Great Moments In Higher Education
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
D. Spencer Hines
Great Moments In Higher Education
Yes, Virginia, the "Academentia" creeps into Mediaeval Genealogy and
History too.
DSH
--------------------
"Great Moments in Higher Education"
"Hans Hoppe, an economist at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, is
under fire for doing his job. In March, reports the Las Vegas
Review-Journal, he was giving a lecture to a money and banking class on
"groups who tend to plan for the future and groups who do not":
"Another example he gave the class was that homosexuals tend to plan
less for the future than heterosexuals.
Reasons for the phenomenon include the fact that homosexuals tend not to
have children, he said. They also tend to live riskier lifestyles than
heterosexuals, Hoppe said. . . .
Within days of the lecture, he was notified by school officials that a
student had lodged an informal complaint. The student said Hoppe's
comments offended him.
A series of formal hearings ensued.
Hoppe said that, at the request of university officials, he clarified in
his next class that he was speaking in generalities only and did not
mean to offend anyone. . . .
The student then filed a formal complaint, Hoppe said, alleging that
Hoppe did not take the complaint seriously.
He said university officials first said they would issue him a letter of
reprimand and dock him a week's pay.
That option was rejected by Hoppe's dean and by the university provost,
Hoppe said.
More hearings ensued, he said. In the end, the university gave him
until Friday to accept its latest offer of punishment: It would issue
him a letter of reprimand and he would give up his next pay increase."
Hoppe's ideas seem reasonable and are clearly relevant to his scholarly
discipline. Contrast his experience with all the university types
defending the intellectually bankrupt anti-Americanism of a Ward
Churchill, and it's clear that the idea of academic freedom has degraded
into what one might call academentia."
James Taranto
The Wall Street Journal
-----------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
History too.
DSH
--------------------
"Great Moments in Higher Education"
"Hans Hoppe, an economist at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, is
under fire for doing his job. In March, reports the Las Vegas
Review-Journal, he was giving a lecture to a money and banking class on
"groups who tend to plan for the future and groups who do not":
"Another example he gave the class was that homosexuals tend to plan
less for the future than heterosexuals.
Reasons for the phenomenon include the fact that homosexuals tend not to
have children, he said. They also tend to live riskier lifestyles than
heterosexuals, Hoppe said. . . .
Within days of the lecture, he was notified by school officials that a
student had lodged an informal complaint. The student said Hoppe's
comments offended him.
A series of formal hearings ensued.
Hoppe said that, at the request of university officials, he clarified in
his next class that he was speaking in generalities only and did not
mean to offend anyone. . . .
The student then filed a formal complaint, Hoppe said, alleging that
Hoppe did not take the complaint seriously.
He said university officials first said they would issue him a letter of
reprimand and dock him a week's pay.
That option was rejected by Hoppe's dean and by the university provost,
Hoppe said.
More hearings ensued, he said. In the end, the university gave him
until Friday to accept its latest offer of punishment: It would issue
him a letter of reprimand and he would give up his next pay increase."
Hoppe's ideas seem reasonable and are clearly relevant to his scholarly
discipline. Contrast his experience with all the university types
defending the intellectually bankrupt anti-Americanism of a Ward
Churchill, and it's clear that the idea of academic freedom has degraded
into what one might call academentia."
James Taranto
The Wall Street Journal
-----------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
hippo
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"D. Spencer Hines" wrote in message
Here is another example. One of my kids came back yesterday muttering to
himself from an advanced ecology class. Here was the exchange he reported
with his prof:
Prof: "Republicans clearly care nothing about ecology or the state of the
environment."
R: "Umm, perhaps you didn't notice who from this class attended last weeks
seminar on coastal ecosystems?"
Prof: "I was there."
R: "Perhaps you didn't notice that I was sitting next to you."
Prof: "Yes, Mr. R, I did see you there."
R: "Did you notice anyone else from this class?"
Prof: "No."
R. "Did you notice any students from any of your other classes?"
Prof. "No."
R: "Neither did I. Since I am the only registered Republican in this class,
and am the only student in any of your classes to have attended a voluntary
ecology seminar, I suggest your remark about Republicans is not true."
He also swaps out anti-administration propaganda with good stuff on academic
bulletin boards at 0700, holds a 100 ton merchant certificate at 22,
captains a sport fisherman, and hunts with both bow and rifle. Around campus
he looks like Paul Bunyan in Lilliput.
You gotta love this kid and those like him who, not unlike the student
rebels of the '60s, are challenging the establishment white tower libs right
in their own classrooms. From underground newspapers at Rutgers to clubs
driven off campus by jack booted University administrations the message is
getting out and becoming a real movement. I used to despair of this
generation of kids (except, of course, for the ones from my old place). Now
I'm not so sure. -the Troll
"Great Moments in Higher Education"
Here is another example. One of my kids came back yesterday muttering to
himself from an advanced ecology class. Here was the exchange he reported
with his prof:
Prof: "Republicans clearly care nothing about ecology or the state of the
environment."
R: "Umm, perhaps you didn't notice who from this class attended last weeks
seminar on coastal ecosystems?"
Prof: "I was there."
R: "Perhaps you didn't notice that I was sitting next to you."
Prof: "Yes, Mr. R, I did see you there."
R: "Did you notice anyone else from this class?"
Prof: "No."
R. "Did you notice any students from any of your other classes?"
Prof. "No."
R: "Neither did I. Since I am the only registered Republican in this class,
and am the only student in any of your classes to have attended a voluntary
ecology seminar, I suggest your remark about Republicans is not true."
He also swaps out anti-administration propaganda with good stuff on academic
bulletin boards at 0700, holds a 100 ton merchant certificate at 22,
captains a sport fisherman, and hunts with both bow and rifle. Around campus
he looks like Paul Bunyan in Lilliput.
You gotta love this kid and those like him who, not unlike the student
rebels of the '60s, are challenging the establishment white tower libs right
in their own classrooms. From underground newspapers at Rutgers to clubs
driven off campus by jack booted University administrations the message is
getting out and becoming a real movement. I used to despair of this
generation of kids (except, of course, for the ones from my old place). Now
I'm not so sure. -the Troll
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
Yes, it is indeed HEARTWARMING.
These youngsters are not pushovers for Leftover-Left Propaganda, as were
the baby boomers before them.
Both Generation X and the Millennium Generation are far more impressive
than the flaccid, corrupt, knee-jerk baby boomers.
The youngsters seem to delight in pushing their Leftover-Left teachers
and professors into the dust bin of History -- which is right where they
belong, along with Karl Marx and V. I. Lenin themselves.
Castro will most likely be the next to go.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"hippo" <hippo@southsudan.net> wrote in message
news:QZqdnbDQJMhBN5TfRVn-vA@giganews.com...
|
| "D. Spencer Hines" wrote in message
|
| > "Great Moments in Higher Education"
|
| Here is another example. One of my kids came back yesterday muttering
to
| himself from an advanced ecology class. Here was the exchange he
reported
| with his prof:
|
| Prof: "Republicans clearly care nothing about ecology or the state of
the
| environment."
|
| R: "Umm, perhaps you didn't notice who from this class attended last
weeks
| seminar on coastal ecosystems?"
|
| Prof: "I was there."
|
| R: "Perhaps you didn't notice that I was sitting next to you."
|
| Prof: "Yes, Mr. R, I did see you there."
|
| R: "Did you notice anyone else from this class?"
|
| Prof: "No."
|
| R. "Did you notice any students from any of your other classes?"
|
| Prof. "No."
|
| R: "Neither did I. Since I am the only registered Republican in this
class,
| and am the only student in any of your classes to have attended a
voluntary
| ecology seminar, I suggest your remark about Republicans is not true."
|
| He also swaps out anti-administration propaganda with good stuff on
academic
| bulletin boards at 0700, holds a 100 ton merchant certificate at 22,
| captains a sport fisherman, and hunts with both bow and rifle. Around
campus
| he looks like Paul Bunyan in Lilliput.
|
| You gotta love this kid and those like him who, not unlike the student
| rebels of the '60s, are challenging the establishment white tower libs
right
| in their own classrooms. From underground newspapers at Rutgers to
clubs
| driven off campus by jack booted University administrations the
message is
| getting out and becoming a real movement. I used to despair of this
| generation of kids (except, of course, for the ones from my old
place). Now
| I'm not so sure. -the Troll
These youngsters are not pushovers for Leftover-Left Propaganda, as were
the baby boomers before them.
Both Generation X and the Millennium Generation are far more impressive
than the flaccid, corrupt, knee-jerk baby boomers.
The youngsters seem to delight in pushing their Leftover-Left teachers
and professors into the dust bin of History -- which is right where they
belong, along with Karl Marx and V. I. Lenin themselves.
Castro will most likely be the next to go.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"hippo" <hippo@southsudan.net> wrote in message
news:QZqdnbDQJMhBN5TfRVn-vA@giganews.com...
|
| "D. Spencer Hines" wrote in message
|
| > "Great Moments in Higher Education"
|
| Here is another example. One of my kids came back yesterday muttering
to
| himself from an advanced ecology class. Here was the exchange he
reported
| with his prof:
|
| Prof: "Republicans clearly care nothing about ecology or the state of
the
| environment."
|
| R: "Umm, perhaps you didn't notice who from this class attended last
weeks
| seminar on coastal ecosystems?"
|
| Prof: "I was there."
|
| R: "Perhaps you didn't notice that I was sitting next to you."
|
| Prof: "Yes, Mr. R, I did see you there."
|
| R: "Did you notice anyone else from this class?"
|
| Prof: "No."
|
| R. "Did you notice any students from any of your other classes?"
|
| Prof. "No."
|
| R: "Neither did I. Since I am the only registered Republican in this
class,
| and am the only student in any of your classes to have attended a
voluntary
| ecology seminar, I suggest your remark about Republicans is not true."
|
| He also swaps out anti-administration propaganda with good stuff on
academic
| bulletin boards at 0700, holds a 100 ton merchant certificate at 22,
| captains a sport fisherman, and hunts with both bow and rifle. Around
campus
| he looks like Paul Bunyan in Lilliput.
|
| You gotta love this kid and those like him who, not unlike the student
| rebels of the '60s, are challenging the establishment white tower libs
right
| in their own classrooms. From underground newspapers at Rutgers to
clubs
| driven off campus by jack booted University administrations the
message is
| getting out and becoming a real movement. I used to despair of this
| generation of kids (except, of course, for the ones from my old
place). Now
| I'm not so sure. -the Troll
-
martin reboul
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"hippo" <hippo@southsudan.net> wrote in message
news:QZqdnbDQJMhBN5TfRVn-vA@giganews.com...
Good for him. I don't know why there is this common idea that anyone worried
about ecology, the environment and pollution etc. always has to be left-wing -
it really isn't that way in reality. True, there are many selfish,
short-termist, greedy corporate types, who see the right to destroy the planet
as theirs, and any attempt to restrict their activities as 'communist', but at a
personal level, I know many right wingers who are far more (and far more
actively) opposed to the destruction of the environment than I am, which is
heartening.
In fact, in the UK this seems to be one of the greatest worries of the new
generation, reguardless of their political beliefs - and so it should be, as
they and their kids are going to have to deal with the consequences of past and
present carelessness. I reckon the message has got through that we are already
in trouble, and have to do something about it right now. I have faith in them -
if they get a chance.
Cheers
Martin
news:QZqdnbDQJMhBN5TfRVn-vA@giganews.com...
"D. Spencer Hines" wrote in message
"Great Moments in Higher Education"
Here is another example. One of my kids came back yesterday muttering to
himself from an advanced ecology class. Here was the exchange he reported
with his prof:
Prof: "Republicans clearly care nothing about ecology or the state of the
environment."
R: "Umm, perhaps you didn't notice who from this class attended last weeks
seminar on coastal ecosystems?"
Prof: "I was there."
R: "Perhaps you didn't notice that I was sitting next to you."
Prof: "Yes, Mr. R, I did see you there."
R: "Did you notice anyone else from this class?"
Prof: "No."
R. "Did you notice any students from any of your other classes?"
Prof. "No."
R: "Neither did I. Since I am the only registered Republican in this class,
and am the only student in any of your classes to have attended a voluntary
ecology seminar, I suggest your remark about Republicans is not true."
He also swaps out anti-administration propaganda with good stuff on academic
bulletin boards at 0700, holds a 100 ton merchant certificate at 22,
captains a sport fisherman, and hunts with both bow and rifle. Around campus
he looks like Paul Bunyan in Lilliput.
You gotta love this kid and those like him who, not unlike the student
rebels of the '60s, are challenging the establishment white tower libs right
in their own classrooms. From underground newspapers at Rutgers to clubs
driven off campus by jack booted University administrations the message is
getting out and becoming a real movement. I used to despair of this
generation of kids (except, of course, for the ones from my old place). Now
I'm not so sure. -the Troll
Good for him. I don't know why there is this common idea that anyone worried
about ecology, the environment and pollution etc. always has to be left-wing -
it really isn't that way in reality. True, there are many selfish,
short-termist, greedy corporate types, who see the right to destroy the planet
as theirs, and any attempt to restrict their activities as 'communist', but at a
personal level, I know many right wingers who are far more (and far more
actively) opposed to the destruction of the environment than I am, which is
heartening.
In fact, in the UK this seems to be one of the greatest worries of the new
generation, reguardless of their political beliefs - and so it should be, as
they and their kids are going to have to deal with the consequences of past and
present carelessness. I reckon the message has got through that we are already
in trouble, and have to do something about it right now. I have faith in them -
if they get a chance.
Cheers
Martin
-
Larry Swain
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
martin reboul wrote:
But of course, the professor wasn't talking about "right wingers" nor
was he talking about conservatives. He was talking about "Republicans",
and if given some more context from the class I'd bet that what he
meant by Republicans was the party rather than any individual republican.
The Bush administration as the anointed of the Republican party has a
pretty dismal record on environmental issues. And the conservatives of
this country voted him back in--that pretty much confirms the prof's
statement.
There is the added illogic that because our storied young Republican
attanded a voluntary ecological seminar that he did so because he cared
about the environment and supported the aims of the seminar sponsors.
His mere attendance only proves that he attended, it does not disprove
the professor's statement in any way. One hopes that the actions the
young chap takes do in fact disprove the prof's blanket statement, but
we weren't told that part of the story. As a long aside gets longer, in
my youth working my way through college I worked as a bank teller and
was working the drive up window that day. I cashed a check for a
customer and per policy put it in an envelope. The customer told me to
keep the envelope and save some trees and how bad it was for the bank to
have this policy because of all the waste paper it created. Well and
good. But this customer had also sat in his car with it running while I
waited on the 6 cars ahead of him when the lobby was empty and he lived
two blocks away. His actions gave the lie to his words. Moral of the
story is simply that our young Republican's attendance voluntarily at an
ecological seminar does not demonstrate that he cares to do anything
about the environmental issues we face. Damn that logic!
"hippo" <hippo@southsudan.net> wrote in message
news:QZqdnbDQJMhBN5TfRVn-vA@giganews.com...
"D. Spencer Hines" wrote in message
"Great Moments in Higher Education"
Here is another example. One of my kids came back yesterday muttering to
himself from an advanced ecology class. Here was the exchange he reported
with his prof:
Prof: "Republicans clearly care nothing about ecology or the state of the
environment."
R: "Umm, perhaps you didn't notice who from this class attended last weeks
seminar on coastal ecosystems?"
Prof: "I was there."
R: "Perhaps you didn't notice that I was sitting next to you."
Prof: "Yes, Mr. R, I did see you there."
R: "Did you notice anyone else from this class?"
Prof: "No."
R. "Did you notice any students from any of your other classes?"
Prof. "No."
R: "Neither did I. Since I am the only registered Republican in this class,
and am the only student in any of your classes to have attended a voluntary
ecology seminar, I suggest your remark about Republicans is not true."
He also swaps out anti-administration propaganda with good stuff on academic
bulletin boards at 0700, holds a 100 ton merchant certificate at 22,
captains a sport fisherman, and hunts with both bow and rifle. Around campus
he looks like Paul Bunyan in Lilliput.
You gotta love this kid and those like him who, not unlike the student
rebels of the '60s, are challenging the establishment white tower libs right
in their own classrooms. From underground newspapers at Rutgers to clubs
driven off campus by jack booted University administrations the message is
getting out and becoming a real movement. I used to despair of this
generation of kids (except, of course, for the ones from my old place). Now
I'm not so sure. -the Troll
Good for him. I don't know why there is this common idea that anyone worried
about ecology, the environment and pollution etc. always has to be left-wing -
it really isn't that way in reality. True, there are many selfish,
short-termist, greedy corporate types, who see the right to destroy the planet
as theirs, and any attempt to restrict their activities as 'communist', but at a
personal level, I know many right wingers who are far more (and far more
actively) opposed to the destruction of the environment than I am, which is
heartening.
In fact, in the UK this seems to be one of the greatest worries of the new
generation, reguardless of their political beliefs - and so it should be, as
they and their kids are going to have to deal with the consequences of past and
present carelessness. I reckon the message has got through that we are already
in trouble, and have to do something about it right now. I have faith in them -
if they get a chance.
