Politics

[Tom]

Isn't that, 'war on terrorism.'    

Sorry, couldn't resist.

So why does Dubya keep saying, "war on terror".  Is that like a "war on happy", instead of a 'war on happiness'.

[Ghost_Rider]

Try telling that to Dubya himself.      You'd probably get, "Wha??" in response.

It's really become "The War on whoever I decide is a bad guy"

I remember that whole "Axis of Evil" speech and the trouble that stirred up.  So the (scary) question is, who's next?

[Nytegard]

Well, being that Wisconsin is now the hotbed of Creationism vs Evolution in the schools...

What bugs me is that people are comparing the Theory of Evolution with "The Theory of Creationism".  On one hand, evolution is using the term theory in a scientific sense, and on the other, creationism is using the term theory in the popular sense (aka hypothesis).

This whole war on terror frightens me.  You can't win this war, it's impossible.  Then again, more and more I see the USA going towards fascism and ignorance.  Maybe we got the president we as a whole deserved.

[Dianne Lewandowski]

Our local school board voted a few years ago to teach "abstinence only".  One of our kind doctors (who happens to be my doctor, and I love her to death), got them to change their minds this past summer.   She had to hit them over the head with reality:  15 pregnant teens last year in a town of 4,700.

I've heard about the school district who is adding "creation" in their district text.  And I understand several others are toying with the idea.

Twenty years ago I said our country was going backward.  Nobody believed me.  It's now becoming apparent.

I haven't read any literature on the creation theory, except that it is based on intelligent intervention.  We had neighbors for a few years who home schooled, mainly so that they didn't get engrossed in "evolution" . . . for, after all, man DID live with the dinasaurs and the earth is only a few thousand years old.  I had many a conversation with this mother.  I won't even get into the part that this woman had no grammar skills, couldn't write a coherent sentence.  I shudder when these types of people home school.

You made me look up the word theory:  generally accepted principle.

[Fancia]

for, after all, man DID live with the dinasaurs and the earth is only a few thousand years old.  I had many a conversation with this mother.  I won't even get into the part that this woman had no grammar skills, couldn't write a coherent sentence.  I shudder when these types of people home school.

Oddly enough, the current general idea for creationism, put forward when the first such dated fossils clearly showed that the world was older than the Biblical several thousand, is that God created the world to *look old.* It's bizarre, and complete bunk, of course... it really seems too much thought put in to try and patch up a concept that's clearly flawed in and of itself. That's the problem, really; the Bible is accepted by the more fundamentalist Christians as pure truth, which leads to this sort of mental contortionism to make the evidence fit the conclusion they already have.

[Nytegard]

You made me look up the word theory:  generally accepted principle.

Well, from wikpedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Characteristics
Often the statement "Well, it's just a theory," is used to dismiss controversial theories such as evolution, but this is largely due to confusion between the scientific use of the word theory and its more informal use as a synonym for "speculation" or "conjecture." In science, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a firm empirical basis, i.e. it

is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense,
is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct,
has survived many critical real world tests that could have proven it false,
makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory, and
is the best known explanation, in the sense of Occam's Razor, of the infinite variety of alternative explanations for the same data.
This is true of such established theories as evolution, special and general relativity, quantum mechanics (with minimal interpretation), plate tectonics, etc.

[edit]
Other studies
Theories exist not only in the so-called 'hard sciences' but in all fields of academic study, from philosophy to music to literature.

Unfortunately, the usage of the term is muddled by cases such as string theory and "theories of everything," each probably better characterized at present as a bundle of competing hypotheses for a protoscience. A hypothesis, however, is still vastly more reliable than a conjecture, which is at best an untested guess consistent with selected data, and is often a belief based on non-repeatable experiments, anecdotes, popular opinion, "wisdom of the ancients," commercial motivation, or mysticism.

A good example of a non-scientific "theory" is Intelligent Design. Likewise, other claims such as homeopathy are also not scientific theories, but pseudoscience.

[Dianne Lewandowski]

I thank you mightily for your clear and concise definition.  "General accepted principle" doesn't have quite the clout your answer did, but I understood nonetheless.  Since I get in these types of discussions fairly regularly, I copied your post and will no doubt use it sometime.

In the meantime, a friend in Canada just sent me the following link, which might prove interesting to some of you.

http://www.costofwar.com/

This is such a great group.  Diversity of opinion and good discourse without ranting.  Something the U.S. is no longer capable of pursuing.

[Alistair]

Thanks Dianne/Nytegard, for your definitions of theory! Fascinating. I had no idea how often I actually hear it misused.

