Something I First Identified in College
 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20070523/cm_rcp/al_gores_insolent_assault_on_r

Much like the idea that "the debate on global warming is over" is used to suppress debate, we are told that we are only "open minded" if we agree with one side of a debate. Terms like "open minded" are never used to imply by those who spout them that they should be listening to you, rather that you should simply give in to the implied majority and be a good little sheep. The irony has never been lost on me.

That the green stuff on your dick was fungus?

Bravo...well said. There is precious little conservative thought in today's media. I just canceled a local paper. Why? It's editor decided to cancel "Mallard Fillmore", one of the few strips offering rebuttal to "Doonesbury". Even this little semblance of balance has been eliminated.

It is always wise
to search for wisdom
with a mind open to fill it.

As time will tell,
and ***** will smell
and water will find its limit.

(dang, thats pretty good, I should write that one down!)

Interesting, this intepretation of yours. As another data point for you to remember......or forget......I can tell you that my definition of "open mind" is like yours. The lemming thing appears, according to my observation and that of quite a few people frankly, to be a right-wing phenomenon. Indeed, I just figured out why there is such a vigorous backlash here to the global warming thing. It is, in fact, a matter of propaganda.

I watched and listened to a lecture on TV last night. The speaker was a psychologist, fairly well respected nationally and internationally. She is also a professor. She's a liberal, of course. Obviously. Anybody with that much experience in education would never be a conservative. As you guys have mentioned before.

Her topic was AIDS. AIDS research and AIDS treatment and AIDS prevention. Apparently, the current "administration" has mandated that in order to receive federal funding, prevention programs are required to focus exclusively on abstinence. They are premitted to mention condoms only to announce their failure rates and their overall ineffectiveness. That's a pretty interesting requirement in light of the fact that prevention programs which discuss alternatives besides abstinence result in greater success on EVERY MEASURE than abstinence-only programs. Not just for the prevention of disease and pregnancy, but in the promotion of marriage. Interesting. It seems like the federal mandate flies right in the face of all the legitimate research.

Another interesting thing she discussed for perhaps twenty minutes including some fairly powerful observations by others including some fairly notorious conservatives, and using many many examples, is the very different approach being taken by the current "administration." Apparently, and in an unprecedented fashion, political appointees are showing up on boards that have historically been 100% filled with scientists. In other words, political appointees are substituting their judgement for that of professional scientists and researchers in the field.

Scientific data and conclusions are being suppressed and mis-stated deliberately. I guess I found out why there is such a vocal outcry about scientists' conclusions regarding global warming. That comes from two sources. First, the scientific community is being discredited in a wholesale fashion. We're dismissing them as "liberals." The other source is that this global warming thing has been impossible for the "administration" to summarily crush. Like it has done to many other important research findings that industry finds inconvenient.

The damage, as with many other forms of damage this "administration" had done to my country, will be long-lasting. Science, which has historically been regarded with respect and objectivity by political organizations, is being discredited wholesale. It will take us some time, if ever, to return to the use of this data with objectivity.

Super, I tried to read your post...I really did. But for some reason, the words translated into my mind as: "Blah-blah-blah-blah-blah..."

The internet killed science.

Video killed the radio star...

Not the first time either...

It didn't flow as beautifully as most of my prose. I'll try harder next time.

This administration is really changing American politics. I suspect that history will remember this administration more for its taking politics into a new direction than for the Iraq thing. This administration thinks the country should wholly follow the President's principles. Scientific conclusions. Existing government functions. All that stuff is dictated by the President. No president in history has tried this hard to bend all government functions to his vision. That works for you guys who think Dubya is some kind of genius. I'll like it better if it works the same way when a Democrat takes office. But either way, politicians substituting their scientific conclusions for the ones made by the actual scientists.....well......I'm not sure that's a good new direction to be going in.

In your case, I already knew this.:D

and I've been considering cancelling our local paper because they do carry "Mallard Fillmore" as that strip is basically thoughtless one-liner cheap shots at the non-believers. Doonebury has speared every administration (Republican and democratic) since the strip started. To comare Mallard to Doonesbury is laughable.