But of course, the professor wasn't talking about "right wingers" nor
was he talking about conservatives. He was talking about "Republicans",
and if given some more context from the class I'd bet that what he
meant by Republicans was the party rather than any individual republican.
The Bush administration as the anointed of the Republican party has a
pretty dismal record on environmental issues. And the conservatives of
this country voted him back in--that pretty much confirms the prof's
statement.
There is the added illogic that because our storied young Republican
attanded a voluntary ecological seminar that he did so because he cared
about the environment and supported the aims of the seminar sponsors.
His mere attendance only proves that he attended, it does not disprove
the professor's statement in any way. One hopes that the actions the
young chap takes do in fact disprove the prof's blanket statement, but
we weren't told that part of the story. As a long aside gets longer, in
my youth working my way through college I worked as a bank teller and
was working the drive up window that day. I cashed a check for a
customer and per policy put it in an envelope. The customer told me to
keep the envelope and save some trees and how bad it was for the bank to
have this policy because of all the waste paper it created. Well and
good. But this customer had also sat in his car with it running while I
waited on the 6 cars ahead of him when the lobby was empty and he lived
two blocks away. His actions gave the lie to his words. Moral of the
story is simply that our young Republican's attendance voluntarily at an
ecological seminar does not demonstrate that he cares to do anything
about the environmental issues we face. Damn that logic!
-
hippo
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"martin reboul" wrote in message
The presumption persists here that all righties have huge earth moving
machinery stashed out the back and would strip mine their own gardens for
pure fun. It's old right wingers like me who saved this town (Charleston,
SC) from the dozers in the '60s and why it is today the best example of
historic preservation in the country. The kid I quote is an avid fisherman
and rabid on the subject of coastal wetlands preservation and renewal.
Neither of us can go to ecological meetings because they are filled with
limp wristed social do-gooders who sit around talking crap about the present
administration and achieve nothing more than hanging a few posters.
The point of my post was that the uni underground isn't Marxist anymore. The
Marxists have become the repressive establishment. The new uni rebels are
conservative student intellectuals who have become activists against the
idea-stifling pink blanket of liberal-socialist morality. I was wondering
where these bright flinty-eyed youngsters were coming from. The military
trade schools and religious colleges aren't nearly big enough to have
produced all or even most of them. They have been hatched right under my
nose in lecture halls all over this country in rebellion against the
intellectual oppression of self-righteous Profs determined only their world
view would be heard on their campuses.
I'll admit it is a paradigm which caught me completely by surprise. From
generation to generation we forget that the young will rebel no matter how
improbable the direction they find to do it. Imagine, if you will, legions
of little short haired, gray suited, conservative capitalists marching out
of our universities as a form of rebellion. Who would have believed it even
ten years ago? -the Troll
"hippo" wrote in message
Good for him. I don't know why there is this common idea that anyone
worried
about ecology, the environment and pollution etc. always has to be
left-wing -
it really isn't that way in reality. True, there are many selfish,
short-termist, greedy corporate types, who see the right to destroy the
planet
as theirs, and any attempt to restrict their activities as 'communist',
but at a
personal level, I know many right wingers who are far more (and far more
actively) opposed to the destruction of the environment than I am, which
is
heartening.
In fact, in the UK this seems to be one of the greatest worries of the new
generation, reguardless of their political beliefs - and so it should be,
as
they and their kids are going to have to deal with the consequences of
past and
present carelessness. I reckon the message has got through that we are
already
in trouble, and have to do something about it right now. I have faith in
them -
if they get a chance.
The presumption persists here that all righties have huge earth moving
machinery stashed out the back and would strip mine their own gardens for
pure fun. It's old right wingers like me who saved this town (Charleston,
SC) from the dozers in the '60s and why it is today the best example of
historic preservation in the country. The kid I quote is an avid fisherman
and rabid on the subject of coastal wetlands preservation and renewal.
Neither of us can go to ecological meetings because they are filled with
limp wristed social do-gooders who sit around talking crap about the present
administration and achieve nothing more than hanging a few posters.
The point of my post was that the uni underground isn't Marxist anymore. The
Marxists have become the repressive establishment. The new uni rebels are
conservative student intellectuals who have become activists against the
idea-stifling pink blanket of liberal-socialist morality. I was wondering
where these bright flinty-eyed youngsters were coming from. The military
trade schools and religious colleges aren't nearly big enough to have
produced all or even most of them. They have been hatched right under my
nose in lecture halls all over this country in rebellion against the
intellectual oppression of self-righteous Profs determined only their world
view would be heard on their campuses.
I'll admit it is a paradigm which caught me completely by surprise. From
generation to generation we forget that the young will rebel no matter how
improbable the direction they find to do it. Imagine, if you will, legions
of little short haired, gray suited, conservative capitalists marching out
of our universities as a form of rebellion. Who would have believed it even
ten years ago? -the Troll
-
hippo
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"Larry Swain" wrote in message
'R' works for a firm which cleans up chemical spills and intends to make it
his profession after graduation and why he attended the seminar. The Prof
was looking directly at him when he made his remark about Republicans,
clearly bating him. It was nothing new. What he finds most distasteful about
his chosen field is suffering through another five years of post-graduate
education at the mercy of political ideologues disguised as scientists.
Several times before 'R' has felt it necessary to leave the classroom rather
than loose his temper at the political bile spewing from his 'Biology' Prof.
Last semester he had one as bad for Plant Taxonomy which doesn't seem much
like a political subject to me. 'R' is already a convinced ecologist in
spite of the ass holes in his department trying to tell him that the field
is restricted only to Bush hating Democrats. The single thing they have
taught him is that objective science isn't objective when passed through
human hands. -the Troll
martin reboul wrote:
But of course, the professor wasn't talking about "right wingers" nor
was he talking about conservatives. He was talking about "Republicans",
and if given some more context from the class I'd bet that what he
meant by Republicans was the party rather than any individual republican.
The Bush administration as the anointed of the Republican party has a
pretty dismal record on environmental issues. And the conservatives of
this country voted him back in--that pretty much confirms the prof's
statement.
There is the added illogic that because our storied young Republican
attanded a voluntary ecological seminar that he did so because he cared
about the environment and supported the aims of the seminar sponsors.
His mere attendance only proves that he attended, it does not disprove
the professor's statement in any way. One hopes that the actions the
young chap takes do in fact disprove the prof's blanket statement, but
we weren't told that part of the story. As a long aside gets longer, in
my youth working my way through college I worked as a bank teller and
was working the drive up window that day. I cashed a check for a
customer and per policy put it in an envelope. The customer told me to
keep the envelope and save some trees and how bad it was for the bank to
have this policy because of all the waste paper it created. Well and
good. But this customer had also sat in his car with it running while I
waited on the 6 cars ahead of him when the lobby was empty and he lives
two blocks away. His actions gave the lie to his words. Moral of the
story is simply that our young Republican's attendance voluntarily at an
ecological seminar does not demonstrate that he cares to do anything
about the environmental issues we face. Damn that logic!
'R' works for a firm which cleans up chemical spills and intends to make it
his profession after graduation and why he attended the seminar. The Prof
was looking directly at him when he made his remark about Republicans,
clearly bating him. It was nothing new. What he finds most distasteful about
his chosen field is suffering through another five years of post-graduate
education at the mercy of political ideologues disguised as scientists.
Several times before 'R' has felt it necessary to leave the classroom rather
than loose his temper at the political bile spewing from his 'Biology' Prof.
Last semester he had one as bad for Plant Taxonomy which doesn't seem much
like a political subject to me. 'R' is already a convinced ecologist in
spite of the ass holes in his department trying to tell him that the field
is restricted only to Bush hating Democrats. The single thing they have
taught him is that objective science isn't objective when passed through
human hands. -the Troll
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
Yep.
The Leftover Left is on the run.
I too am very much pleased by these youngsters who will take no crap
from the academic radical-chic crowd.
My son, in particular, is one of them and I delight in the way he
skewers them.
So, what about Congressman John Spratt?
"Jack Spratt would eat no fat..."
DSH
"hippo" <hippo@southsudan.net> wrote in message
news:o7udnXm5jqpZlpbfRVn-ow@giganews.com...
| The point of my post was that the uni underground isn't Marxist
anymore. The
| Marxists have become the repressive establishment. The new uni rebels
are
| conservative student intellectuals who have become activists against
the
| idea-stifling pink blanket of liberal-socialist morality. I was
wondering
| where these bright flinty-eyed youngsters were coming from. The
military
| trade schools and religious colleges aren't nearly big enough to have
| produced all or even most of them. They have been hatched right under
my
| nose in lecture halls all over this country in rebellion against the
| intellectual oppression of self-righteous Profs determined only their
world
| view would be heard on their campuses.
|
| I'll admit it is a paradigm which caught me completely by surprise.
From
| generation to generation we forget that the young will rebel no matter
how
| improbable the direction they find to do it. Imagine, if you will,
legions
| of little short haired, gray suited, conservative capitalists marching
out
| of our universities as a form of rebellion. Who would have believed it
even
| ten years ago? -the Troll
The Leftover Left is on the run.
I too am very much pleased by these youngsters who will take no crap
from the academic radical-chic crowd.
My son, in particular, is one of them and I delight in the way he
skewers them.
So, what about Congressman John Spratt?
"Jack Spratt would eat no fat..."
DSH
"hippo" <hippo@southsudan.net> wrote in message
news:o7udnXm5jqpZlpbfRVn-ow@giganews.com...
| The point of my post was that the uni underground isn't Marxist
anymore. The
| Marxists have become the repressive establishment. The new uni rebels
are
| conservative student intellectuals who have become activists against
the
| idea-stifling pink blanket of liberal-socialist morality. I was
wondering
| where these bright flinty-eyed youngsters were coming from. The
military
| trade schools and religious colleges aren't nearly big enough to have
| produced all or even most of them. They have been hatched right under
my
| nose in lecture halls all over this country in rebellion against the
| intellectual oppression of self-righteous Profs determined only their
world
| view would be heard on their campuses.
|
| I'll admit it is a paradigm which caught me completely by surprise.
From
| generation to generation we forget that the young will rebel no matter
how
| improbable the direction they find to do it. Imagine, if you will,
legions
| of little short haired, gray suited, conservative capitalists marching
out
| of our universities as a form of rebellion. Who would have believed it
even
| ten years ago? -the Troll
-
John Cartmell
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
In article <StydnRRoe62Vi5bfRVn-rQ@giganews.com>, hippo
<hippo@southsudan.net> wrote:
It's very difficult when you only have choices - but I cannot see any way
that convinced ecologists could ever support Bush. Admittedly being a
Democrat is only a small step away.
--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games http://www.finnybank.com http://www.acornuser.com
Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines
<hippo@southsudan.net> wrote:
'R' is already a convinced ecologist in spite of the ass holes in his
department trying to tell him that the field is restricted only to Bush
hating Democrats.
It's very difficult when you only have choices - but I cannot see any way
that convinced ecologists could ever support Bush. Admittedly being a
Democrat is only a small step away.
--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games http://www.finnybank.com http://www.acornuser.com
Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines
-
a.spencer3
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"martin reboul" <martin.reboul@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:420a7a41_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
Completely off topic, but the above mirrors precisely a conversation I had
with a Boer South African in the 1970s ..........................
(PS: replace 'UK'!).
Surreyman
news:420a7a41_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
In fact, in the UK this seems to be one of the greatest worries of the
new
generation, reguardless of their political beliefs - and so it should be,
as
they and their kids are going to have to deal with the consequences of
past and
present carelessness. I reckon the message has got through that we are
already
in trouble, and have to do something about it right now. I have faith in
them -
if they get a chance.
Completely off topic, but the above mirrors precisely a conversation I had
with a Boer South African in the 1970s ..........................
(PS: replace 'UK'!).
Surreyman
-
Vaughan Sanders
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"John Cartmell" <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4d3af847a3john@cartmell.demon.co.uk...
Yes John, but you are a classic example of the blind being lead by the
blind, if you see what I mean.
Another scathing letter from Dr David Bellamy in the Mail recently,
pointing out the Mickey Mouse methods used by eco warrior scientists.
Btw, how do you square global "dimming" with global warming?
Jamie
news:4d3af847a3john@cartmell.demon.co.uk...
In article <StydnRRoe62Vi5bfRVn-rQ@giganews.com>, hippo
hippo@southsudan.net> wrote:
'R' is already a convinced ecologist in spite of the ass holes in
his
department trying to tell him that the field is restricted only to
Bush
hating Democrats.
It's very difficult when you only have choices - but I cannot see any
way
that convinced ecologists could ever support Bush. Admittedly being a
Democrat is only a small step away.
--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games http://www.finnybank.com http://www.acornuser.com
Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines
Yes John, but you are a classic example of the blind being lead by the
blind, if you see what I mean.
Another scathing letter from Dr David Bellamy in the Mail recently,
pointing out the Mickey Mouse methods used by eco warrior scientists.
Btw, how do you square global "dimming" with global warming?
Jamie
-
John Cartmell
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
In article <cufml7$cii$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
Vaughan Sanders <jamie@chalkwell-windsurfing.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
Easy - and the whole thing is *very* frightening. Bellamy is progressively
seen as (not so) quietly deranged - as none of his pronouncements make
sense. Others denouncing the increasingly confirmed state of global warming
are either clearly incompetent or corrupt (eg 'experts' on climate change
turn out to be two lawyers, one economist, a political scientist, a
business studies graduate, and a mathematician who together accuse the UK
chief scientist of "knowing nothing about climate science") and do so on
their income from ExxonMobil.
Global dimming? Things should have got colder. So far we have measured
global warming against a level temperature base. It's bad. But we should
have measured it against a steadily lowering temperature base. Even had
global temperatures remained steady we would have been in a bad condition
because the natuarlly falling temperatures would have simply been masking
the problem. as it is the problem is too big to be masked and the reality
is far worse than we have calculated up to now. Essentially, if we don't do
something about it quickly there will be a number of one-way processes that
will be set off. That means that it will be difficult or impossible to
reverse the warming which will go into positive feedback. The planet can
survive it but we can't.
People of age with money will be OK. The rest of us and our grandchildren
won't. Any clearer and it's my granddaughter's life or George W Bush's.
Perhaps I should have taken up gun-practice.
--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games http://www.finnybank.com http://www.acornuser.com
Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines
Vaughan Sanders <jamie@chalkwell-windsurfing.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
Another scathing letter from Dr David Bellamy in the Mail recently,
pointing out the Mickey Mouse methods used by eco warrior scientists.
Btw, how do you square global "dimming" with global warming?
Easy - and the whole thing is *very* frightening. Bellamy is progressively
seen as (not so) quietly deranged - as none of his pronouncements make
sense. Others denouncing the increasingly confirmed state of global warming
are either clearly incompetent or corrupt (eg 'experts' on climate change
turn out to be two lawyers, one economist, a political scientist, a
business studies graduate, and a mathematician who together accuse the UK
chief scientist of "knowing nothing about climate science") and do so on
their income from ExxonMobil.
Global dimming? Things should have got colder. So far we have measured
global warming against a level temperature base. It's bad. But we should
have measured it against a steadily lowering temperature base. Even had
global temperatures remained steady we would have been in a bad condition
because the natuarlly falling temperatures would have simply been masking
the problem. as it is the problem is too big to be masked and the reality
is far worse than we have calculated up to now. Essentially, if we don't do
something about it quickly there will be a number of one-way processes that
will be set off. That means that it will be difficult or impossible to
reverse the warming which will go into positive feedback. The planet can
survive it but we can't.
People of age with money will be OK. The rest of us and our grandchildren
won't. Any clearer and it's my granddaughter's life or George W Bush's.
Perhaps I should have taken up gun-practice.
--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games http://www.finnybank.com http://www.acornuser.com
Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines
-
Renia
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
Vaughan Sanders wrote:
I'm no scientist, and I have little memory for such things, but I saw a
programme a few weeks ago about Global Dimming and this is seen as much
more dangerous than Global Warming. Global Dimming is the dimming of the
sun's rays through the earth's atmosphere, which has the effect of
decreasing water evaporation among other horrors. The decreased
evaporation was one of the factors which alerted some scientists to
Global Dimming. It is the dimming, say some (though difficult to prove)
which has had a distrastrous effect on world-wide weather, not the
warming. As I recall, the warming is a daily, rather than long-term
event, masked by the dimming, but the dimming is the true problem.
Renia
Btw, how do you square global "dimming" with global warming?
I'm no scientist, and I have little memory for such things, but I saw a
programme a few weeks ago about Global Dimming and this is seen as much
more dangerous than Global Warming. Global Dimming is the dimming of the
sun's rays through the earth's atmosphere, which has the effect of
decreasing water evaporation among other horrors. The decreased
evaporation was one of the factors which alerted some scientists to
Global Dimming. It is the dimming, say some (though difficult to prove)
which has had a distrastrous effect on world-wide weather, not the
warming. As I recall, the warming is a daily, rather than long-term
event, masked by the dimming, but the dimming is the true problem.
Renia
-
Vaughan Sanders
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"John Cartmell" <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4d3b0e8000john@cartmell.demon.co.uk...
Bellamy was actually pointing out, that one of the chief scientists
(Hurricanes) at the latest eco warrior convention on climate change had
resigned over their Mickey Mouse methods.
i.e, start with the answer then look for any evidence to fit.