America seems to be in a general state of apathy. As Dianne mentioned before, they're scapegoating rather than looking at the US's underlying issues.. economic factors such as Greenspan and interest rates, social such as health care, wage levels (and wages v inflation), workers' rights, welfare systems, etc.. (list could go on indefinitely, but I'm busy today!)

Sad to say, Australia is heading down the same path. Voters looked at our strong economy and said 'Nup. Not switching government. Things are just fine..' .. you know the drill. They never looked at health and education crises, unemployment, welfare system, workers' rights etc etc. Makes me a sad man..

- Alistair

[Nytegard]

Sad to say, Australia is heading down the same path. Voters looked at our strong economy and said 'Nup. Not switching government. Things are just fine..' .. you know the drill. They never looked at health and education crises, unemployment, welfare system, workers' rights etc etc. Makes me a sad man..

- Alistair

There's a difference though Alistair.  If you have a strong economy, that is something to run on, even if there are a lot of faults.  The politicians here on the Republican side, seeing a faultering economy, fake a strong economy.  IE: You hear on the news: The economy is stronger now than it was 3 months ago.  Job loss is at a 6 week low.  You don't hear how Bush's record compares to Clintons though.  Or his overall, dismal performance.  It's all short term.  Of course losing 6000 jobs this week was much better than losing 8000 jobs last week.  That doesn't mean its good though.

The thing that really irritates me though is the fact that the people living in the Democratic states are the ones who would benefit the most from a true Republican style government (not this neo con government).  The richest states, the states that pay the most in taxes and get the least in return are the blue states.  The states that pay the least and get the most in return are the heavy Republican based states.  That's why most people who vote Republican in those states are hypocritical imho.  If a true Republican came into power, most of us who live in these blue states would actually see a higher quality of life.  We'd be getting more money from the government.  And many of these midwestern and southern states would take a huge hit.  They'd lose even more jobs, and their quality of life would faulter.

This election, according to polls, the number 1 issue based on deciding a president was morals.  These aren't morals people were basing it on.  These were 1 issue.  Marriage?  Guess what, Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate.  And states without the death penalty have a much lower murder rate than those with the death penalty.  The one area the red states  have in their moral crusade that the blue states get hurt on:  Abortion.  Which bothers me.  Why are so many of these "pro life" people, anti abortion, yet pro guns & pro death penalty?

[Alistair]

Yes, I know what you mean. *However*- Australia's strong economy is a bit of a misnoma.. as in, the economy may be strong but the perception that everyone's better off is quite wrong. The average Aussie doesn't see squat of our booming economy. Wages haven't kept pace with inflation here for AGES! And house prices here have become unafforable for the majority of the public.

In fact, the reason Howard was reelected was because they put a scare campaign on the television.. "Interest rates are always higher under Labor" (Howard being part of the Liberal-National Coalition Government, 2 parties joined, while Labor is Opposition, like Republicans v Democrats).

Since most families are in mortgage belts with these excessive house prices, they of course voted Liberal or National..

Similar to American votes, people thought they'd be financially 'better off'. Well, lower interest rates are small concession compared to health cuts, education cuts, wage cuts, etc..

This election, according to polls, the number 1 issue based on deciding a president was morals. These aren't morals people were basing it on. These were 1 issue. Marriage?

"Moral Values" is a misnoma as well. We had a new party called "Family First" in the elections this year, a hard-core rightie evangelical party, claiming to put 'families first' (duh). Though one of them had interesting ideas about burning homosexuals at the stake.. (seriously). They racked up a few votes, enough to help the Coalition in the Senate to gain majority, which is bloody scary for people like me, I tell you.

The bottom line is.. "which families do parties like Family First and the Republicans stand for?"
Do they support every family? No. If you divorce your partner, or vice versa, then you're not supported.. if you were born out of wedlock, if you had an abortion, if you're not actually married (de facto), if you're homosexual.. list goes on, then you're not 'a family'! Nonsense. I wodner what proportion of voters that leaves disenfranchised (i.e. not represented by Governments like Australia's and America's).

The Liberal Party now has a lot of quote "Christian Senators" and MP's as well. It's a huge worry for a relatively liberal (the spirit, not the party which is anything but liberal) country such as Australia. They were considering abolishing compulsory voting (an essential part of a real democracy in my book) too! Thank goodness that got hit on the head.

Wow, another spiel. Hopefully that made sense folks, ask away if anything didn't

- Alistair

[Trevelyan]

This is such a great group. Diversity of opinion and good discourse without ranting. Something the U.S. is no longer capable of pursuing.