Super U claim an open mind, then why don't you check out Michael Crichtons criticism of the Global Warming controversy. He doesn't deny Global Warming, perhaps the causes as espoused by the Bureaucrats who make policy. He basically states that the Scientists didn't write the report on Global warming but the Bureaucrats at the UN did. So before you decide to follow the other lemmings off the cliff, be sure of what your signing onto before U jump.

the CORPs own the media
the CORPs are not liberal
so the liberal media is just an other BIG LIE
by the neo-conned
few remember who they parrot with the media is liberal LIE
ADOLF HITLER is the man who invented the BIG LIE
and the MEDIA IS LIBERAL LIE TOOO
so take care who's ideas you parrot
and who's LIES you RETELL

once there was a true liberal media
the underground press
but saddly the few that survived
quickly became owned by capitailist intrests
rolling stone is a good example

no capitalist is a true liberal
money allways comes befor ideas
they will sell anything to make a buck

funny how the rightwing nuts claim
the gray lady is a liberal paper
they mistake middle for left
but as they are so far far right
anything in the center is seen as left
and only their own unfair and unbalanced BS
is seen as nonliberal

The reason some could not finish Supe's post was attention deficit disorder. Simple as that. Anything that contains a new idea or a contrary viewpont is automatically filtered out.

Amazing how some otherwise intelligent folks have allowed themselves to be driven lockstep into a certain way of thinking. Didn't they once refer to this as "Brainwashing"?

Fear. Fear of something new. Imagine if our founding fathers had been ruled by this kind of irrational fear. We would still be singing "Hail Brittania".

I think you mean "Rule Brittania", and supe babbling incoherently, but hey, if you understood him please enlighten us.

The Bush "administration" is preventing the use of scientific data in the formation of public policy. Because it is inconvenient to business. The method of avoiding this is to either suppress.....or misrepresent, those findings. The temporary problem is that this gives industry the freedom to ignore ecological considerations. The bigger problem is that we may never get back to the objective use of scientific findings by government. Prior to this "administration," scientists drew conclusions and reported them to Congress, and Congress respectfully listened. There was no active interference. Today, politicians draw scientific conclusions and present them as if they had been made by the scientific community.

A great deal of damage is currently being done to my country.

I don't know supe, sounds like a trip down sentimental lane of yesteryear. I seriously doubt anything in Washington was ever free of politics.

Really, I'm not a skeptic.

Supe - you can find as many scientists to agree with the findings as you can to disagree. I do agree that the country could be better yet I suppose you could say that about anyplace.

The politicians will do what they think the people or the money want them to do. I bet if enough folks put up a fuss things could change. We need a ground swell of concern. We need folks who have a direct connection with the industries that pollute.

Lets say that the world really is warming up due to all the junk we put into the air. The auto industry is certainly to blame as is the airline industry. What would be really helpful is some concern Joe (or Jim) that maybe works in that world to begin the work. Someone who is socially aware and politically savvy. Someone who has their ear to the ground of the unions say. Someone in the airline industry to start it off.

Hmmm, I wonder who will actually begin the journey?

Agreed. Al Gore has positioned himself, with the help of a predominantly liberal American media, as an expert on global warming. He is, of course, anything but. His assertions have been roundly debunked by the most respected scientists in the field.

First of all, just because they are appointed by someone who is probably paying the bills, it does not mean they are unqualified. Sure, Michael Brown is a douchebag(can I say that here?), but that does not mean all of them are.

Who exactly is dismissing science in general again, missed the Newsweek on that one. Haven't heard about republican hooligans stealing all the Science magazines out of people's mailboxes either. Are they pulling funding for research they don't like that has shown particular promise(Go ahead and mention embryonic stem cell research, that has not shown as much promise as other forms of stem cells, so that would be a red herring)


I for one would like to hear the name of a scientist or two that has been persecuted in some fashion by the current administration, not summarily crushed, just hassled in some way, how would that be, hmmm...

Wayne........ +1

+2

Ah......but do "Conservative Christian Values" have a place in policy making under the Constitution?

And....are those values truly conservative and Christian?


(always the rabble rouser......)

Wayne, can a politician drive social and personal values? Should a politician drive social change?

That would be marching goosestep down a very dangerous ally.

Lube...

My thoughts exactly......

It's a good question. While very few would want a religious sect pushed onto the people, NO ONE wants to see a leader abandon his convictions and moral code while making important decisions that effect the entire country. This is consistent with the kind of vision our founding fathers had of the new nation.

If you don't agree with that moral code and conviction, then don't vote for that individual. But please don't be surprised when that leader relies on those convictions and beliefs while doing his job. And don't expect a special accommodation against the majority view.

