of preparedness than Mexico. That is a gray area. (Wow, look at that, I'm not saying "my point stands" or "your point is rejected" -- how interesting! Did you know that a discussion can work that way, iNow? You know, with two people respecting one another's opinions, instead of making them seem all smelly and nasty in front of the community?) I'm ready to move on from this, but if you keep it up I will continue to respond. I also remind you that I apologized for bringing up the stimulus spending issue again (see quote above) and was ready to drop this and not drag it out, but you and bascule kept going with it and asking me to respond. I did respond. Directly.

Okay, so (if I read you right) you do support due diligence, in general, before spending. Cool. I appreciate the clarification. I'm opposed to using the stimulus bill to circumvent due diligence. No, posts have been made which suggest economic impact of non-preparedness that does not directly relate to the United States' current preparation level, nor do they explain what would be a preparation level that WOULD avoid major economy calamity in the US. They do not counter my point, which is that these questions should be analyzed and addressed in a normal law-making process, not spent on in an emergency fashion without due diligence. See above. I'm countering their opinion with a different one. I'm allowed to do that here. No sir, I've responded to your personal comments that were completely unrelated to the thread. I believe those comments were made in order to render my opinion into obscurity, and I have stated my objection to that action. Incorrect. I have made an argument, and that argument is that I have a problem with spending that's not subject to due diligence. That's not "smoke and mirrors", it is in fact a clear statement of opinion.

At all costs? Ah, so, unless I'm misreading you (and please correct me if I am; I wouldn't want to misrepresent your opinion, after all), you're saying that you favor spending on your special interest without due diligence. What do you think of spending on other special interests without due diligence?

Again, that's because, as I've clearly stated, I am not opposed to science spending and pandemic preparedness spending.

That does not constitute an argument against science spending or pandemic preparedness spending in general. Once again you utilize the technique of casting of other people's opinions in disparaging light rather than addressing the actual argument. Oh right -- "the ability to shove naysayers aside is not always bad". I guess I'm a naysayer. Nay! NAY, I say!!!

That might have something to do with the fact that I haven't argued against either science or pandemic preparedness spending.

What does "prepared" look like when it comes to global pandemic? I stated before (which was ignored) that we're clearly more prepared than Mexico was, at least judging by the number of deaths. If we spent another billion dollars on it, would that make us prepared? What about two billion? Three? How many lives are saved per billion dollars? How long before anybody who even suggests that we carefully consider what we can afford is instantly demonized as someone who cares more about money than lives? Gosh, no, we shouldn't care about the budget, not when there are lives at stake! How evil! I think this is a great example of why our budget is about to expand to include the full weight of the stimulus package on a permanent basis. We're not prepared for something, that's for sure, but the concept of global pandemic is trivial compared with the real danger that we're not prepared for -- our inability to avoid falling to the media-driven, fear-based hysteria of the moment. (Anybody wanna review the NIH budget and rank how much they spend against which diseases actually kill the most people? It's been a few years since John Stossel's book, why, I'm sure everything's changed by now!)

Mexico is also universally being seen as vastly less prepared for this event than the US, as exhibited by the relative number of deaths, which is receiving endless comment in the media. But I've already agreed that the US is also underprepared. We all apparently want more science spending. I guess the difference between ParanoiA and I, and iNow, bascule, and Severian, is that we want all spending fully and fairly debated, and you want it hidden from the religious zealots and snuck in by the back door. Science spending at all costs, and shove the naysayers aside if that's what it takes. Hey, more power to you, I guess. But don't ever post anything about the need for transparency in government ever again.

It's not the filibuster we need to be worrying about. I've posted many times here already about how Specter wants to take the stimulus spending and MAKE IT PERMANENT. Of COURSE he's switching parties -- that's because every Democrat on the Hill wants to do exactly the same thing. The deficit doesn't matter, the debt is irrelevent, and the poor need to be rescued using money which grows on trees in younger people's back yards. Of COURSE this puts him at odds with the Republican party, which is desperately trying to throw that exact same reputation under the bus and reinvent itself as a party that doesn't believe in big government (not that anyone believes them). I've also explained here that the 2011 budget is going to be debated during the months leading up to the mid-term election. This is just one more indication of how hard it's going to be for Obama to stop a colossal mushrooming in the 2011 discretionary budget. So yeah, keep focusing on how great it is that we're free of thoes evil Republicans and how much better off we are now that Democrats are in charge. It's working out great, isn't it?

That's correct, that's my opinion. Come to think on it, the health sector is economically thriving -- it doesn't need stimulus help, and we shouldn't give it any until we've resolved the larger health care issue in this country. Anyway, I realize not everyone feels that way, and I don't mean to drag up the science-stimulus issue again; I'm a compromise kind of guy, it's just not what I would have done. iNow, a large percentage of the population is not sick with swine flu. It's not even a small percentage of the population. I understand your point, you're talking about over-reactions spurred by the news media. But why don't we solve that problem instead? You don't like feeding trolls, right? Well the 24-hour cable networks are the biggest trolls on the planet. If I could issue them infractions for trolling they'd be off the air in ten minutes. Hey there's an idea. Why don't we hire civilian news moderators? STIMULUS, BABY! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedBTW, I wouldn't be entirely opposed to spending some stimulus money on Tamiflu IFF the patent was withdrawn first. Roche made 11 billion dollars last year, a billion of it from Tamiflu alone. They don't need your stimulus check. Take away the patent and make it domestically with newly employed workers and THEN we're talking about stimulus.