I'd have to disagree with the 'diversity of opinion' bit there. I agree with the general feeling being expressed. And pretty much everyone else does, as far as I can tell. So we're not really diverse in that respect. Not that we're exclusive in any way. And the discourse is good and civil while making intelligent points. And I agree that the US as a whole is no longer capable of doing this. I just wanted to point out the general homogeneity of thought.

I would love to have a forum such as this in which people of other opinions would speak. I am also more than confident that application of logic and actual facts would be sufficient to win any debate with those people. I'm thinking mainly of the 'religious right' in the US. I'm Catholic but I'm also a scientist. I understand that my religious beliefs do not have to be spelled out word for word in a book, and that any book that has been translated by political powers for almost 2000 years has the distinct possibility of being inaccurate. Not to mention that I understand the power of storytelling to explain complex religious concepts, i.e., just because the Bible says something, that doesn't mean it actually happened that way.

One thing I never understood through this last campaign year, why exactly were people trying to actively ban gay marriage? I mean, that whole 'definition of the term marriage' is utter nonsense. Ever hear anyone talk about the marriage of flavors or smells in a recipe? Or the marriage of concepts in science? Or the marriage of art and science, or a million other things? Marriage means a coming together, I imagine limited to 2 things. Note the lack of male/female in that. Even so, to claim that marriage is between a man and a woman implies a religious definition, something that should NOT be used as our secular law. Furthermore, if one insists on the religious Christian approach, then look no further than the teachings of Jesus Himself, in that ALL are welcome to His table. Back then it was tax collectors and prostitutes and lepers. So a good Christian, while saying that homosexuality is not right, HAS TO accept everyone. And there's where we get the hypocrisy. If, on the other hand, you somehow manage to extricate the religion out of the issue, what's the problem? Does the act of giving others the benefits of marriage hurt your marriage? Does it raise your taxes significantly? Does it actually hurt you in any way shape or form? If so, I did not hear about it in all the campaigning and ranting. And of course the 'news' stations didn't explain any of the issues.

Don't even get me started on the hypocrisy of an anti-abortion law based on religious ideals (preventing free will and all...), let alone the back-room procedure results of such a law from a secular POV.

Grrr.... I'll stop my rant before I get too much angrier...

Trev

[Fancia]

One thing I never understood through this last campaign year, why exactly were people trying to actively ban gay marriage? I mean, that whole 'definition of the term marriage' is utter nonsense. Ever hear anyone talk about the marriage of flavors or smells in a recipe? Or the marriage of concepts in science? Or the marriage of art and science, or a million other things? Marriage means a coming together, I imagine limited to 2 things. Note the lack of male/female in that. Even so, to claim that marriage is between a man and a woman implies a religious definition, something that should NOT be used as our secular law. Furthermore, if one insists on the religious Christian approach, then look no further than the teachings of Jesus Himself, in that ALL are welcome to His table. Back then it was tax collectors and prostitutes and lepers. So a good Christian, while saying that homosexuality is not right, HAS TO accept everyone. And there's where we get the hypocrisy. If, on the other hand, you somehow manage to extricate the religion out of the issue, what's the problem? Does the act of giving others the benefits of marriage hurt your marriage? Does it raise your taxes significantly? Does it actually hurt you in any way shape or form? If so, I did not hear about it in all the campaigning and ranting. And of course the 'news' stations didn't explain any of the issues.

It's always confused me, too. Those that claim that they are protecting traditional family values appear to believe that the meaning of marriage has remained static over the years, which is far from the case. Are we to return to the marriages of old, where women had no choice in mate and were asked in the marriage vows to obey their husbands no matter what?

[Dianne Lewandowski]

Ok.  Ya got me on the "diversity of opinion."    

I communicate fairly regularly with an embroiderer in Australia, and I've heard similar comments about the shift to the right from him.  

I've got to look up "intelligent design" on the web to see what I can find.  I'd like to be better informed about the thought behind it.  Of course, I wonder if that includes being seeded by aliens?  Certainly that falls under the pervue of interception by a higher being.  Somehow, I don't think it's what the "right" has in mind.

[Trevelyan]

Fancia,

I agree with you, but I don't think that bringing in the vague concept of 'traditional family values' is necessary or even called for in the debate. I mean, in order to bring in the family values thing, one has to convince me that somebody else's marriage will have an effect on my family. If I lived next to a married gay couple would that erode my own morals so that I can't be a role model for my children? If so, I need serious professional help in establishing my sense of self.