Jamie
news:4d3b0e8000john@cartmell.demon.co.uk...
In article <cufml7$cii$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
Vaughan Sanders <jamie@chalkwell-windsurfing.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
Another scathing letter from Dr David Bellamy in the Mail recently,
pointing out the Mickey Mouse methods used by eco warrior
scientists.
Btw, how do you square global "dimming" with global warming?
Easy - and the whole thing is *very* frightening. Bellamy is
progressively
seen as (not so) quietly deranged - as none of his pronouncements make
sense. Others denouncing the increasingly confirmed state of global
warming
are either clearly incompetent or corrupt (eg 'experts' on climate
change
turn out to be two lawyers, one economist, a political scientist, a
business studies graduate, and a mathematician who together accuse the
UK
chief scientist of "knowing nothing about climate science") and do so
on
their income from ExxonMobil.
Global dimming? Things should have got colder. So far we have measured
global warming against a level temperature base. It's bad. But we
should
have measured it against a steadily lowering temperature base. Even
had
global temperatures remained steady we would have been in a bad
condition
because the natuarlly falling temperatures would have simply been
masking
the problem. as it is the problem is too big to be masked and the
reality
is far worse than we have calculated up to now. Essentially, if we
don't do
something about it quickly there will be a number of one-way processes
that
will be set off. That means that it will be difficult or impossible to
reverse the warming which will go into positive feedback. The planet
can
survive it but we can't.
People of age with money will be OK. The rest of us and our
grandchildren
won't. Any clearer and it's my granddaughter's life or George W
Bush's.
Perhaps I should have taken up gun-practice.
--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games http://www.finnybank.com http://www.acornuser.com
Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines
Bellamy was actually pointing out, that one of the chief scientists
(Hurricanes) at the latest eco warrior convention on climate change had
resigned over their Mickey Mouse methods.
i.e, start with the answer then look for any evidence to fit.
Jamie
-
Vaughan Sanders
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:cuft1t$9mh$1@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net...
Yep, and 9/11 showed what would happen if the eco warriors pet public
enemy number one, air travel was curtailed, the three days that aircraft
were grounded after 9/11 showed a 1 degree rise in temperature over the
states.
So reverting to the horse and cart could accelerate global warming.
Jamie
news:cuft1t$9mh$1@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net...
Vaughan Sanders wrote:
Btw, how do you square global "dimming" with global warming?
I'm no scientist, and I have little memory for such things, but I saw
a
programme a few weeks ago about Global Dimming and this is seen as
much
more dangerous than Global Warming. Global Dimming is the dimming of
the
sun's rays through the earth's atmosphere, which has the effect of
decreasing water evaporation among other horrors. The decreased
evaporation was one of the factors which alerted some scientists to
Global Dimming. It is the dimming, say some (though difficult to
prove)
which has had a distrastrous effect on world-wide weather, not the
warming. As I recall, the warming is a daily, rather than long-term
event, masked by the dimming, but the dimming is the true problem.
Renia
Yep, and 9/11 showed what would happen if the eco warriors pet public
enemy number one, air travel was curtailed, the three days that aircraft
were grounded after 9/11 showed a 1 degree rise in temperature over the
states.
So reverting to the horse and cart could accelerate global warming.
Jamie
-
hippo
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"John Cartmell" wrote in message
Because Presidents do other things besides trying to control the
environment, (which they can't anyway) and micro-organisms and fish don't
care if you are a Democrat or Republican. -the Troll
In article hippo wrote:
'R' is already a convinced ecologist in spite of the ass holes in his
department trying to tell him that the field is restricted only to Bush
hating Democrats.
It's very difficult when you only have choices - but I cannot see any way
that convinced ecologists could ever support Bush. Admittedly being a
Democrat is only a small step away.
Because Presidents do other things besides trying to control the
environment, (which they can't anyway) and micro-organisms and fish don't
care if you are a Democrat or Republican. -the Troll
-
John Cartmell
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
In article <cuft1t$9mh$1@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net>,
Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
Global warming is the problem. The *extent* of the global warming has been
masked by the global dimming. As we remove the causes of dimming (as we
must for our health) warming will get even worse.
--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games http://www.finnybank.com http://www.acornuser.com
Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines
Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
As I recall, the warming is a daily, rather than long-term
event, masked by the dimming, but the dimming is the true problem.
Global warming is the problem. The *extent* of the global warming has been
masked by the global dimming. As we remove the causes of dimming (as we
must for our health) warming will get even worse.
--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games http://www.finnybank.com http://www.acornuser.com
Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
Please see:
http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm
------
Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
Global warming is the problem. The *extent* of the global warming has
been
masked by the global dimming. As we remove the causes of dimming (as
we
must for our health) warming will get even worse.
--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44
(0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games http://www.finnybank.com
http://www.acornuser.com
Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines
http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm
------
John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> 02/10/05 08:51AM
In article <cuft1t$9mh$1@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net>,
Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
As I recall, the warming is a daily, rather than long-term
event, masked by the dimming, but the dimming is the true problem.
Global warming is the problem. The *extent* of the global warming has
been
masked by the global dimming. As we remove the causes of dimming (as
we
must for our health) warming will get even worse.
--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44
(0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games http://www.finnybank.com
http://www.acornuser.com
Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines
-
martin reboul
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"hippo" <hippo@southsudan.net> wrote in message
news:StydnRRoe62Vi5bfRVn-rQ@giganews.com...
Is he worried about global warming, and the changes in the weather we have been
seeing lately? I'm curious, because he is probably in a better position than
most of us to look at the facts and realise the truth. The trouble is, this
particular subject has long been a favourite stamping ground of politicians and
political movements, and the actual 'facts' and statistics have been spun,
misrepresented and distorted as an inevitable result.
Personally, I try to ignore the bumf, look past the rhetoric, and see the
science, but that isn't easy to do. You'd think that as we will all suffer (or
at least be affected) by anything that goes wrong, for once everyone might be
sensible and pull together - but I suspect that isn't the case, and if my
suspicions are right, everyone will still be trying to score points even as we
are roast, drowned, starved, blown away or suffocated...
Cheers
Martin
news:StydnRRoe62Vi5bfRVn-rQ@giganews.com...
"Larry Swain" wrote in message
martin reboul wrote:
But of course, the professor wasn't talking about "right wingers" nor
was he talking about conservatives. He was talking about "Republicans",
and if given some more context from the class I'd bet that what he
meant by Republicans was the party rather than any individual republican.
The Bush administration as the anointed of the Republican party has a
pretty dismal record on environmental issues. And the conservatives of
this country voted him back in--that pretty much confirms the prof's
statement.
There is the added illogic that because our storied young Republican
attanded a voluntary ecological seminar that he did so because he cared
about the environment and supported the aims of the seminar sponsors.
His mere attendance only proves that he attended, it does not disprove
the professor's statement in any way. One hopes that the actions the
young chap takes do in fact disprove the prof's blanket statement, but
we weren't told that part of the story. As a long aside gets longer, in
my youth working my way through college I worked as a bank teller and
was working the drive up window that day. I cashed a check for a
customer and per policy put it in an envelope. The customer told me to
keep the envelope and save some trees and how bad it was for the bank to
have this policy because of all the waste paper it created. Well and
good. But this customer had also sat in his car with it running while I
waited on the 6 cars ahead of him when the lobby was empty and he lives
two blocks away. His actions gave the lie to his words. Moral of the
story is simply that our young Republican's attendance voluntarily at an
ecological seminar does not demonstrate that he cares to do anything
about the environmental issues we face. Damn that logic!
'R' works for a firm which cleans up chemical spills and intends to make it
his profession after graduation and why he attended the seminar. The Prof
was looking directly at him when he made his remark about Republicans,
clearly bating him. It was nothing new. What he finds most distasteful about
his chosen field is suffering through another five years of post-graduate
education at the mercy of political ideologues disguised as scientists.
Several times before 'R' has felt it necessary to leave the classroom rather
than loose his temper at the political bile spewing from his 'Biology' Prof.
Last semester he had one as bad for Plant Taxonomy which doesn't seem much
like a political subject to me. 'R' is already a convinced ecologist in
spite of the ass holes in his department trying to tell him that the field
is restricted only to Bush hating Democrats. The single thing they have
taught him is that objective science isn't objective when passed through
human hands. -the Troll
Is he worried about global warming, and the changes in the weather we have been
seeing lately? I'm curious, because he is probably in a better position than
most of us to look at the facts and realise the truth. The trouble is, this
particular subject has long been a favourite stamping ground of politicians and
political movements, and the actual 'facts' and statistics have been spun,
misrepresented and distorted as an inevitable result.
Personally, I try to ignore the bumf, look past the rhetoric, and see the
science, but that isn't easy to do. You'd think that as we will all suffer (or
at least be affected) by anything that goes wrong, for once everyone might be
sensible and pull together - but I suspect that isn't the case, and if my
suspicions are right, everyone will still be trying to score points even as we
are roast, drowned, starved, blown away or suffocated...
Cheers
Martin
-
Renia
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
John Cartmell wrote:
I'm sure the programme said it was the other way round, the dimming
being the greater problem, but the warming not to be ignored.
Renia
In article <cuft1t$9mh$1@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net>,
Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
As I recall, the warming is a daily, rather than long-term
event, masked by the dimming, but the dimming is the true problem.
Global warming is the problem. The *extent* of the global warming has been
masked by the global dimming. As we remove the causes of dimming (as we
must for our health) warming will get even worse.
I'm sure the programme said it was the other way round, the dimming
being the greater problem, but the warming not to be ignored.
Renia
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
Interesting website (for this most OT discussion).
http://www.alphapatriot.com/home/archiv ... /index.php
http://www.alphapatriot.com/home/archiv ... /index.php
-
John Cartmell
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
In article <cugnkr$i00$2@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net>, Renia
<renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
The dimming is mostly irrelevant in the short-term except for its cause
(pollution). Removing the pollution will restore the temperature loss.
But 1 (dealt with in the programme)
We didn't know about the dimming so our Global Warming calculations are
wrong. It's far worse than assumed. It's now seen as likely that there will
be effects that can't be reversed and very nasty temperature variations (a
mix of higher temperatures leaving vast areas uninhabitable and lowered
temperatures bringing glaciers to Britain again). In the programme if you
blinked you might have missed the link to Global warming and thought the
problem was Global Dimming itself.
But 2 (not in the programme)
It's even worse.
Given no human interference there would have been natural Global Cooling in
addition to the Global Dimming above. Global Warming has hidden all this
and is even worse.
The situation is worse than assumed up to now.
--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games http://www.finnybank.com http://www.acornuser.com
Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines
<renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
In article <cuft1t$9mh$1@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net>, Renia
renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
As I recall, the warming is a daily, rather than long-term event,
masked by the dimming, but the dimming is the true problem.
Global warming is the problem. The *extent* of the global warming has
been masked by the global dimming. As we remove the causes of dimming
(as we must for our health) warming will get even worse.
I'm sure the programme said it was the other way round, the dimming
being the greater problem, but the warming not to be ignored.
The dimming is mostly irrelevant in the short-term except for its cause
(pollution). Removing the pollution will restore the temperature loss.
But 1 (dealt with in the programme)
We didn't know about the dimming so our Global Warming calculations are
wrong. It's far worse than assumed. It's now seen as likely that there will
be effects that can't be reversed and very nasty temperature variations (a
mix of higher temperatures leaving vast areas uninhabitable and lowered
temperatures bringing glaciers to Britain again). In the programme if you
blinked you might have missed the link to Global warming and thought the
problem was Global Dimming itself.
But 2 (not in the programme)
It's even worse.
Given no human interference there would have been natural Global Cooling in
addition to the Global Dimming above. Global Warming has hidden all this
and is even worse.
The situation is worse than assumed up to now.
--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games http://www.finnybank.com http://www.acornuser.com
Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines
-
hippo
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"martin reboul" wrote in message
You are right it isn't easy to do because the 'scientists' have both
personal and political venues. "R' is mostly concerned with natural
rehabilitation (they use another term which I have forgotten) of coastal
plane and estuarial ecosystems previously damaged by chemical spills and
past pollution. He is doing a study on which grasses are most effective
natural 'filters' of heavy metals and other pollutants. He also is smart
enough to understand that as an undergraduate with a coastal specialty he
isn't well enough trained get into discussions on global weather patterns
even to suck up in the lecture hall.
I agree completely that ecology has no business being a political axe. I
also think the scientists are going to have to get on the same sheet of
music about what to worry about. When I was younger it was to be a nuclear
winter, now its global warming or global something else having to do with
blocking the sun's rays (winter again). The Greens screamed and ranted about
killing off the caribou by drilling on the north slope of Alaska and
building the pipeline. Well the caribou seem to be in the midst of a
population explosion at the moment or the reverse of their prediction. The
Greens blocked nuclear plants so we switched to coal and natural gas. Now
they are bitching about generating ozone through the burning of fossil
fuels. It seems we would have been better ignoring them in the first place
and sticking with nuclear energy as most of Europe did. I was an early
supporter of Greenpeace when they were campaigning to save the great whales.
When they became radical and political they lost me and probably millions of
others who had supported them in the beginning. These issues are too damned
important to be made into political issues which any fool can see will cost
the adherents half of the population right out of the box when they make it
one. They certainly aren't chalking up a win by chasing off well intentioned
acolytes because they are wearing the wrong color of underwear. -the Troll
"hippo" in message
'R' works for a firm which cleans up chemical spills and intends to make
it
his profession after graduation and why he attended the seminar. The
Prof
was looking directly at him when he made his remark about Republicans,
clearly bating him. It was nothing new. What he finds most distasteful
about
his chosen field is suffering through another five years of
post-graduate
education at the mercy of political ideologues disguised as scientists.
Several times before 'R' has felt it necessary to leave the classroom
rather
than loose his temper at the political bile spewing from his 'Biology'
Prof.
Last semester he had one as bad for Plant Taxonomy which doesn't seem
much
like a political subject to me. 'R' is already a convinced ecologist in
spite of the ass holes in his department trying to tell him that the
field
is restricted only to Bush hating Democrats. The single thing they have
taught him is that objective science isn't objective when passed through
human hands.
Is he worried about global warming, and the changes in the weather we have
been
seeing lately? I'm curious, because he is probably in a better position
than
most of us to look at the facts and realise the truth. The trouble is,
this
particular subject has long been a favourite stamping ground of
politicians and
political movements, and the actual 'facts' and statistics have been spun,
misrepresented and distorted as an inevitable result.
Personally, I try to ignore the bumf, look past the rhetoric, and see the
science, but that isn't easy to do. You'd think that as we will all suffer
(or
at least be affected) by anything that goes wrong, for once everyone might
be
sensible and pull together - but I suspect that isn't the case, and if my
suspicions are right, everyone will still be trying to score points even
as we
are roast, drowned, starved, blown away or suffocated...
You are right it isn't easy to do because the 'scientists' have both
personal and political venues. "R' is mostly concerned with natural
rehabilitation (they use another term which I have forgotten) of coastal
plane and estuarial ecosystems previously damaged by chemical spills and
past pollution. He is doing a study on which grasses are most effective
natural 'filters' of heavy metals and other pollutants. He also is smart
enough to understand that as an undergraduate with a coastal specialty he
isn't well enough trained get into discussions on global weather patterns
even to suck up in the lecture hall.
I agree completely that ecology has no business being a political axe. I
also think the scientists are going to have to get on the same sheet of
music about what to worry about. When I was younger it was to be a nuclear
winter, now its global warming or global something else having to do with
blocking the sun's rays (winter again). The Greens screamed and ranted about
killing off the caribou by drilling on the north slope of Alaska and
building the pipeline. Well the caribou seem to be in the midst of a
population explosion at the moment or the reverse of their prediction. The
Greens blocked nuclear plants so we switched to coal and natural gas. Now
they are bitching about generating ozone through the burning of fossil
fuels. It seems we would have been better ignoring them in the first place
and sticking with nuclear energy as most of Europe did. I was an early
supporter of Greenpeace when they were campaigning to save the great whales.
When they became radical and political they lost me and probably millions of
others who had supported them in the beginning. These issues are too damned
important to be made into political issues which any fool can see will cost
the adherents half of the population right out of the box when they make it
one. They certainly aren't chalking up a win by chasing off well intentioned
acolytes because they are wearing the wrong color of underwear. -the Troll
-
Larry Swain
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
hippo wrote:
(and beyond) more than any other single person or corporation.
"John Cartmell" wrote in message
In article hippo wrote:
'R' is already a convinced ecologist in spite of the ass holes in his
department trying to tell him that the field is restricted only to Bush
hating Democrats.
It's very difficult when you only have choices - but I cannot see any way
that convinced ecologists could ever support Bush. Admittedly being a
Democrat is only a small step away.
Because Presidents do other things besides trying to control the
environment, (which they can't anyway) and micro-organisms and fish don't
care if you are a Democrat or Republican. -the Troll
Presidents however can impact the environment and how our whole society
(and beyond) more than any other single person or corporation.
-
Larry Swain
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
martin reboul wrote:
"hippo" <hippo@southsudan.net> wrote in message
news:StydnRRoe62Vi5bfRVn-rQ@giganews.com...