Wayne_

I agree with your assesment of GW but what you stand for is the antithesis of Clinton...Why did you appreciate Clinton?

Clinton had no heavy fist...was a liberal, morally bankrupt and had no appreciable family values...

I have troubles with your statement...

Moral bankruptcy comes in far more flavors than getting "serviced". Many of our leaders have had trouble with individual moral judgement. The trick is to separate the convictions created by a specific religious belief and strictly "humane and/or constitutional" principles. When these overlap, there is a danger to the society of imposing these religious beliefs on the Country.

Interesting but there is one country over in the Balkan ststes about to unveil a bronze statue of Bill. Despite his pecadillos at home, the ROW thinks he was a pretty good guy.

I personally don't understand the fascination with some complete stranger's sex life. It's too prevalant in our society today....people glued to the TV set trying to find out all the "gossip" of others. Ugh.

What stranger?

People on TV, people defined in "groups" that you don't even know exist, etc.....

Then I guess you don't know why so many people cried when complete strangers like JFK and Princess Diana died.

The Dems have very bad aim. They always hit their own foot. By urging all Democrat Presidential candidates to boycott Fox if they sponsor a debate, and by pushing forward the so-called Fairness Doctrine, their feet are in grave danger.

Personally I have to stretch my thinking to even get concerned about our leader's sex lives. Heaven knows, what they do with their spouses behind closed doors may include a trapeze and a Black & Decker screwgun, but that is their business.

I am not electing them for their personal habits, but rather their professional judgement and capabilities in the work place, government in the case of elected officials.

The offense, IMHO, about Bill Clinton is not that he did the deed with a few women, most presidents have, but rather that he did not come clean when challenged and just say "Yup, I did it, what's it to you lot?". The inability to be honest weighs heavier in my mind than any notion of sexual "purity".

Dennis

Well it's sad to see a person die. That doesn't explain the sicko fascination into their personal sex life, however....

Amen.

IMO, that's just an excuse for some in order to play the holier-than-thou partisan game (not directed to you). To be honest, if I were a cheater, and it was me, I'd lie too). Well, maybe not. I'd say HEY B#TCH, IT'S NONE OF YOUR F#CKING BUSINESS!! That's what he should've said. Not sure if he was literally required to answer the question under oath.....if so, I would probably lie too, if I were a cheater. That's what cheaters do, they lie to their wives. Something like 75% people cheat, and most likely they are lying about it. Doesn't mean they aren't good employees, dishonest employees, doesn't mean they're not honest in other aspects in their lives. If this were true, this would mean 75% of your staff "can't be trusted" at work.

IMHO, the lying about it is the true adultery.

In Bill Clinton's case, his position required a few different rules than us normal folks and so I think he should have found a more delicate way to say "none of your business" and headed off a big political mess (maybe...there were some folks out to make Mt. Everest out of a molehill)

I separate the physical stuff from the honesty/committment stuff. I have told my wife every thing I have ever done (not that I have done THAT much), even though there were some awkward,painful moments. My belief is that the "awkward moment" is a far smaller pain than the divorce or living together in misery.

Face it, we are all people, we mess up, we get seduced, we get frustrated and seek release elsewhere....all sorts of stuff, but a bit of forgiveness and give and take is part of a long lasting relationship, whether in marriage or in the workplace.

Dennis

Most politicians do lie about these things when asked publically. Countless times, of both political parties. That's what they do....they are most likely trying to hide it from their wife (husband). To me, we should take this whole personal sex-life business out of politics altogether. How this pervaded our political climate of late is beyond me. It's gross. It pisses me off.

There was a politician here (a Republican) whose divorce papers were released to the media. I guess he was a swinger. His career is over because of this. I mean, WTF? I don't care who blows him! I care about the job he's hired to do. Why are Americans so shallow?

Well this is personal, and this a personal opinion. And on a personal level, we do not differ at all. Additionally, this stuff is between me and my partner, not my friends, not my family, not the strangers down the street, not some strangers in another town. Nunya. When something that belongs between the couple becomes part of the campaign or part of working to get someone fired from their political job is where I have a real issue.

Cool-Chick....your chosen name suits you well....

Dennis

Oddly enough, he was running against Barack Obama for the Senate and probably would have won had he not withdrawn from the race in shame. All I have to say is: Watch out Hillary! I think you've met your match in unyielding ambition.