And if one argues that gay marriage sets a bad example for our children, why do they allow us to go to war or allow the death penalty, or even allow most of what is on television right now? If a child is going to be influenced that strongly by someone else's life choices then they will certainly be influenced by our culture that says killing is ok, foul language is fine, heterosexual intercourse is fine and encouraged even for teens, but gays, no way. The argument of family values is illogical and as I stated above, should not even be brought into the debate on gay marriage. That's if the debate was fair and between two logical, rational sides. Of course, the general American public is neither logical nor rational.

Trev

[Dianne Lewandowski]

I think other families in a community can have a profound impact on family.  For instance, the high divorce rate.  Even if your own family remains intact, watching 50% or more fall all around you impacts you in very real terms, whether a child or an adult.

I don't know what "family values" means.  It's too vague.  A catch phrase.  I hear it mentioned by people who swear like sailors as they guzzle down their 5th beer in their dirty tee-shirt and grubby jeans.  Or, by people who say, "My son/daughter would NEVER hit (cheat, steal, etc.) all the while you're presenting evidence to the contrary.

Being surrounded by *that* type of family also has a profound impact.  None of us are isolated.  We all impact one another.  We can do it positively or negatively.  

It's a red herring, as is most of the discussion.  It's an image the lesser educated and lesser informed can wrap their gray cells around.  Enumerating it exactly is beyond their attention span, nor does it fit in with their illogical reasoning.  And it's very exasperating for the rest of us.

I found a great web site on the theory of intelligent design.    Thanks for the nudge.  It's also been fun to vent a little.  It was a very frustrating election for us, but I saw it coming.  I've been watching it happen for over 25 years, this slippery slope of superstition, myth, greed, and wealth accumulating in the hands of a few.  The rise of the bully pulpit in our fundamentalist churches.  I don't know what causes these pendulum swings, but we're watching it unfold.

[Alistair]

For me, the 'moral values' term seems to be not only a red herring (though Dianne's quite right with her assesment) but also an untruth. As I said earlier, those who espouse such values (namely Bush's administration) tend not to practice what they preach (how moral is it to go to war in Iraq?) and on domestic matters, tend only to serve (as a Government that is) only the certain types of families that come under their blanket (which I listed earlier).

The rise of the bully pulpit in our fundamentalist churches. I don't know what causes these pendulum swings, but we're watching it unfold.

My dear Dianne, I have one word for you.. Greed. The greed of power, for religious types to find power. So going to church isn't just about prayer and thanking your Lord, it's now about praising the powers you know are there.. (the Republican administration in America at least, different over here for example obviously).
Think of the funding evangelicals get under a Bush administration. Think of the increased say and lobbying power they get. Think of the ambition some of the priests and bishops have, not to mention faithful Senators and Congressmen.

'Traditional family values' is an oxymoron, and doesn't exist today. The typical family may have Joe and Joanne and 2.5 kids.. but there's a lot of single parents with more/less kids out there. And same-sex relationships also..
The implication is also that things were 'good then and bad now', which I resent. Take children for an example. Is it morally intact to leave kids at the centre of a loveless relationship between a husband and wife where there's constant fighting?

Nytegard made a point earlier which I wished to expand on, but forgot (Also serves as a reply to subsequent posts on such issues)

Why are so many of these "pro life" people, anti abortion, yet pro guns & pro death penalty?

Because it's again 'pro-pseudo-morals'.
Abortion= "Oh no, they're killing a baby with such potential!"
War= "That Saddam will attack Americans if he's not brought to justice!"
Guns=      *Point coming after these quotes
Death penalty= "An eye for an eye, a life for a life! It's only fair that the murderer gets killed."

These are the types of said things, bandied around when asked on the issues. Each argument is inherently flawed, but therein lies the trick of the whole fake 'moral values' concept.. As soon as you say, for example, on the War topic.. "But there's no evidence of WMD's.. surely there's no threat to Americans?" .. The response would almost surely be.. "You would risk (American) lives and deny Saddam being brought down?" (Maybe even bring up the word justice again as well).

The trick is, using the 'moral values' argument as a front for what it really is- bullying patriotism. Achieving one's agenda while simultaneously having a platform to attack anyone who confronts it for what it really is.. anyone who does confront will inevitably be called unpatriotic, uninformed, weak, immoral.. It sickens me to the core.

* Last point re: guns in America.
I heard a lot of arguments thrown around when the US elections were coming up. Most horrible ones were from the Sierra community, believe it or not. Not this site though (leftie central here ).

The argument ran along the lines of "The American people must be armed because if the American government should become hostile (i.e. autocratic/dictatorship) then the people must be able to free themselves".