"Larry Swain" wrote in message
martin reboul wrote:
But of course, the professor wasn't talking about "right wingers" nor
was he talking about conservatives. He was talking about "Republicans",
and if given some more context from the class I'd bet that what he
meant by Republicans was the party rather than any individual republican.
The Bush administration as the anointed of the Republican party has a
pretty dismal record on environmental issues. And the conservatives of
this country voted him back in--that pretty much confirms the prof's
statement.
There is the added illogic that because our storied young Republican
attanded a voluntary ecological seminar that he did so because he cared
about the environment and supported the aims of the seminar sponsors.
His mere attendance only proves that he attended, it does not disprove
the professor's statement in any way. One hopes that the actions the
young chap takes do in fact disprove the prof's blanket statement, but
we weren't told that part of the story. As a long aside gets longer, in
my youth working my way through college I worked as a bank teller and
was working the drive up window that day. I cashed a check for a
customer and per policy put it in an envelope. The customer told me to
keep the envelope and save some trees and how bad it was for the bank to
have this policy because of all the waste paper it created. Well and
good. But this customer had also sat in his car with it running while I
waited on the 6 cars ahead of him when the lobby was empty and he lives
two blocks away. His actions gave the lie to his words. Moral of the
story is simply that our young Republican's attendance voluntarily at an
ecological seminar does not demonstrate that he cares to do anything
about the environmental issues we face. Damn that logic!
'R' works for a firm which cleans up chemical spills and intends to make it
his profession after graduation and why he attended the seminar. The Prof
was looking directly at him when he made his remark about Republicans,
clearly bating him. It was nothing new. What he finds most distasteful about
his chosen field is suffering through another five years of post-graduate
education at the mercy of political ideologues disguised as scientists.
Several times before 'R' has felt it necessary to leave the classroom rather
than loose his temper at the political bile spewing from his 'Biology' Prof.
Last semester he had one as bad for Plant Taxonomy which doesn't seem much
like a political subject to me. 'R' is already a convinced ecologist in
spite of the ass holes in his department trying to tell him that the field
is restricted only to Bush hating Democrats. The single thing they have
taught him is that objective science isn't objective when passed through
human hands. -the Troll
Is he worried about global warming, and the changes in the weather we have been
seeing lately? I'm curious, because he is probably in a better position than
most of us to look at the facts and realise the truth. The trouble is, this
particular subject has long been a favourite stamping ground of politicians and
political movements, and the actual 'facts' and statistics have been spun,
misrepresented and distorted as an inevitable result.
Personally, I try to ignore the bumf, look past the rhetoric, and see the
science, but that isn't easy to do. You'd think that as we will all suffer (or
at least be affected) by anything that goes wrong, for once everyone might be
sensible and pull together - but I suspect that isn't the case, and if my
suspicions are right, everyone will still be trying to score points even as we
are roast, drowned, starved, blown away or suffocated...
Cheers
Martin
Yes, it makes you think that maybe _Collapse_ has something behind it
-
Larry Swain
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
hippo wrote:
Exactly my point. A) he attended because its profession, not out of
deep concern for environmental issues, tis a field where much money can
be made and B) if he were truly as environmentally aware as you depict,
why isn't he making the PREVENTION of chemical spills his profession,
rather than their clean up? C) he's concerned about training under
political ideologues, so there are no conservatives in science? HMMM, I
can point him to a few. And there are no Republican ideologues? Surely
you have your head in the sand if you think that! IN fact, unless you
are filtering a good deal, I would have to say that "R" is a very good
representative of an ideologue, and it just might be the case that
someone 20something just might not have either the experience nor the
knowledge base to really determine whether his professors are ideologues
instead of scientists, or whether the facts of science have led them to
become ideologues (if such they are). And I'd submit, neither do you
possess such a level of knowledge.
I don't question his ecological sense as a sportsman, or even as a
student; but even as a Republican he has to recognize that who the
president puts in charge of the EPA and the Dept of Interior and like
agencies is an ecological issue since they take actions daily that in
one way or another affact the environment in significant ways.
"Larry Swain" wrote in message
martin reboul wrote:
But of course, the professor wasn't talking about "right wingers" nor
was he talking about conservatives. He was talking about "Republicans",
and if given some more context from the class I'd bet that what he
meant by Republicans was the party rather than any individual republican.
The Bush administration as the anointed of the Republican party has a
pretty dismal record on environmental issues. And the conservatives of
this country voted him back in--that pretty much confirms the prof's
statement.
There is the added illogic that because our storied young Republican
attanded a voluntary ecological seminar that he did so because he cared
about the environment and supported the aims of the seminar sponsors.
His mere attendance only proves that he attended, it does not disprove
the professor's statement in any way. One hopes that the actions the
young chap takes do in fact disprove the prof's blanket statement, but
we weren't told that part of the story. As a long aside gets longer, in
my youth working my way through college I worked as a bank teller and
was working the drive up window that day. I cashed a check for a
customer and per policy put it in an envelope. The customer told me to
keep the envelope and save some trees and how bad it was for the bank to
have this policy because of all the waste paper it created. Well and
good. But this customer had also sat in his car with it running while I
waited on the 6 cars ahead of him when the lobby was empty and he lives
two blocks away. His actions gave the lie to his words. Moral of the
story is simply that our young Republican's attendance voluntarily at an
ecological seminar does not demonstrate that he cares to do anything
about the environmental issues we face. Damn that logic!
'R' works for a firm which cleans up chemical spills and intends to make it
his profession after graduation and why he attended the seminar. The Prof
was looking directly at him when he made his remark about Republicans,
clearly bating him. It was nothing new. What he finds most distasteful about
his chosen field is suffering through another five years of post-graduate
education at the mercy of political ideologues disguised as scientists.
Several times before 'R' has felt it necessary to leave the classroom rather
than loose his temper at the political bile spewing from his 'Biology' Prof.
Last semester he had one as bad for Plant Taxonomy which doesn't seem much
like a political subject to me. 'R' is already a convinced ecologist in
spite of the ass holes in his department trying to tell him that the field
is restricted only to Bush hating Democrats. The single thing they have
taught him is that objective science isn't objective when passed through
human hands. -the Troll
Exactly my point. A) he attended because its profession, not out of
deep concern for environmental issues, tis a field where much money can
be made and B) if he were truly as environmentally aware as you depict,
why isn't he making the PREVENTION of chemical spills his profession,
rather than their clean up? C) he's concerned about training under
political ideologues, so there are no conservatives in science? HMMM, I
can point him to a few. And there are no Republican ideologues? Surely
you have your head in the sand if you think that! IN fact, unless you
are filtering a good deal, I would have to say that "R" is a very good
representative of an ideologue, and it just might be the case that
someone 20something just might not have either the experience nor the
knowledge base to really determine whether his professors are ideologues
instead of scientists, or whether the facts of science have led them to
become ideologues (if such they are). And I'd submit, neither do you
possess such a level of knowledge.
I don't question his ecological sense as a sportsman, or even as a
student; but even as a Republican he has to recognize that who the
president puts in charge of the EPA and the Dept of Interior and like
agencies is an ecological issue since they take actions daily that in
one way or another affact the environment in significant ways.
-
Larry Swain
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
hippo wrote:
Hmmm, so how, taking R as an example, do you make a company fork out the
money to clean up a spill it created? Surely you are not going to claim
that said company is going to do it out of the goodness of its corporate
heart? Maybe someone should pass legislation--oh wait, that would be
ecology having a political axe.....
I
"martin reboul" wrote in message
"hippo" in message
'R' works for a firm which cleans up chemical spills and intends to make
it
his profession after graduation and why he attended the seminar. The
Prof
was looking directly at him when he made his remark about Republicans,
clearly bating him. It was nothing new. What he finds most distasteful
about
his chosen field is suffering through another five years of
post-graduate
education at the mercy of political ideologues disguised as scientists.
Several times before 'R' has felt it necessary to leave the classroom
rather
than loose his temper at the political bile spewing from his 'Biology'
Prof.
Last semester he had one as bad for Plant Taxonomy which doesn't seem
much
like a political subject to me. 'R' is already a convinced ecologist in
spite of the ass holes in his department trying to tell him that the
field
is restricted only to Bush hating Democrats. The single thing they have
taught him is that objective science isn't objective when passed through
human hands.
Is he worried about global warming, and the changes in the weather we have
been
seeing lately? I'm curious, because he is probably in a better position
than
most of us to look at the facts and realise the truth. The trouble is,
this
particular subject has long been a favourite stamping ground of
politicians and
political movements, and the actual 'facts' and statistics have been spun,
misrepresented and distorted as an inevitable result.
Personally, I try to ignore the bumf, look past the rhetoric, and see the
science, but that isn't easy to do. You'd think that as we will all suffer
(or
at least be affected) by anything that goes wrong, for once everyone might
be
sensible and pull together - but I suspect that isn't the case, and if my
suspicions are right, everyone will still be trying to score points even
as we
are roast, drowned, starved, blown away or suffocated...
You are right it isn't easy to do because the 'scientists' have both
personal and political venues. "R' is mostly concerned with natural
rehabilitation (they use another term which I have forgotten) of coastal
plane and estuarial ecosystems previously damaged by chemical spills and
past pollution. He is doing a study on which grasses are most effective
natural 'filters' of heavy metals and other pollutants. He also is smart
enough to understand that as an undergraduate with a coastal specialty he
isn't well enough trained get into discussions on global weather patterns
even to suck up in the lecture hall.
I agree completely that ecology has no business being a political axe.
Hmmm, so how, taking R as an example, do you make a company fork out the
money to clean up a spill it created? Surely you are not going to claim
that said company is going to do it out of the goodness of its corporate
heart? Maybe someone should pass legislation--oh wait, that would be
ecology having a political axe.....
I
also think the scientists are going to have to get on the same sheet of
music about what to worry about. When I was younger it was to be a nuclear
winter, now its global warming or global something else having to do with
blocking the sun's rays (winter again). The Greens screamed and ranted about
killing off the caribou by drilling on the north slope of Alaska and
building the pipeline. Well the caribou seem to be in the midst of a
population explosion at the moment or the reverse of their prediction. The
Greens blocked nuclear plants so we switched to coal and natural gas. Now
they are bitching about generating ozone through the burning of fossil
fuels. It seems we would have been better ignoring them in the first place
and sticking with nuclear energy as most of Europe did. I was an early
supporter of Greenpeace when they were campaigning to save the great whales.
When they became radical and political they lost me and probably millions of
others who had supported them in the beginning. These issues are too damned
important to be made into political issues which any fool can see will cost
the adherents half of the population right out of the box when they make it
one. They certainly aren't chalking up a win by chasing off well intentioned
acolytes because they are wearing the wrong color of underwear. -the Troll
-
Vaughan Sanders
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"John Cartmell" <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4d3b40bb3ejohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk...
This is exactly what Bellamy complains about, because Global Dimming is
thrown at you, which is scientifically sound btw, you come up with
Global Cooling.
There is no consensus on whether the world is naturally warming or
cooling.
I don't follow your "in addition to Global Dimming", it's the same human
interference that is claimed to be causing both.
Jamie
news:4d3b40bb3ejohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk...
In article <cugnkr$i00$2@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net>, Renia
renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
In article <cuft1t$9mh$1@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net>, Renia
renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
As I recall, the warming is a daily, rather than long-term event,
masked by the dimming, but the dimming is the true problem.
Global warming is the problem. The *extent* of the global warming
has
been masked by the global dimming. As we remove the causes of
dimming
(as we must for our health) warming will get even worse.
I'm sure the programme said it was the other way round, the dimming
being the greater problem, but the warming not to be ignored.
The dimming is mostly irrelevant in the short-term except for its
cause
(pollution). Removing the pollution will restore the temperature loss.
But 1 (dealt with in the programme)
We didn't know about the dimming so our Global Warming calculations
are
wrong. It's far worse than assumed. It's now seen as likely that there
will
be effects that can't be reversed and very nasty temperature
variations (a
mix of higher temperatures leaving vast areas uninhabitable and
lowered
temperatures bringing glaciers to Britain again). In the programme if
you
blinked you might have missed the link to Global warming and thought
the
problem was Global Dimming itself.
But 2 (not in the programme)
It's even worse.
Given no human interference there would have been natural Global
Cooling in
addition to the Global Dimming above. Global Warming has hidden all
this
and is even worse.
The situation is worse than assumed up to now.
--
This is exactly what Bellamy complains about, because Global Dimming is
thrown at you, which is scientifically sound btw, you come up with
Global Cooling.
There is no consensus on whether the world is naturally warming or
cooling.
I don't follow your "in addition to Global Dimming", it's the same human
interference that is claimed to be causing both.
Jamie
-
John Cartmell
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
In article <cuhupt$h98$3@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>, Vaughan Sanders
<jamie@chalkwell-windsurfing.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
No. I haven't read the original research report yet. I'll get back when I
have - needs a trip to Lancaster as I no longer have reading rights at
Manchester Unis.
--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games http://www.finnybank.com http://www.acornuser.com
Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines
<jamie@chalkwell-windsurfing.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
"John Cartmell" <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4d3b40bb3ejohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk...
In article <cugnkr$i00$2@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net>, Renia
renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
In article <cuft1t$9mh$1@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net>, Renia
renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
As I recall, the warming is a daily, rather than long-term event,
masked by the dimming, but the dimming is the true problem.
Global warming is the problem. The *extent* of the global warming
has
been masked by the global dimming. As we remove the causes of
dimming
(as we must for our health) warming will get even worse.
I'm sure the programme said it was the other way round, the dimming
being the greater problem, but the warming not to be ignored.
The dimming is mostly irrelevant in the short-term except for its
cause
(pollution). Removing the pollution will restore the temperature loss.
But 1 (dealt with in the programme) We didn't know about the dimming
so our Global Warming calculations
are
wrong. It's far worse than assumed. It's now seen as likely that there
will
be effects that can't be reversed and very nasty temperature
variations (a
mix of higher temperatures leaving vast areas uninhabitable and
lowered
temperatures bringing glaciers to Britain again). In the programme if
you
blinked you might have missed the link to Global warming and thought
the
problem was Global Dimming itself.
But 2 (not in the programme) It's even worse. Given no human
interference there would have been natural Global
Cooling in
addition to the Global Dimming above. Global Warming has hidden all
this
and is even worse.
The situation is worse than assumed up to now.
--
This is exactly what Bellamy complains about, because Global Dimming is
thrown at you, which is scientifically sound btw, you come up with
Global Cooling. There is no consensus on whether the world is naturally
warming or cooling. I don't follow your "in addition to Global Dimming",
it's the same human interference that is claimed to be causing both.
No. I haven't read the original research report yet. I'll get back when I
have - needs a trip to Lancaster as I no longer have reading rights at
Manchester Unis.
--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games http://www.finnybank.com http://www.acornuser.com
Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines
-
Vaughan Sanders
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"John Cartmell" <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4d3b7e2e89john@cartmell.demon.co.uk...
Well here's a few questions for you to get your teeth into.
Key Difficulties
a.. Collecting accurate historical data
a.. Confidence levels in predictive computer models
a.. The impact of radiative forcing (the direct effects of the amount
of solar radiation reaching the Earth)
a.. Difficulties in assessing the effect of water vapour and cloud
formation
a.. Variations in:
- Earth's orbit around the sun
- Solar radiation, magnetism and eruptions
- Volcanic activity
- Atmospheric composition
a.. The effects of enhanced photosynthesis brought about by increased
carbon dioxide concentrations
a.. The effects of exaggerated C02 levels in the IPCC models, and
also the same exaggerated effects in the emission scenarios which link
scientific data and theories to social science storylines which include
assumptions about energy policy (fuel consumption, population growth and
technology)
- The accuracy of climate change modelling - the estimates from
current climate change models are highly uncertain and large differences
between the results from different modelling methods remain. No climate
model has been scientifically validated.
Jamie
news:4d3b7e2e89john@cartmell.demon.co.uk...
In article <cuhupt$h98$3@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>, Vaughan Sanders
jamie@chalkwell-windsurfing.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
snip
But 2 (not in the programme) It's even worse. Given no human
interference there would have been natural Global
Cooling in
addition to the Global Dimming above. Global Warming has hidden
all
this
and is even worse.
The situation is worse than assumed up to now.
--
This is exactly what Bellamy complains about, because Global Dimming
is
thrown at you, which is scientifically sound btw, you come up with
Global Cooling. There is no consensus on whether the world is
naturally
warming or cooling. I don't follow your "in addition to Global
Dimming",
it's the same human interference that is claimed to be causing both.
No. I haven't read the original research report yet. I'll get back
when I
have - needs a trip to Lancaster as I no longer have reading rights at
Manchester Unis.
--
Well here's a few questions for you to get your teeth into.