The stimulus package was supposed to contain stimulus spending, so that's a good thing that it was removed from the bill. Legitimate spending warrants legitimate debate, not emergency spending to circumvent debate. I wholeheartedly support a massive increase in government spending on science, especially if it focuses a major portion on development of alternative energy sources. That's great to hear, and I look forward to that debate. That's a debate that this country has needed to have for some time now, and it needs to take place in the full light of day and with the full attention of the public.

Some useful reading here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage As I understand it these are considered tough problems not so much chemically but because of the scale needed to actually address the issue of global warming (i.e. cost). (Edit: Pardon me, I cross-posted with hermanntrude. Didn't mean to interrupt.)

Well that makes sense. The revised Darth Vader is essentially an analog for the law of unintended consequence. (He said, desperately trying to drag the thread back on topic.)

An admin locked the first one and removed it. I suggest you take a hint. (And I win.)

Interesting discussion. I'm reminded of a point made last week in PBS's Frontline program on pollution in Puget Sound (available online here). Apparently local county regulation has been used there that says that if you have property that includes over 65% vegetative covering you're required by law to leave it alone -- you can't clear it and develop it. On the surface this seems like an extreme violation of ownership rights, and it's not hard to see why people are upset, especially since it impacts directly on small holders, like individuals with an acre or two of wooded property around their house. But this is in direct response to a specific, local issue regarding pollution caused by rainwater runoff into Puget Sound which is exacerbated by reduced vegetation (nothing to absorb the runoff before it goes into the Sound). I'm sure some on the left will view this as demonstration of the evil of all human development, and some on the right will view this as demonstration of the extremes of liberal governance. But I think it's actually a textbook example of how you HAVE to struggle to find the correct balance between regulation and pure freedom. Pure freedom has produced the current situation -- clearly some degree of regulation is called for. Perhaps the exact degree of this regulation will have to be tweaked, but better to try that and seek out the correct balance over time than to use either extreme (doing nothing, or taking ownership away and putting the state in charge of everything). I am also increasingly mindful of ideas revolving around the concept of "true cost".

Oh, I think it's clear that the first ideological opinion statement in this thread resides in the opening post.

No, but many animal rights and environmental activists will apparently commit violent, terrorist acts without an ounce of religious belief motivating their actions. So clearly religious ferver is not a prerequisite for extremism.

I apologize, iNow -- I obviously mistakenly read the opposite in your reply. In answer to your question, my contention is that zealotry and evangelism are not limited to religious endeavors. People who believe passionately in something, whether it's god or that we're all moments from dying due to global warming, are equally dangerous when unchecked by the reality of scientific inquiry and rational decision-making. This, again, was in response to JHAQ's implication that it was the religious nature of the Bush administration's actions that made them dangerous. My contention (and point) is that it isn't the fact that they were religious that made them dangerous.

Be nice, please. He has a right to his opinion too. And I think those videos were (are) a valuable contribution.

Really? Your answer is "no" -- there's no such thing as anti-religious extremism? [Edit: I realized after replies below that I mis-read iNow here -- really sorry about this.] I'm sure you're not suggesting violence or any sort of illegal activity against religious people, but I note that your "no" would include the removal of all religion from society, including through legal means. It implies that you would support, for example, a constitutional amendment to ban the practice of organized religion in our society (legally overriding the first amendment). You don't consider this to be extreme? Assuming these assumptions are correct, again based on your blanket "no", then I believe my question has been answered. I submit in response that anti-religious behavior can have the same adverse effect on society that religious behavior can have. And, getting back to the subject at hand, that such people can be just as frustrated when society tells them "no, go away, you're just as bad as the evangelicals". Thus producing the same "tragic results" that JHAQ fears, just from a different set of people. Put another way, one form of ideological partisanship is not superior to another form. But I thought your examples were great -- as examples of reduction in the impact of religion on governance. The societies mentioned therein don't eliminate religion, they simply contain its impact on governance. This strikes me as a good idea, and it does not mean that moral standards learned through religious observance cannot be applied to good government. Contrast these for example with societies that ruthlessly eliminate religious observation (something your "no" would support, if not in the specific methods). Those societies are generally seen as FAR from "content" (genocide, soviet-decreed atheism, etc). But as I pointed out above, these are extremes. Certainly Denmark and Sweden allow religion to exist. They simply prefer to have less impact from religion on government than we seem to tolerate. THIS I agree with.

There you go again trying to render other people's opinions to be incorrect.

The above two posts do not answer the question I asked, appearing instead to defend moderate religious reduction. Is it your contention that there's no such thing as anti-religious extremism?

It already has. This entire site is run by AI bots posing as moderators and admins. Now pardon me while I erase your knowledge of this by triggering Emotional Outburst #12C.3i -- ("Damn you, iNow!!!!").

What happens when primitive anti-religiosity is confounded with policy making? Just curious.

So? Michael Moore still thinks Cuba is secular heaven. What else is new?