While I can see at least the train of thought that leads to such a station of reasoning, I don't like it.. but worse yet, somehow this is a sort of justification for Americans having guns at arms' length 24/7! What the hell? It's just really wrong..
I suppose obviously the 'moral values' rant about guns runs along the lines of "Guns are essential to protect my family".
Counter-argument "But surely you don't need a weapon capable of killing someone to protect your family?"
Moral counter counter "You would put my family at risk from vagabonds??" (Hell, you know what I'm on about. )

Enough from me for now, it's getting depressing!

- Alistair

[Nytegard]

Dianne, the problem I have with intelligent design is the people behind it.  Evolution is not about creation.  It's not about explaining creation.  It's a theory that states that things will move from point A to B if given enough time and reason.  (Trying to figure a way to get my definition across without using evolve ).  There is nothing in the theory of evolution which states how did point A even come to exist.  It's possible to believe in a concept of creation while still believing in evolution.  The Catholic Church accepted a form of evolutionary theory in the 1970's.

The problem with people bringing up intelligent design, is flawed in that they are comparing creation of a species vs mutation of a species.  The Christian fundamentalists see the Bible as a word for word literal translation of what happened.

Things to take into consideration:

First, the original Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew lacked punctuation.  An example of where this can be false (not the best grammar here, but trying to get a point across):

Jack went to the right while driving a car Jill talked on the phone

Now, do you interpret it as:

Jack went to the right while driving a car.  Jill talked on a phone.
or
Jack went to the right.  While driving a car, Jill talked on a phone.

Second, there are translation issues.  I don't know about you, but I don't know too many people who can read Aramaic, let alone fluently.  Same thing with Greek and Hebrew.  Also, the Bible isn't being translated from an original source.  It's being translated from a copy.  Ever play the game telephone when you were younger?  Translation is similar.  Things change to suit the new language.  (Take into account many of these new gender neutral Bibles.)

Third, since they do take it as literal, I'm very afraid for my life and others lives.  Take Revelations.  Where is Armageddon going to take place?  The Middle East.  What's going to happen to the true believers?  Eternal life.  Being that many of these people think they are the true believers, and being that they think Armageddon is going to take place in their lifetime, I see Bush & Company as trying to help bring about Armageddon.

I don't see it as the literal word of God.  I see it more as a guideline.  Many of the books are parables.  Now before I go on and on about this, getting back to the original point, evolution vs creationism:

Which version of creation do we state is correct?  I know about 12 different stories about how human life came to be...

Many of these people just don't want to admit that we evolved from a lower species.  No, we didn't evolve from apes.  That's a creationists myth that keeps spreading around for some reason.  We just evolved from something similar.  They see it as God created man in his image.  Here's the question I have.  If God is perfect, why can't perfection include change?  I might like Brand A today, but too much of it, and I'll want Brand B instead.  I don't see perfection as static.  I see it as evolving.  Something that never changes isn't perfect imho.  Perfection evolves.

[Dianne Lewandowski]

A columnist spoke on Wis. Pub Radio this morning regarding the myth that the people who voted for Bush are less intelligent than those who voted for Kerry.

As she spoke for the first 15 minutes, she admitted that, yes, those that voted for Bush believed, 1. Hussein had a strong connection to Al Queda,  2. believe there are weapons of mass destruction and we just haven't found them, yet, 3. believe democrats are amoral and unchristian.  Statistics point out that those who voted for Bush were generally less educated.

So . . . I really didn't get her point, other than she shifted the discussion to the stereotypes on both sides of the fence.

[Fancia]

Which version of creation do we state is correct?  I know about 12 different stories about how human life came to be...

Two of them, no less, from the Bible. It has separate, conflicting accounts on the creation. One is the more famous Adam and Eve story; the other says that God created Adam and Eve at the same time out of clay. Oddly enough, I don't see creationists mention that very often.

They see it as God created man in his image.

I also don't see why that is interpreted so physically literally. Even as far back as St. Augustine, there were quite a number who see God's image as being rationality, not a physical shape, since God is not physical and therefore has no physical image in which for humans to be created.

[Alistair]

Dianne:

Lack of education is what led people to vote right-wing over here. The fascists spouted phrases about how they were 'managing Australia's $800 billion economy' much better than previous left-wing governments. People believed a scam about interest rates, as I mentioned before.

In America, the majority of people (more accurately today, a good proportion of them) are always more willing to believe good things about their nation than bad. How many people honestly think Bush is a bad man and a genocidal warmongerer? Not many..

It must be very hard growing up in a country like the USA as a young person and having such notions and ideals thrust upon you, while seeing the evidence of war with your own eyes.

- Alistair