Key Difficulties
a.. Collecting accurate historical data
a.. Confidence levels in predictive computer models
a.. The impact of radiative forcing (the direct effects of the amount
of solar radiation reaching the Earth)
a.. Difficulties in assessing the effect of water vapour and cloud
formation
a.. Variations in:
- Earth's orbit around the sun
- Solar radiation, magnetism and eruptions
- Volcanic activity
- Atmospheric composition
a.. The effects of enhanced photosynthesis brought about by increased
carbon dioxide concentrations
a.. The effects of exaggerated C02 levels in the IPCC models, and
also the same exaggerated effects in the emission scenarios which link
scientific data and theories to social science storylines which include
assumptions about energy policy (fuel consumption, population growth and
technology)
- The accuracy of climate change modelling - the estimates from
current climate change models are highly uncertain and large differences
between the results from different modelling methods remain. No climate
model has been scientifically validated.
Jamie
-
John Cartmell
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
In article <cui6c3$7hc$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Vaughan Sanders
<jamie@chalkwell-windsurfing.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
Possible and actually done in sufficient areas. More added all the time.
Standard test of the model.
Specifically?
That's where more recent advances have identified that the problem is even
worse than originally thought.
Taken into account in all the good models.
This may be where Bellamy is taking refuge. It's a false refuge.
Today's models are quite different from the Club of Rome's early attempts.
Forget trying to model what we might do in the future - the current models
show irreverible changes unless we actually do something drastic now. Those
changes will cost us far more than any conceivable costs of us all
implementing Kyoto++.
You're looking at old models. There is no reason why you and I won't
witness those irreversible changes in our lifetimes. My granddaughter
certainly will unless something is done - and stepping back from the brink
has to be done now.
--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games http://www.finnybank.com http://www.acornuser.com
Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines
<jamie@chalkwell-windsurfing.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
"John Cartmell" <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4d3b7e2e89john@cartmell.demon.co.uk...
In article <cuhupt$h98$3@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>, Vaughan Sanders
jamie@chalkwell-windsurfing.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
snip
But 2 (not in the programme) It's even worse. Given no human
interference there would have been natural Global
Cooling in
addition to the Global Dimming above. Global Warming has hidden
all
this
and is even worse.
The situation is worse than assumed up to now.
--
This is exactly what Bellamy complains about, because Global Dimming
is
thrown at you, which is scientifically sound btw, you come up with
Global Cooling. There is no consensus on whether the world is
naturally
warming or cooling. I don't follow your "in addition to Global
Dimming",
it's the same human interference that is claimed to be causing both.
No. I haven't read the original research report yet. I'll get back
when I
have - needs a trip to Lancaster as I no longer have reading rights at
Manchester Unis.
--
Well here's a few questions for you to get your teeth into.
Key Difficulties
a.. Collecting accurate historical data
Possible and actually done in sufficient areas. More added all the time.
a.. Confidence levels in predictive computer models
Standard test of the model.
a.. The impact of radiative forcing (the direct effects of the amount
of solar radiation reaching the Earth)
Specifically?
a.. Difficulties in assessing the effect of water vapour and cloud
formation
That's where more recent advances have identified that the problem is even
worse than originally thought.
a.. Variations in: - Earth's orbit around the sun - Solar radiation,
magnetism and eruptions - Volcanic activity - Atmospheric
composition
Taken into account in all the good models.
a.. The effects of enhanced photosynthesis brought about by increased
carbon dioxide concentrations
This may be where Bellamy is taking refuge. It's a false refuge.
a.. The effects of exaggerated C02 levels in the IPCC models, and
also the same exaggerated effects in the emission scenarios which link
scientific data and theories to social science storylines which include
assumptions about energy policy (fuel consumption, population growth and
technology)
Today's models are quite different from the Club of Rome's early attempts.
Forget trying to model what we might do in the future - the current models
show irreverible changes unless we actually do something drastic now. Those
changes will cost us far more than any conceivable costs of us all
implementing Kyoto++.
- The accuracy of climate change modelling - the estimates from
current climate change models are highly uncertain and large differences
between the results from different modelling methods remain. No climate
model has been scientifically validated.
You're looking at old models. There is no reason why you and I won't
witness those irreversible changes in our lifetimes. My granddaughter
certainly will unless something is done - and stepping back from the brink
has to be done now.
--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games http://www.finnybank.com http://www.acornuser.com
Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines
-
hippo
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"Larry Swain" wrote in message
Probably but it ain't a single person job..... or a single party. I, for
example, have common cause with anyone trying to set aside and protect old
growth forests but nothing whatever with someone who drives a spike in a
tree trunk to harm a logger, throws paint on someone wearing a fur coat, or
any other form of eco-terrorism. The ecologists have left no room for me in
their organizations, and by marginalizing me and others like me, are doing
their movement no good. By permitting their movements to become politically
partisan they have alienated half of the US population and at least half of
the governing time in office. The discussion needs to be widened, not
constricted. -the Troll
hippo wrote:
It's very difficult when you only have choices - but I cannot see any
way
that convinced ecologists could ever support Bush. Admittedly being a
Democrat is only a small step away.
Because Presidents do other things besides trying to control the
environment, (which they can't anyway) and micro-organisms and fish
don't
care if you are a Democrat or Republican. -the Troll
Presidents however can impact the environment and how our whole society
(and beyond) more than any other single person or corporation.
Probably but it ain't a single person job..... or a single party. I, for
example, have common cause with anyone trying to set aside and protect old
growth forests but nothing whatever with someone who drives a spike in a
tree trunk to harm a logger, throws paint on someone wearing a fur coat, or
any other form of eco-terrorism. The ecologists have left no room for me in
their organizations, and by marginalizing me and others like me, are doing
their movement no good. By permitting their movements to become politically
partisan they have alienated half of the US population and at least half of
the governing time in office. The discussion needs to be widened, not
constricted. -the Troll
-
hippo
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"Larry Swain" wrote in message
'R' is between classes and answering: "It is federal law that any generator
of hazardous waste owns that waste from cradle to grave and even past the
grave through eternity." He approves of that law.
[.]
hippo wrote:
I agree completely that ecology has no business being a political axe.
Hmmm, so how, taking R as an example, do you make a company fork out the
money to clean up a spill it created? Surely you are not going to claim
that said company is going to do it out of the goodness of its corporate
heart? Maybe someone should pass legislation--oh wait, that would be
ecology having a political axe.....
'R' is between classes and answering: "It is federal law that any generator
of hazardous waste owns that waste from cradle to grave and even past the
grave through eternity." He approves of that law.
[.]
-
Kelly Graham
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Swain" <theswain@operamail.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
Theories- especially when they touch on the politic oe ecomonic -
are alot like
religious dogma: Most people hold onto them vehemently, no matter how
many
FACTS atr brought in to contradict the THEORY! We *hate* to be proven
wrong.
Kelly Paul Graham
From: "Larry Swain" <theswain@operamail.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
martin reboul wrote:
"hippo" <hippo@southsudan.net> wrote in message
news:StydnRRoe62Vi5bfRVn-rQ@giganews.com...
"Larry Swain" wrote in message
martin reboul wrote:
But of course, the professor wasn't talking about "right wingers" nor
was he talking about conservatives. He was talking about
"Republicans",
and if given some more context from the class I'd bet that what he
meant by Republicans was the party rather than any individual
republican.
The Bush administration as the anointed of the Republican party has a
pretty dismal record on environmental issues. And the conservatives of
this country voted him back in--that pretty much confirms the prof's
statement.
There is the added illogic that because our storied young Republican
attanded a voluntary ecological seminar that he did so because he cared
about the environment and supported the aims of the seminar sponsors.
His mere attendance only proves that he attended, it does not disprove
the professor's statement in any way. One hopes that the actions the
young chap takes do in fact disprove the prof's blanket statement, but
we weren't told that part of the story. As a long aside gets longer,
in
my youth working my way through college I worked as a bank teller and
was working the drive up window that day. I cashed a check for a
customer and per policy put it in an envelope. The customer told me to
keep the envelope and save some trees and how bad it was for the bank
to
have this policy because of all the waste paper it created. Well and
good. But this customer had also sat in his car with it running while
I
waited on the 6 cars ahead of him when the lobby was empty and he lives
two blocks away. His actions gave the lie to his words. Moral of the
story is simply that our young Republican's attendance voluntarily at
an
ecological seminar does not demonstrate that he cares to do anything
about the environmental issues we face. Damn that logic!
'R' works for a firm which cleans up chemical spills and intends to make
it
his profession after graduation and why he attended the seminar. The
Prof
was looking directly at him when he made his remark about Republicans,
clearly bating him. It was nothing new. What he finds most distasteful
about
his chosen field is suffering through another five years of
post-graduate
education at the mercy of political ideologues disguised as scientists.
Several times before 'R' has felt it necessary to leave the classroom
rather
than loose his temper at the political bile spewing from his 'Biology'
Prof.
Last semester he had one as bad for Plant Taxonomy which doesn't seem
much
like a political subject to me. 'R' is already a convinced ecologist in
spite of the ass holes in his department trying to tell him that the
field
is restricted only to Bush hating Democrats. The single thing they have
taught him is that objective science isn't objective when passed through
human hands. -the Troll
Is he worried about global warming, and the changes in the weather we
have been
seeing lately? I'm curious, because he is probably in a better position
than
most of us to look at the facts and realise the truth. The trouble is,
this
particular subject has long been a favourite stamping ground of
politicians and
political movements, and the actual 'facts' and statistics have been
spun,
misrepresented and distorted as an inevitable result.
Personally, I try to ignore the bumf, look past the rhetoric, and see
the
science, but that isn't easy to do. You'd think that as we will all
suffer (or
at least be affected) by anything that goes wrong, for once everyone
might be
sensible and pull together - but I suspect that isn't the case, and if
my
suspicions are right, everyone will still be trying to score points even
as we
are roast, drowned, starved, blown away or suffocated...
Cheers
Martin
Yes, it makes you think that maybe _Collapse_ has something behind it
______________________________
Theories- especially when they touch on the politic oe ecomonic -
are alot like
religious dogma: Most people hold onto them vehemently, no matter how
many
FACTS atr brought in to contradict the THEORY! We *hate* to be proven
wrong.
Kelly Paul Graham
-
hippo
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"Larry Swain" wrote in message
I spent 40 years in international trade and so understand my scientific
limitations perfectly well.
Your presumption of lack of concern and money grubbing is typical of the
blind idiocy I have been talking about. 'R' chose his profession from any
number available to him because of his interest. He likes it because, unlike
prevention which is passive and has neither guarantees nor quantifiable
results, ecological re-something-ation (I have forgotten the technical term
again) is active with quantifiable results. His is an alpha personality
which requires constant demands and energy absorption. Doing lecture tours
and checking off lists of corporate don'ts as a gray-suit government
bureaucrat wouldn't suit him at all.
Conservatism isn't an ideology. It is purely reactive.
It shouldn't be a revelation that the EPA and Interior are comparatively
minor government agencies with comparatively minor functions. How they act
should certainly not be the only yardstick by which an administration is
judged by any citizen interested in the future. Political persuasion should
have nothing to do with how a student is received, accepted, graded, or
advanced in higher education. Disciplines which indulge themselves in so
doing do themselves, their students, and the country a grave disservice. An
example is Anthropology which was nearly finished by ideologically motivated
'research' of Meade and others earlier last century and now must be
re-written. -the Troll
hippo wrote:
'R' works for a firm which cleans up chemical spills and intends to make
it
his profession after graduation and why he attended the seminar. The
Prof
was looking directly at him when he made his remark about Republicans,
clearly bating him. It was nothing new. What he finds most distasteful
about
his chosen field is suffering through another five years of
post-graduate
education at the mercy of political ideologues disguised as scientists.
Several times before 'R' has felt it necessary to leave the classroom
rather
than loose his temper at the political bile spewing from his 'Biology'
Prof.
Last semester he had one as bad for Plant Taxonomy which doesn't seem
much
like a political subject to me. 'R' is already a convinced ecologist in
spite of the ass holes in his department trying to tell him that the
field
is restricted only to Bush hating Democrats. The single thing they have
taught him is that objective science isn't objective when passed through
human hands.
Exactly my point. A) he attended because its profession, not out of
deep concern for environmental issues, tis a field where much money can
be made and B) if he were truly as environmentally aware as you depict,
why isn't he making the PREVENTION of chemical spills his profession,
rather than their clean up? C) he's concerned about training under
political ideologues, so there are no conservatives in science? HMMM, I
can point him to a few. And there are no Republican ideologues? Surely
you have your head in the sand if you think that! IN fact, unless you
are filtering a good deal, I would have to say that "R" is a very good
representative of an ideologue, and it just might be the case that
someone 20something just might not have either the experience nor the
knowledge base to really determine whether his professors are ideologues
instead of scientists, or whether the facts of science have led them to
become ideologues (if such they are). And I'd submit, neither do you
possess such a level of knowledge.
I don't question his ecological sense as a sportsman, or even as a
student; but even as a Republican he has to recognize that who the
president puts in charge of the EPA and the Dept of Interior and like
agencies is an ecological issue since they take actions daily that in
one way or another affact the environment in significant ways.
I spent 40 years in international trade and so understand my scientific
limitations perfectly well.
Your presumption of lack of concern and money grubbing is typical of the
blind idiocy I have been talking about. 'R' chose his profession from any
number available to him because of his interest. He likes it because, unlike
prevention which is passive and has neither guarantees nor quantifiable
results, ecological re-something-ation (I have forgotten the technical term
again) is active with quantifiable results. His is an alpha personality
which requires constant demands and energy absorption. Doing lecture tours
and checking off lists of corporate don'ts as a gray-suit government
bureaucrat wouldn't suit him at all.
Conservatism isn't an ideology. It is purely reactive.
It shouldn't be a revelation that the EPA and Interior are comparatively
minor government agencies with comparatively minor functions. How they act
should certainly not be the only yardstick by which an administration is
judged by any citizen interested in the future. Political persuasion should
have nothing to do with how a student is received, accepted, graded, or
advanced in higher education. Disciplines which indulge themselves in so
doing do themselves, their students, and the country a grave disservice. An
example is Anthropology which was nearly finished by ideologically motivated
'research' of Meade and others earlier last century and now must be
re-written. -the Troll
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"Conservatism isn't an ideology. It is purely reactive."
"hippo" of Charleston, South Carolina -- Paleo-Conservative
----------------------------------------------------
Nonsense!
If Conservatism is purely REACTIVE it won't SURVIVE -- neither will the
Conservatives, as a viable political force.
President George Walker Bush understands all that and is an ACTIVE
Conservative -- "hippo" of Charleston, South Carolina does NOT and is
purely REACTIVE.
A Good OFFENSE is the very best DEFENSE -- both against International
Islamofascist Terrorism and Loony-Leftover-Left policies, programs and
ideas.
GWB -- Yale '68 understands that -- "hippo" does NOT.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"hippo" of Charleston, South Carolina -- Paleo-Conservative
----------------------------------------------------
Nonsense!
If Conservatism is purely REACTIVE it won't SURVIVE -- neither will the
Conservatives, as a viable political force.
President George Walker Bush understands all that and is an ACTIVE
Conservative -- "hippo" of Charleston, South Carolina does NOT and is
purely REACTIVE.
A Good OFFENSE is the very best DEFENSE -- both against International
Islamofascist Terrorism and Loony-Leftover-Left policies, programs and
ideas.
GWB -- Yale '68 understands that -- "hippo" does NOT.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
Larry Swain
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
hippo wrote:
True, but the President sets policy, appoints people to the positions
that oversee these things, introduces or signs legislation....etc, he's
the top dog in the pyramid and while he can't be either praised or
blamed for everything that happens, he's got a big slice of that pie,
bigger than anyone else--regardless of party.
I, for
On this, we're in 100 per cent agreement, as surprising as that may be.
>
"Larry Swain" wrote in message
hippo wrote:
It's very difficult when you only have choices - but I cannot see any
way
that convinced ecologists could ever support Bush. Admittedly being a
Democrat is only a small step away.
Because Presidents do other things besides trying to control the
environment, (which they can't anyway) and micro-organisms and fish
don't
care if you are a Democrat or Republican. -the Troll
Presidents however can impact the environment and how our whole society
(and beyond) more than any other single person or corporation.
Probably but it ain't a single person job..... or a single party.
True, but the President sets policy, appoints people to the positions
that oversee these things, introduces or signs legislation....etc, he's
the top dog in the pyramid and while he can't be either praised or
blamed for everything that happens, he's got a big slice of that pie,
bigger than anyone else--regardless of party.
I, for
example, have common cause with anyone trying to set aside and protect old
growth forests but nothing whatever with someone who drives a spike in a
tree trunk to harm a logger, throws paint on someone wearing a fur coat, or
any other form of eco-terrorism. The ecologists have left no room for me in
their organizations, and by marginalizing me and others like me, are doing
their movement no good. By permitting their movements to become politically
partisan they have alienated half of the US population and at least half of
the governing time in office. The discussion needs to be widened, not
constricted. -the Troll
On this, we're in 100 per cent agreement, as surprising as that may be.
>
-
Larry Swain
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
hippo wrote:
You missed the point. Yes, there is a law, and the fact that a) someone
saw the need for the law and b) convinced the rest of Congress and the
President of the need for this law and c) that the government and the
people they represent see a continued need for this law and enforce it
means that ecology MUST have a political axe. The question or rather
issue isn't whether ecology should have a political axe but rather who
and against what/whom/when that axe is wielded.
"Larry Swain" wrote in message
hippo wrote:
I agree completely that ecology has no business being a political axe.
Hmmm, so how, taking R as an example, do you make a company fork out the
money to clean up a spill it created? Surely you are not going to claim
that said company is going to do it out of the goodness of its corporate
heart? Maybe someone should pass legislation--oh wait, that would be
ecology having a political axe.....
'R' is between classes and answering: "It is federal law that any generator
of hazardous waste owns that waste from cradle to grave and even past the
grave through eternity." He approves of that law.
You missed the point. Yes, there is a law, and the fact that a) someone
saw the need for the law and b) convinced the rest of Congress and the
President of the need for this law and c) that the government and the
people they represent see a continued need for this law and enforce it
means that ecology MUST have a political axe. The question or rather
issue isn't whether ecology should have a political axe but rather who
and against what/whom/when that axe is wielded.
-
hippo
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"D. Spencer Hines" wrote in message
It has nothing to do with activism, offensive, or defensive, and everything
to do with political philosophy based on an idea (ideology) or not
(reaction). Reactivism can be all three. -the Troll
"Conservatism isn't an ideology. It is purely reactive."
"hippo" of Charleston, South Carolina -- Paleo-Conservative
----------------------------------------------------
Nonsense!
If Conservatism is purely REACTIVE it won't SURVIVE -- neither will the
Conservatives, as a viable political force.
President George Walker Bush understands all that and is an ACTIVE
Conservative -- "hippo" of Charleston, South Carolina does NOT and is
purely REACTIVE.
A Good OFFENSE is the very best DEFENSE -- both against International
Islamofascist Terrorism and Loony-Leftover-Left policies, programs and
ideas.
It has nothing to do with activism, offensive, or defensive, and everything
to do with political philosophy based on an idea (ideology) or not
(reaction). Reactivism can be all three. -the Troll
-
hippo
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"Larry Swain" wrote in message
Then be issue oriented not party oriented. If the issue stands alone it can
be adopted by either side or both. Once party oriented you have only half or
fewer of elected officials working for you. It isn't a complicated equation.
I have the same problem with the NRA which just couldn't resist taking a
political side in spite of screams from folks like me who could see the
problems they were making for themselves.
Good, neither of us is anti-environment in spite of the caricature being
sold as good coin by politicians and certain radicals. -the Troll
hippo wrote:
Probably but it ain't a single person job..... or a single party.
True, but the President sets policy, appoints people to the positions
that oversee these things, introduces or signs legislation....etc, he's
the top dog in the pyramid and while he can't be either praised or
blamed for everything that happens, he's got a big slice of that pie,
bigger than anyone else--regardless of party.
Then be issue oriented not party oriented. If the issue stands alone it can
be adopted by either side or both. Once party oriented you have only half or
fewer of elected officials working for you. It isn't a complicated equation.
I have the same problem with the NRA which just couldn't resist taking a
political side in spite of screams from folks like me who could see the
problems they were making for themselves.
I, for
example, have common cause with anyone trying to set aside and protect
old
growth forests but nothing whatever with someone who drives a spike in a
tree trunk to harm a logger, throws paint on someone wearing a fur coat,
or
any other form of eco-terrorism. The ecologists have left no room for me
in
their organizations, and by marginalizing me and others like me, are
doing
their movement no good. By permitting their movements to become
politically
partisan they have alienated half of the US population and at least half
of
the governing time in office. The discussion needs to be widened, not
constricted. -the Troll
On this, we're in 100 per cent agreement, as surprising as that may be.
Good, neither of us is anti-environment in spite of the caricature being
sold as good coin by politicians and certain radicals. -the Troll
-
hippo
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"Larry Swain" wrote in message
It need not and should not be political. Rational people can agree on the
need for laws like those governing polluters and pollution. It should always
be bi-partisan for the effort not to shrivel and die when the 'other' party
is in power. Every citizen must be educated and brought on regardless of
party affiliation. No issue this important should be seen as the private
venue of only one party. -the Troll
hippo wrote:
'R' is between classes and answering: "It is federal law that any
generator
of hazardous waste owns that waste from cradle to grave and even past
the
grave through eternity." He approves of that law.
You missed the point. Yes, there is a law, and the fact that a) someone
saw the need for the law and b) convinced the rest of Congress and the
President of the need for this law and c) that the government and the
people they represent see a continued need for this law and enforce it
means that ecology MUST have a political axe. The question or rather
issue isn't whether ecology should have a political axe but rather who
and against what/whom/when that axe is wielded.
It need not and should not be political. Rational people can agree on the
need for laws like those governing polluters and pollution. It should always
be bi-partisan for the effort not to shrivel and die when the 'other' party
is in power. Every citizen must be educated and brought on regardless of
party affiliation. No issue this important should be seen as the private
venue of only one party. -the Troll
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
Spoken like a true Paleo-Conservative. <G>
DSH
"hippo" <hippo@southsudan.net> wrote in message
news:wf-dnT5y5omsz5DfRVn-jQ@giganews.com...
|
| "D. Spencer Hines" wrote in message
|
| > "Conservatism isn't an ideology. It is purely reactive."
| >
| > "hippo" of Charleston, South Carolina -- Paleo-Conservative
| > ----------------------------------------------------
| >
| > Nonsense!
| >
| > If Conservatism is purely REACTIVE it won't SURVIVE -- neither will
| >the Conservatives, as a viable political force.
| >
| > President George Walker Bush understands all that and is an ACTIVE
| > Conservative -- "hippo" of Charleston, South Carolina does NOT and
| > is purely REACTIVE.
| >
| > A Good OFFENSE is the very best DEFENSE -- both against
| > International Islamofascist Terrorism and Loony-Leftover-Left
| > policies, programs and ideas.
|
| It has nothing to do with activism, offensive, or defensive, and
everything
| to do with political philosophy based on an idea (ideology) or not
| (reaction). Reactivism can be all three. -the Troll
DSH
"hippo" <hippo@southsudan.net> wrote in message
news:wf-dnT5y5omsz5DfRVn-jQ@giganews.com...
|
| "D. Spencer Hines" wrote in message
|
| > "Conservatism isn't an ideology. It is purely reactive."
| >
| > "hippo" of Charleston, South Carolina -- Paleo-Conservative
| > ----------------------------------------------------
| >
| > Nonsense!
| >
| > If Conservatism is purely REACTIVE it won't SURVIVE -- neither will
| >the Conservatives, as a viable political force.
| >
| > President George Walker Bush understands all that and is an ACTIVE
| > Conservative -- "hippo" of Charleston, South Carolina does NOT and
| > is purely REACTIVE.
| >
| > A Good OFFENSE is the very best DEFENSE -- both against
| > International Islamofascist Terrorism and Loony-Leftover-Left
| > policies, programs and ideas.
|
| It has nothing to do with activism, offensive, or defensive, and
everything
| to do with political philosophy based on an idea (ideology) or not
| (reaction). Reactivism can be all three. -the Troll
-
hippo
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"D. Spencer Hines" wrote in message
I looked it up and I'm not one...........entirely. Pat Buchanan is a
populist idiot. -the Troll
Spoken like a true Paleo-Conservative. <G
I looked it up and I'm not one...........entirely. Pat Buchanan is a
populist idiot. -the Troll
-
Fred J. McCall
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"hippo" <hippo@southsudan.net> wrote:
:
:"D. Spencer Hines" wrote in message
:
:> Spoken like a true Paleo-Conservative. <G>
:
:I looked it up and I'm not one...........entirely. Pat Buchanan is a
:populist idiot. -the Troll
Well, no. Nothing 'populist' about Buchanan....
:
:"D. Spencer Hines" wrote in message
:
:> Spoken like a true Paleo-Conservative. <G>
:
:I looked it up and I'm not one...........entirely. Pat Buchanan is a
:populist idiot. -the Troll
Well, no. Nothing 'populist' about Buchanan....
-
hippo
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
Fred, have you looked up this neo-/paleocon crap? No kidding paleocon is a
real term. I don't know who is inventing this stuff but it is nuts. Buchanan
is supposed to be the standard bearer of 1950ish conservatives which they
are calling paleo-cons. Everyone except him calling themselves conservatives
these days is supposed to be of the new or neocon school of converted
socialists. Here is the supposed breakdown:
Paleocon
Neocon
Isolationist X
Interventionist 'Empire' builders
State's rightist, anti-statist X State centralist
Anti-immigration X Favor open
borders
Anti-Communist X Anti-Communist X
Anti-Israel Pro-Israel
X
Cut taxes, reduce spending X Big spenders
Libertarian X Support
welfare state
Religious X Secular
Traditionalist X Modernist
White supremacist Inclusive X
What do you think? I've x-ed my general position. -the Troll
"hippo" wrote:
:"D. Spencer Hines" wrote in message
:
:> Spoken like a true Paleo-Conservative. <G
:
:I looked it up and I'm not one...........entirely. Pat Buchanan is a
:populist idiot. -the Troll
Well, no. Nothing 'populist' about Buchanan....
Fred, have you looked up this neo-/paleocon crap? No kidding paleocon is a
real term. I don't know who is inventing this stuff but it is nuts. Buchanan
is supposed to be the standard bearer of 1950ish conservatives which they
are calling paleo-cons. Everyone except him calling themselves conservatives
these days is supposed to be of the new or neocon school of converted
socialists. Here is the supposed breakdown:
Paleocon
Neocon
Isolationist X
Interventionist 'Empire' builders
State's rightist, anti-statist X State centralist
Anti-immigration X Favor open
borders
Anti-Communist X Anti-Communist X
Anti-Israel Pro-Israel
X
Cut taxes, reduce spending X Big spenders
Libertarian X Support
welfare state
Religious X Secular
Traditionalist X Modernist
White supremacist Inclusive X
What do you think? I've x-ed my general position. -the Troll
-
Vaughan Sanders
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"John Cartmell" <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4d3b8f5005john@cartmell.demon.co.uk...
Explain why these new computer models can't back-cast then?
i.e. use known historical data and come up with today's weather pattern.
Explain why the rise in CO2 level has been constant, yet the temperature
has fluctuated up and down over the measured period?
Explain why satellite record shows no rise in temperature over this
measured period?
Still don't let me keep you, presumably you are going on today's bash
the US, Kyoto march that's being advertised on the beeb?
I've just listen to a young environmentalist on the beeb, say that that
the view you subscribe to is completely excepted by science, this went
unchallenged.
Here's a few scientist's who apparently disagree.
http://www.scientific-alliance.com/abou ... _forum.htm
Professor Tom Addiscott
Rothamsted Research
Dr Sallie Baliunas
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Dr Jack Barrett
King's College London
Professor Sir Colin Berry
Queen Mary, University of London
Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
Department of Geography. Hull University
Bill Durodié
The International Policy Institute, King's College London
Professor Mick Fuller
Department of Agriculture & Food Studies University of Plymouth
Dr Jeremy Hodge
BRE
Dr Judith Irwin
John Innes Centre
Professor Emeritus Michael Laughton
University of London
Martin Livermore
Independent Science Communications Advisor
Professor Vivian Moses
King's College London
Dr Benny Peiser
Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University
Professor Anthony Trewavas
University of Edinburgh
Professor William Wilkinson
Imperial College London
Professor Michael Wilson
Horticulture Research International
Jamie
news:4d3b8f5005john@cartmell.demon.co.uk...
In article <cui6c3$7hc$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Vaughan Sanders
jamie@chalkwell-windsurfing.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
"John Cartmell" <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4d3b7e2e89john@cartmell.demon.co.uk...
In article <cuhupt$h98$3@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>, Vaughan Sanders
jamie@chalkwell-windsurfing.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
snip
But 2 (not in the programme) It's even worse. Given no human
interference there would have been natural Global
Cooling in
addition to the Global Dimming above. Global Warming has
hidden
all
this
and is even worse.
The situation is worse than assumed up to now.
--
This is exactly what Bellamy complains about, because Global
Dimming
is
thrown at you, which is scientifically sound btw, you come up
with
Global Cooling. There is no consensus on whether the world is
naturally
warming or cooling. I don't follow your "in addition to Global
Dimming",
it's the same human interference that is claimed to be causing
both.
No. I haven't read the original research report yet. I'll get back
when I
have - needs a trip to Lancaster as I no longer have reading
rights at
Manchester Unis.
--
Well here's a few questions for you to get your teeth into.
Key Difficulties
a.. Collecting accurate historical data
Possible and actually done in sufficient areas. More added all the
time.
a.. Confidence levels in predictive computer models
Standard test of the model.
a.. The impact of radiative forcing (the direct effects of the
amount
of solar radiation reaching the Earth)
Specifically?
a.. Difficulties in assessing the effect of water vapour and
cloud
formation
That's where more recent advances have identified that the problem is
even
worse than originally thought.
a.. Variations in: - Earth's orbit around the sun - Solar
radiation,
magnetism and eruptions - Volcanic activity -
Atmospheric
composition
Taken into account in all the good models.
a.. The effects of enhanced photosynthesis brought about by
increased
carbon dioxide concentrations
This may be where Bellamy is taking refuge. It's a false refuge.
a.. The effects of exaggerated C02 levels in the IPCC models, and
also the same exaggerated effects in the emission scenarios which
link
scientific data and theories to social science storylines which
include
assumptions about energy policy (fuel consumption, population growth
and
technology)
Today's models are quite different from the Club of Rome's early
attempts.
Forget trying to model what we might do in the future - the current
models
show irreverible changes unless we actually do something drastic now.
Those
changes will cost us far more than any conceivable costs of us all
implementing Kyoto++.
- The accuracy of climate change modelling - the estimates from
current climate change models are highly uncertain and large
differences
between the results from different modelling methods remain. No
climate
model has been scientifically validated.
You're looking at old models. There is no reason why you and I won't
witness those irreversible changes in our lifetimes. My granddaughter
certainly will unless something is done - and stepping back from the
brink
has to be done now.
--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games http://www.finnybank.com http://www.acornuser.com
Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines
Explain why these new computer models can't back-cast then?
i.e. use known historical data and come up with today's weather pattern.
Explain why the rise in CO2 level has been constant, yet the temperature
has fluctuated up and down over the measured period?
Explain why satellite record shows no rise in temperature over this
measured period?
Still don't let me keep you, presumably you are going on today's bash
the US, Kyoto march that's being advertised on the beeb?
I've just listen to a young environmentalist on the beeb, say that that
the view you subscribe to is completely excepted by science, this went
unchallenged.
Here's a few scientist's who apparently disagree.
http://www.scientific-alliance.com/abou ... _forum.htm
Professor Tom Addiscott
Rothamsted Research
Dr Sallie Baliunas
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Dr Jack Barrett
King's College London
Professor Sir Colin Berry
Queen Mary, University of London
Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
Department of Geography. Hull University
Bill Durodié
The International Policy Institute, King's College London
Professor Mick Fuller
Department of Agriculture & Food Studies University of Plymouth
Dr Jeremy Hodge
BRE
Dr Judith Irwin
John Innes Centre
Professor Emeritus Michael Laughton
University of London
Martin Livermore
Independent Science Communications Advisor
Professor Vivian Moses
King's College London
Dr Benny Peiser
Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University
Professor Anthony Trewavas
University of Edinburgh
Professor William Wilkinson
Imperial College London
Professor Michael Wilson
Horticulture Research International
Jamie
-
Grey Satterfield
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
On 2/11/05 11:05 PM, in article 2k3r011l6ds1ctefh25avstfi1jolfle3k@4ax.com,
"Fred J. McCall" <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote:
Indeed, there is hardly anything sane about Buchanan.
Grey Satterfield
"Fred J. McCall" <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote:
"hippo" <hippo@southsudan.net> wrote:
:
:"D. Spencer Hines" wrote in message
:
:> Spoken like a true Paleo-Conservative. <G
:
:I looked it up and I'm not one...........entirely. Pat Buchanan is a
:populist idiot. -the Troll
Well, no. Nothing 'populist' about Buchanan....
Indeed, there is hardly anything sane about Buchanan.
Grey Satterfield
-
John Cartmell
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
In article <cuknj0$lgl$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>,
Vaughan Sanders <jamie@chalkwell-windsurfing.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
Don't be silly. No-one is predicting weather beyond the sort-term. No-one
is pretending to do that. Straw-man argument.
You have been getting your info very distinctly corrupt sources.
[Snip]
--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games http://www.finnybank.com http://www.acornuser.com
Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines
Vaughan Sanders <jamie@chalkwell-windsurfing.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
"John Cartmell" <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4d3b8f5005john@cartmell.demon.co.uk...
In article <cui6c3$7hc$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Vaughan Sanders
jamie@chalkwell-windsurfing.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
"John Cartmell" <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4d3b7e2e89john@cartmell.demon.co.uk...
In article <cuhupt$h98$3@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>, Vaughan Sanders
jamie@chalkwell-windsurfing.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
snip
But 2 (not in the programme) It's even worse. Given no human
interference there would have been natural Global
Cooling in
addition to the Global Dimming above. Global Warming has
hidden
all
this
and is even worse.
The situation is worse than assumed up to now.
--
This is exactly what Bellamy complains about, because Global
Dimming
is
thrown at you, which is scientifically sound btw, you come up
with
Global Cooling. There is no consensus on whether the world is
naturally
warming or cooling. I don't follow your "in addition to Global
Dimming",
it's the same human interference that is claimed to be causing
both.
No. I haven't read the original research report yet. I'll get back
when I
have - needs a trip to Lancaster as I no longer have reading
rights at
Manchester Unis.
--
Well here's a few questions for you to get your teeth into.
Key Difficulties
a.. Collecting accurate historical data
Possible and actually done in sufficient areas. More added all the
time.
a.. Confidence levels in predictive computer models
Standard test of the model.
a.. The impact of radiative forcing (the direct effects of the
amount
of solar radiation reaching the Earth)
Specifically?
a.. Difficulties in assessing the effect of water vapour and
cloud
formation
That's where more recent advances have identified that the problem is
even
worse than originally thought.
a.. Variations in: - Earth's orbit around the sun - Solar
radiation,
magnetism and eruptions - Volcanic activity -
Atmospheric
composition
Taken into account in all the good models.
a.. The effects of enhanced photosynthesis brought about by
increased
carbon dioxide concentrations
This may be where Bellamy is taking refuge. It's a false refuge.
a.. The effects of exaggerated C02 levels in the IPCC models, and
also the same exaggerated effects in the emission scenarios which
link
scientific data and theories to social science storylines which
include
assumptions about energy policy (fuel consumption, population growth
and
technology)
Today's models are quite different from the Club of Rome's early
attempts.
Forget trying to model what we might do in the future - the current
models
show irreverible changes unless we actually do something drastic now.
Those
changes will cost us far more than any conceivable costs of us all
implementing Kyoto++.
- The accuracy of climate change modelling - the estimates from
current climate change models are highly uncertain and large
differences
between the results from different modelling methods remain. No
climate
model has been scientifically validated.
You're looking at old models. There is no reason why you and I won't
witness those irreversible changes in our lifetimes. My granddaughter
certainly will unless something is done - and stepping back from the
brink
has to be done now.
--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games http://www.finnybank.com http://www.acornuser.com
Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines
Explain why these new computer models can't back-cast then?
i.e. use known historical data and come up with today's weather pattern.
Don't be silly. No-one is predicting weather beyond the sort-term. No-one
is pretending to do that. Straw-man argument.
Explain why the rise in CO2 level has been constant, yet the temperature
has fluctuated up and down over the measured period?
Explain why satellite record shows no rise in temperature over this
measured period?
You have been getting your info very distinctly corrupt sources.
[Snip]
--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games http://www.finnybank.com http://www.acornuser.com
Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines
-
Fred J. McCall
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"hippo" <hippo@southsudan.net> wrote:
:Fred, have you looked up this neo-/paleocon crap? No kidding paleocon is a
:real term. I don't know who is inventing this stuff but it is nuts.
Yep, which is why I don't look it up.
:Buchanan
:is supposed to be the standard bearer of 1950ish conservatives which they
:are calling paleo-cons. Everyone except him calling themselves conservatives
:these days is supposed to be of the new or neocon school of converted
:socialists.
I don't believe in letting left-wing extremists (which is where this
stuff comes from) define who I am. They aren't even smart enough to
define who THEY are.
:Here is the supposed breakdown:
:
aleocon Neocon
:
:Isolationist X Interventionist 'Empire' builders
:State's rightist, anti-statist X State centralist
:Anti-immigration X Favor open borders
:Anti-Communist X Anti-Communist X
:Anti-Israel Pro-Israel X
:Cut taxes, reduce spending X Big spenders
:Libertarian X Support welfare state
:Religious X Secular
:Traditionalist X Modernist
:White supremacist Inclusive X
:
:What do you think? I've x-ed my general position. -the Troll
I think I don't fit in either one. Yet the sort of idiot who make up
these terms don't seem to have any doubt that I'm 'conservative'.
Wonder where that leaves them?
I also think the folks making this up are such extremists that the
idea that anyone can have 'non-polar' positions is foreign to them.
My positions (roughly), in the order you give above:
Neither (intervene when it is in our interests)
Neither (lean State's Rights)
Neither (favor controlled immigration)
Anti-Communist (because it's stupid and unworkable)
Neither (Israel has problems, but their opponents are worse)
Cut taxes, reduce spending (but some things are needed)
Neither (some social safety net is necessary)
Secular
Neither (lean Modernist)
Inclusive
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
:Fred, have you looked up this neo-/paleocon crap? No kidding paleocon is a
:real term. I don't know who is inventing this stuff but it is nuts.
Yep, which is why I don't look it up.
:Buchanan
:is supposed to be the standard bearer of 1950ish conservatives which they
:are calling paleo-cons. Everyone except him calling themselves conservatives
:these days is supposed to be of the new or neocon school of converted
:socialists.
I don't believe in letting left-wing extremists (which is where this
stuff comes from) define who I am. They aren't even smart enough to
define who THEY are.
:Here is the supposed breakdown:
:
:
:Isolationist X Interventionist 'Empire' builders
:State's rightist, anti-statist X State centralist
:Anti-immigration X Favor open borders
:Anti-Communist X Anti-Communist X
:Anti-Israel Pro-Israel X
:Cut taxes, reduce spending X Big spenders
:Libertarian X Support welfare state
:Religious X Secular
:Traditionalist X Modernist
:White supremacist Inclusive X
:
:What do you think? I've x-ed my general position. -the Troll
I think I don't fit in either one. Yet the sort of idiot who make up
these terms don't seem to have any doubt that I'm 'conservative'.
Wonder where that leaves them?
I also think the folks making this up are such extremists that the
idea that anyone can have 'non-polar' positions is foreign to them.
My positions (roughly), in the order you give above:
Neither (intervene when it is in our interests)
Neither (lean State's Rights)
Neither (favor controlled immigration)
Anti-Communist (because it's stupid and unworkable)
Neither (Israel has problems, but their opponents are worse)
Cut taxes, reduce spending (but some things are needed)
Neither (some social safety net is necessary)
Secular
Neither (lean Modernist)
Inclusive
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
-
hippo
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
That's about right for me too. I'm not a believer but support the rights of
religion and will defend it/them against the anti-clerical left. Every sane
person understands the need for a social safety net except, presumably, for
the objectivist Libertarians which have never put forward a viable form of
governance. I think all this labeling is to: 1) Tar once socialist, and
often Jewish, converts to conservatism with the 'socialist' brush. The left
really hates them, considering them traitors to the cause. 2) Create the
myth conservatism is some sort of monolithic, definable, ideological
movement which is ridiculous since we have no playbook nor do we often agree
amongst ourselves either in policy or self-definition. Burke and Adam Smith
are not ideologists. They invented nothing, 3) To frighten their own
constituents with conspiracy theories. -the Troll
"hippo" wrote:
:Fred, have you looked up this neo-/paleocon crap? No kidding paleocon is
a
:real term. I don't know who is inventing this stuff but it is nuts.
Yep, which is why I don't look it up.
:Buchanan
:is supposed to be the standard bearer of 1950ish conservatives which they
:are calling paleo-cons. Everyone except him calling themselves
conservatives
:these days is supposed to be of the new or neocon school of converted
:socialists.
I don't believe in letting left-wing extremists (which is where this
stuff comes from) define who I am. They aren't even smart enough to
define who THEY are.
:Here is the supposed breakdown:
:aleocon Neocon
:
:Isolationist X Interventionist 'Empire' builders
:State's rightist, anti-statist X State centralist
:Anti-immigration X Favor open borders
:Anti-Communist X Anti-Communist X
:Anti-Israel Pro-Israel X
:Cut taxes, reduce spending X Big spenders
:Libertarian X Support welfare state
:Religious X Secular
:Traditionalist X Modernist
:White supremacist Inclusive X
:
:What do you think? I've x-ed my general position. -the Troll
I think I don't fit in either one. Yet the sort of idiot who make up
these terms don't seem to have any doubt that I'm 'conservative'.
Wonder where that leaves them?
I also think the folks making this up are such extremists that the
idea that anyone can have 'non-polar' positions is foreign to them.
My positions (roughly), in the order you give above:
Neither (intervene when it is in our interests)
Neither (lean State's Rights)
Neither (favor controlled immigration)
Anti-Communist (because it's stupid and unworkable)
Neither (Israel has problems, but their opponents are worse)
Cut taxes, reduce spending (but some things are needed
Neither (some social safety net is necessary)
Secular
Neither (lean Modernist)
Inclusive
That's about right for me too. I'm not a believer but support the rights of
religion and will defend it/them against the anti-clerical left. Every sane
person understands the need for a social safety net except, presumably, for
the objectivist Libertarians which have never put forward a viable form of
governance. I think all this labeling is to: 1) Tar once socialist, and
often Jewish, converts to conservatism with the 'socialist' brush. The left
really hates them, considering them traitors to the cause. 2) Create the
myth conservatism is some sort of monolithic, definable, ideological
movement which is ridiculous since we have no playbook nor do we often agree
amongst ourselves either in policy or self-definition. Burke and Adam Smith
are not ideologists. They invented nothing, 3) To frighten their own
constituents with conspiracy theories. -the Troll
-
Larry Swain
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
hippo wrote:
It isn't presumption. Its based on a) experience, albeit brief, in
corporate America b) that as a born and bred Westerner who now lives in
the Eastern US, I long for being able to drink natural water in the
"country" like I did in the Rockies when backpacking---can't do that.
Can't eat the fish that I catch here--too much mercury. Can't go
swimming in the lake near where my wife grew up--3M plant dumped way too
much chemical crap into it. I'm sorry you differ man, but as a person
who grew up in the Rockies and now lives in the East where the affects
of pollution can now be visibly and easily seen, you're going to have a
hard, hard, sell backed up with solid facts and figures that all of this
(and I'm just mentioning stuff outside my window, I haven't gotten into
specifics yet) is just accidental and that corporate America which
overwhelmingly supports and courts Republicans and lobbies for reduced
emission testing, reduced authority to test the air, to test meat
packing plants (do you have any idea how much contaminated meat has been
traced back to the meat packing plant in Greeley, CO (a place where a
brother of mine once worked and I interviewed for a job), but under the
Bush admin. the EPA and FDA can't test there on a regular basis, but
must wait until someone gets sick and POSITIVELY identify the Greeley
plant as the source WITHOUT testing there--that is the EPA must test (if
they are able) all the possible distributors first and declare them
disease free BEFORE they can test the Greeley plant. Sorry to go off on
this, but that sounds like money-grubbing and a lack of concern for not
just the environment but public health to me--and oh, yes, it was the
Republican party and the current president who reduced the EPA's
authority and the FDA's in this matter.) and the like is full of good
hearted intentions for the future, and that the Republican party which
has often, including the current administration, supported and enacted
legislation favoring reduced testing, reduced standards etc. is overly
concerned with my grandchildren's future. Sure, there are Republicans
who are, and there are environmentally concerned corporations
(Weyerhauser comes to mind), but by and large that isn't the case. And
even ranchers and sports men I know who on some environmental issues are
aware of the problems and work to resolve them, on other environmental
issues tow the line--so for example all in favor of restricting the
mining up stream from their fav fishing stream so that it doesn't kill
the fish, but all in favor of mining in and around the National Parks.
C) by decades long observation as a member of the Republican party and
being very aware of the platform, the legislation, etc that curbs govt
control and watch dogging in favor of "self-policing" in order to
supposedly stimulate economic growth--at the expense of public health
and welfare.
For every example of a Republican party member or a corporation that is
ecologically concerned, I can point to a dozen who aren't. So it isn't
my presumption, it is my experience supported by facts, platforms,
policies, and legislation introduced, supported, and signed by the
Republicans. (Which shouldn't be taken as some sort of blanket
endorsement of the Democrats either, so please let's not make this a "My
party is better than yours" debate.
'R' chose his profession from any
And I would question whether his "interest" is primarily based in
concern for "ecology" rather than on something else.
He likes it because, unlike
I don't know, I would think that LACK of chemical pollution would be a
pretty quantifiable result, but maybe that's just me. Further, it
demonstrates the point that his primary motivation is NOT the
environment and ecological concerns. Finally, how can ACTING FIRST in
order to PREVENT something that will happen WITHOUT that prior action be
"passive"? That is, someone involved in taking steps to prevent a
chemical accident isn't acted on, but rather is acting for, ie. is active.
(I have forgotten the technical term
And those are the only ways in which he can be involved in prevention?
I'll answer my own question: No. How about working with environmentally
sound organizations or Congress people to actively get legislation
passed and to highlight particular areas of concern in which a person of
his expertise and knowledge would be an important, nay vital,
contributor to the solutions? Not only would this be a good outlet for
an alpha type, but he'd be competing and working with other alpha types
creating the emotional fulfillment that you claim he needs and also
demonstrate that he is motivated chiefly by ecological concerns as a
conservative and Republican. As it is, this sounds like excuse making.
A) Absolutely false. B) How sad that in this world you see yourself
only reacting to it, rather than acting.
a) I wouldn't call a department that governs national parks, and leases
govt land for grazing, mining etc "minor", but whatever and b) I think
my language indicates that I was not offering an exhaustive list, and
EPA, Interior, and the like....i. e. other posts of other agencies and
cabinet level departments and c) it is fallacious to take the two
examples cited, use the fallacy of reductio ad absurdam, and then ignore
the other areas cited: legislation, policies, vetoing other legislation
from Congress, not supporting (by ignoring) global dimming and global
warming warnings (remember that this administration said it didn't exist
until last year---it does exist, how big a problem how soon and what to
do are under debate, but it does exist. And this is the problem with so
much conservative ideologue rhetoric: it is FALLACIOUS in the extreme.
But fortunately for neo-cons, they don't teach logic or how to think in
public education anymore.
How they act
It isn't, as previously suggested: appointments to posts that affect
environmental issues, legislation introduced or not introduced, policies
generated from the oval office, support (verbal, monetary, or other) to
concerns voiced by scientists and others (lets go back to the moon seems
to be Shrub's answer to the problem), support of international treaties,
pressure on developing nations and help for those nations so that they
don't make the same mistakes we did, but can still achieve the growth
they desire......I certainly didn't advocate that how the EPA goes so go
the Republicans; but again, the Republicans in general and this
administration in particular have a proven track record of unconcern on
these issues.
Political persuasion should
No it shouldn't. So is R flunking? If he isn't, then I'd suggest that
he isn't being received, accepted, graded, or advanced (or not) by his
political persuasion. And if he gets a B instead of A, he should be
able to prove that he did A work to the university ombudsmen and that he
is being unfairly treated because he's a Republican or a conservative.
Disciplines which indulge themselves in so
And a student who doesn't get it and thinks they know more than the
professor is hardly in a position to make such accusations. I have
plenty of students when I teach Bible as Lit who read all sorts of
things into the text based on their faith, and refuse to learn how to
read the text for what it says....any text for what it says. And I'm
sure in the sciences it is the same.
An
Yep, human beings sometimes screw up. The thing you don't seem to
realize is that we all have an ideology which drives us--there is no
such thing, not even the objective sciences as pure objectivity; it
isn't humanly possible. ANd by your own description here "R" is as
ideologically driven as anyone else.
"Larry Swain" wrote in message
hippo wrote:
'R' works for a firm which cleans up chemical spills and intends to make
it
his profession after graduation and why he attended the seminar. The
Prof
was looking directly at him when he made his remark about Republicans,
clearly bating him. It was nothing new. What he finds most distasteful
about
his chosen field is suffering through another five years of
post-graduate
education at the mercy of political ideologues disguised as scientists.
Several times before 'R' has felt it necessary to leave the classroom
rather
than loose his temper at the political bile spewing from his 'Biology'
Prof.
Last semester he had one as bad for Plant Taxonomy which doesn't seem
much
like a political subject to me. 'R' is already a convinced ecologist in
spite of the ass holes in his department trying to tell him that the
field
is restricted only to Bush hating Democrats. The single thing they have
taught him is that objective science isn't objective when passed through
human hands.
Exactly my point. A) he attended because its profession, not out of
deep concern for environmental issues, tis a field where much money can
be made and B) if he were truly as environmentally aware as you depict,
why isn't he making the PREVENTION of chemical spills his profession,
rather than their clean up? C) he's concerned about training under
political ideologues, so there are no conservatives in science? HMMM, I
can point him to a few. And there are no Republican ideologues? Surely
you have your head in the sand if you think that! IN fact, unless you
are filtering a good deal, I would have to say that "R" is a very good
representative of an ideologue, and it just might be the case that
someone 20something just might not have either the experience nor the
knowledge base to really determine whether his professors are ideologues
instead of scientists, or whether the facts of science have led them to
become ideologues (if such they are). And I'd submit, neither do you
possess such a level of knowledge.
I don't question his ecological sense as a sportsman, or even as a
student; but even as a Republican he has to recognize that who the
president puts in charge of the EPA and the Dept of Interior and like
agencies is an ecological issue since they take actions daily that in
one way or another affact the environment in significant ways.
I spent 40 years in international trade and so understand my scientific
limitations perfectly well.
Your presumption of lack of concern and money grubbing is typical of the
blind idiocy I have been talking about.
It isn't presumption. Its based on a) experience, albeit brief, in
corporate America b) that as a born and bred Westerner who now lives in
the Eastern US, I long for being able to drink natural water in the
"country" like I did in the Rockies when backpacking---can't do that.
Can't eat the fish that I catch here--too much mercury. Can't go
swimming in the lake near where my wife grew up--3M plant dumped way too
much chemical crap into it. I'm sorry you differ man, but as a person
who grew up in the Rockies and now lives in the East where the affects
of pollution can now be visibly and easily seen, you're going to have a
hard, hard, sell backed up with solid facts and figures that all of this
(and I'm just mentioning stuff outside my window, I haven't gotten into
specifics yet) is just accidental and that corporate America which
overwhelmingly supports and courts Republicans and lobbies for reduced
emission testing, reduced authority to test the air, to test meat
packing plants (do you have any idea how much contaminated meat has been
traced back to the meat packing plant in Greeley, CO (a place where a
brother of mine once worked and I interviewed for a job), but under the
Bush admin. the EPA and FDA can't test there on a regular basis, but
must wait until someone gets sick and POSITIVELY identify the Greeley
plant as the source WITHOUT testing there--that is the EPA must test (if
they are able) all the possible distributors first and declare them
disease free BEFORE they can test the Greeley plant. Sorry to go off on
this, but that sounds like money-grubbing and a lack of concern for not
just the environment but public health to me--and oh, yes, it was the
Republican party and the current president who reduced the EPA's
authority and the FDA's in this matter.) and the like is full of good
hearted intentions for the future, and that the Republican party which
has often, including the current administration, supported and enacted
legislation favoring reduced testing, reduced standards etc. is overly
concerned with my grandchildren's future. Sure, there are Republicans
who are, and there are environmentally concerned corporations
(Weyerhauser comes to mind), but by and large that isn't the case. And
even ranchers and sports men I know who on some environmental issues are
aware of the problems and work to resolve them, on other environmental
issues tow the line--so for example all in favor of restricting the
mining up stream from their fav fishing stream so that it doesn't kill
the fish, but all in favor of mining in and around the National Parks.
C) by decades long observation as a member of the Republican party and
being very aware of the platform, the legislation, etc that curbs govt
control and watch dogging in favor of "self-policing" in order to
supposedly stimulate economic growth--at the expense of public health
and welfare.
For every example of a Republican party member or a corporation that is
ecologically concerned, I can point to a dozen who aren't. So it isn't
my presumption, it is my experience supported by facts, platforms,
policies, and legislation introduced, supported, and signed by the
Republicans. (Which shouldn't be taken as some sort of blanket
endorsement of the Democrats either, so please let's not make this a "My
party is better than yours" debate.
'R' chose his profession from any
number available to him because of his interest.
And I would question whether his "interest" is primarily based in
concern for "ecology" rather than on something else.
He likes it because, unlike
prevention which is passive and has neither guarantees nor quantifiable
results, ecological re-something-ation
I don't know, I would think that LACK of chemical pollution would be a
pretty quantifiable result, but maybe that's just me. Further, it
demonstrates the point that his primary motivation is NOT the
environment and ecological concerns. Finally, how can ACTING FIRST in
order to PREVENT something that will happen WITHOUT that prior action be
"passive"? That is, someone involved in taking steps to prevent a
chemical accident isn't acted on, but rather is acting for, ie. is active.
(I have forgotten the technical term
again) is active with quantifiable results. His is an alpha personality
which requires constant demands and energy absorption. Doing lecture tours
and checking off lists of corporate don'ts as a gray-suit government
bureaucrat wouldn't suit him at all.
And those are the only ways in which he can be involved in prevention?
I'll answer my own question: No. How about working with environmentally
sound organizations or Congress people to actively get legislation
passed and to highlight particular areas of concern in which a person of
his expertise and knowledge would be an important, nay vital,
contributor to the solutions? Not only would this be a good outlet for
an alpha type, but he'd be competing and working with other alpha types
creating the emotional fulfillment that you claim he needs and also
demonstrate that he is motivated chiefly by ecological concerns as a
conservative and Republican. As it is, this sounds like excuse making.
Conservatism isn't an ideology. It is purely reactive.
A) Absolutely false. B) How sad that in this world you see yourself
only reacting to it, rather than acting.
It shouldn't be a revelation that the EPA and Interior are comparatively
minor government agencies with comparatively minor functions.
a) I wouldn't call a department that governs national parks, and leases
govt land for grazing, mining etc "minor", but whatever and b) I think
my language indicates that I was not offering an exhaustive list, and
EPA, Interior, and the like....i. e. other posts of other agencies and
cabinet level departments and c) it is fallacious to take the two
examples cited, use the fallacy of reductio ad absurdam, and then ignore
the other areas cited: legislation, policies, vetoing other legislation
from Congress, not supporting (by ignoring) global dimming and global
warming warnings (remember that this administration said it didn't exist
until last year---it does exist, how big a problem how soon and what to
do are under debate, but it does exist. And this is the problem with so
much conservative ideologue rhetoric: it is FALLACIOUS in the extreme.
But fortunately for neo-cons, they don't teach logic or how to think in
public education anymore.
How they act
should certainly not be the only yardstick by which an administration is
judged by any citizen interested in the future.
It isn't, as previously suggested: appointments to posts that affect
environmental issues, legislation introduced or not introduced, policies
generated from the oval office, support (verbal, monetary, or other) to
concerns voiced by scientists and others (lets go back to the moon seems
to be Shrub's answer to the problem), support of international treaties,
pressure on developing nations and help for those nations so that they
don't make the same mistakes we did, but can still achieve the growth
they desire......I certainly didn't advocate that how the EPA goes so go
the Republicans; but again, the Republicans in general and this
administration in particular have a proven track record of unconcern on
these issues.
Political persuasion should
have nothing to do with how a student is received, accepted, graded, or
advanced in higher education.
No it shouldn't. So is R flunking? If he isn't, then I'd suggest that
he isn't being received, accepted, graded, or advanced (or not) by his
political persuasion. And if he gets a B instead of A, he should be
able to prove that he did A work to the university ombudsmen and that he
is being unfairly treated because he's a Republican or a conservative.
Disciplines which indulge themselves in so
doing do themselves, their students, and the country a grave disservice.
And a student who doesn't get it and thinks they know more than the
professor is hardly in a position to make such accusations. I have
plenty of students when I teach Bible as Lit who read all sorts of
things into the text based on their faith, and refuse to learn how to
read the text for what it says....any text for what it says. And I'm
sure in the sciences it is the same.
An
example is Anthropology which was nearly finished by ideologically motivated
'research' of Meade and others earlier last century and now must be
re-written. -the Troll
Yep, human beings sometimes screw up. The thing you don't seem to
realize is that we all have an ideology which drives us--there is no
such thing, not even the objective sciences as pure objectivity; it
isn't humanly possible. ANd by your own description here "R" is as
ideologically driven as anyone else.
-
Larry Swain
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
hippo wrote:
The left isn't anti-clerical--some of the chief leftists of the last
half century (really a number in history) have been clerics. Ever hear
of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., that left leaning civil rights chap?
Every sane
While you decry labeling, you engage in labeling. Ironic, no? FOr
example, aren't you engaging in mythmaking that the left is monolithic,
definable, ideological movement?
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
"hippo" wrote:
:Fred, have you looked up this neo-/paleocon crap? No kidding paleocon is
a
:real term. I don't know who is inventing this stuff but it is nuts.
Yep, which is why I don't look it up.
:Buchanan
:is supposed to be the standard bearer of 1950ish conservatives which they
:are calling paleo-cons. Everyone except him calling themselves
conservatives
:these days is supposed to be of the new or neocon school of converted
:socialists.
I don't believe in letting left-wing extremists (which is where this
stuff comes from) define who I am. They aren't even smart enough to
define who THEY are.
:Here is the supposed breakdown:
:aleocon Neocon
:
:Isolationist X Interventionist 'Empire' builders
:State's rightist, anti-statist X State centralist
:Anti-immigration X Favor open borders
:Anti-Communist X Anti-Communist X
:Anti-Israel Pro-Israel X
:Cut taxes, reduce spending X Big spenders
:Libertarian X Support welfare state
:Religious X Secular
:Traditionalist X Modernist
:White supremacist Inclusive X
:
:What do you think? I've x-ed my general position. -the Troll
I think I don't fit in either one. Yet the sort of idiot who make up
these terms don't seem to have any doubt that I'm 'conservative'.
Wonder where that leaves them?
I also think the folks making this up are such extremists that the
idea that anyone can have 'non-polar' positions is foreign to them.
My positions (roughly), in the order you give above:
Neither (intervene when it is in our interests)
Neither (lean State's Rights)
Neither (favor controlled immigration)
Anti-Communist (because it's stupid and unworkable)
Neither (Israel has problems, but their opponents are worse)
Cut taxes, reduce spending (but some things are needed
Neither (some social safety net is necessary)
Secular
Neither (lean Modernist)
Inclusive
That's about right for me too. I'm not a believer but support the rights of
religion and will defend it/them against the anti-clerical left.
The left isn't anti-clerical--some of the chief leftists of the last
half century (really a number in history) have been clerics. Ever hear
of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., that left leaning civil rights chap?
Every sane
person understands the need for a social safety net except, presumably, for
the objectivist Libertarians which have never put forward a viable form of
governance. I think all this labeling is to: 1) Tar once socialist, and
often Jewish, converts to conservatism with the 'socialist' brush. The left
really hates them, considering them traitors to the cause. 2) Create the
myth conservatism is some sort of monolithic, definable, ideological
movement which is ridiculous since we have no playbook nor do we often agree
amongst ourselves either in policy or self-definition. Burke and Adam Smith
are not ideologists. They invented nothing, 3) To frighten their own
constituents with conspiracy theories. -the Troll
While you decry labeling, you engage in labeling. Ironic, no? FOr
example, aren't you engaging in mythmaking that the left is monolithic,
definable, ideological movement?
-
Larry Swain
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
hippo wrote:
In so far as ANY form of government (local, civic, state, or national)
is encouraged, expected, or needs to act on anything affecting the
environment (garbage collection, sewage treatment, industrial pollution,
auto-emissions...etc) it is political--it affects the "polis", and it
involves the actions of politicians. And unless all those politicians
agree on every issue and on the best way to address every issue, it is
going to be political in the extreme.
Rational people can agree on the
This has not always been the case. And rational people have not always
agreed on what those laws should say, how to measure compliance, what
levels to institute, what causes danger etc. And further, regrettably
there is such a thing as corruption and graft, and sometimes enforcers
have succumbed to "gifts" from the corporation to turn blind eyes to the
problems, or the companies have seen lobbying to NOT have a law enacted
as a cheaper more cost effective way of doing business than
"self-policing" of their practices that affect the environment.
It should always
No one doubts this. Achieving it in practice isn't always possible though.
Every citizen must be educated and brought on regardless of
Sure. But that isn't enough. We've known for years the dangers of
filling landfills with non-biodegradable containers such as milk jugs
and the like. But we keep doing it and we don't pressure the milk
companies to change packaging. Education isn't enough.
No issue this important should be seen as the private
No one has argued that it is. The problem has been getting the
Republicans to realize it and be willing to do something substantial
about it.
"Larry Swain" wrote in message
hippo wrote:
'R' is between classes and answering: "It is federal law that any
generator
of hazardous waste owns that waste from cradle to grave and even past
the
grave through eternity." He approves of that law.
You missed the point. Yes, there is a law, and the fact that a) someone
saw the need for the law and b) convinced the rest of Congress and the
President of the need for this law and c) that the government and the
people they represent see a continued need for this law and enforce it
means that ecology MUST have a political axe. The question or rather
issue isn't whether ecology should have a political axe but rather who
and against what/whom/when that axe is wielded.
It need not and should not be political.
In so far as ANY form of government (local, civic, state, or national)
is encouraged, expected, or needs to act on anything affecting the
environment (garbage collection, sewage treatment, industrial pollution,
auto-emissions...etc) it is political--it affects the "polis", and it
involves the actions of politicians. And unless all those politicians
agree on every issue and on the best way to address every issue, it is
going to be political in the extreme.
Rational people can agree on the
need for laws like those governing polluters and pollution.
This has not always been the case. And rational people have not always
agreed on what those laws should say, how to measure compliance, what
levels to institute, what causes danger etc. And further, regrettably
there is such a thing as corruption and graft, and sometimes enforcers
have succumbed to "gifts" from the corporation to turn blind eyes to the
problems, or the companies have seen lobbying to NOT have a law enacted
as a cheaper more cost effective way of doing business than
"self-policing" of their practices that affect the environment.
It should always
be bi-partisan for the effort not to shrivel and die when the 'other' party
is in power.
No one doubts this. Achieving it in practice isn't always possible though.
Every citizen must be educated and brought on regardless of
party affiliation.
Sure. But that isn't enough. We've known for years the dangers of
filling landfills with non-biodegradable containers such as milk jugs
and the like. But we keep doing it and we don't pressure the milk
companies to change packaging. Education isn't enough.
No issue this important should be seen as the private
venue of only one party. -the Troll
No one has argued that it is. The problem has been getting the
Republicans to realize it and be willing to do something substantial
about it.
-
Larry Swain
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
hippo wrote:
And neither of us is an eco-terrorist in spite of the caricature being
sold as good coing by politicians and certain radicals.
"Larry Swain" wrote in message
hippo wrote:
Probably but it ain't a single person job..... or a single party.
True, but the President sets policy, appoints people to the positions
that oversee these things, introduces or signs legislation....etc, he's
the top dog in the pyramid and while he can't be either praised or
blamed for everything that happens, he's got a big slice of that pie,
bigger than anyone else--regardless of party.
Then be issue oriented not party oriented. If the issue stands alone it can
be adopted by either side or both. Once party oriented you have only half or
fewer of elected officials working for you. It isn't a complicated equation.
I have the same problem with the NRA which just couldn't resist taking a
political side in spite of screams from folks like me who could see the
problems they were making for themselves.
I, for
example, have common cause with anyone trying to set aside and protect
old
growth forests but nothing whatever with someone who drives a spike in a
tree trunk to harm a logger, throws paint on someone wearing a fur coat,
or
any other form of eco-terrorism. The ecologists have left no room for me
in
their organizations, and by marginalizing me and others like me, are
doing
their movement no good. By permitting their movements to become
politically
partisan they have alienated half of the US population and at least half
of
the governing time in office. The discussion needs to be widened, not
constricted. -the Troll
On this, we're in 100 per cent agreement, as surprising as that may be.
Good, neither of us is anti-environment in spite of the caricature being
sold as good coin by politicians and certain radicals. -the Troll
And neither of us is an eco-terrorist in spite of the caricature being
sold as good coing by politicians and certain radicals.
-
hippo
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"Larry Swain" wrote in message
Some of the left certainly are, far more than are not. The movement overall
is anti-clerical. King was more of a civil rights leader than left-leaning
in politics.
hippo wrote:
That's about right for me too. I'm not a believer but support the rights
of
religion and will defend it/them against the anti-clerical left.
The left isn't anti-clerical--some of the chief leftists of the last
half century (really a number in history) have been clerics. Ever hear
of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., that left leaning civil rights chap?
Some of the left certainly are, far more than are not. The movement overall
is anti-clerical. King was more of a civil rights leader than left-leaning
in politics.
Every sane
person understands the need for a social safety net except, presumably,
for
the objectivist Libertarians which have never put forward a viable form
of
governance. I think all this labeling is to: 1) Tar once socialist, and
often Jewish, converts to conservatism with the 'socialist' brush. The
left
really hates them, considering them traitors to the cause. 2) Create the
myth conservatism is some sort of monolithic, definable, ideological
movement which is ridiculous since we have no playbook nor do we often
agree
amongst ourselves either in policy or self-definition. Burke and Adam
Smith
are not ideologists. They invented nothing, 3) To frighten their own
constituents with conspiracy theories. -the Troll
While you decry labeling, you engage in labeling. Ironic, no? FOr
example, aren't you engaging in mythmaking that the left is monolithic,
definable, ideological movement?
-
hippo
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"Larry Swain" wrote in message
The left is hardly monolithic although it is strongly ideological. There is
nothing wrong with labels as long as they have a semblance of accuracy and
are commonly understood and accepted. Conservatives I know never use either
'neocon' or 'paleocon' when referring to themselves. For the longest time I
thought it was some kind of joke. We understand any attempt at
sub-classification is pointless as proven by the experiment above with Fred.
Both of us were all over the issue map. -the Troll
While you decry labeling, you engage in labeling. Ironic, no? FOr
example, aren't you engaging in mythmaking that the left is monolithic,
definable, ideological movement?
The left is hardly monolithic although it is strongly ideological. There is
nothing wrong with labels as long as they have a semblance of accuracy and
are commonly understood and accepted. Conservatives I know never use either
'neocon' or 'paleocon' when referring to themselves. For the longest time I
thought it was some kind of joke. We understand any attempt at
sub-classification is pointless as proven by the experiment above with Fred.
Both of us were all over the issue map. -the Troll
-
hippo
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"Larry Swain" wrote in message
Your are welcome to 'go off'. We all do it and obvious sincerity is welcome
here.
The congested East Coast can never be a 'clean' as the Rockies. There are
too many cars, factories, and swage treatment and electric generation
plants. The harbor of my city, a very old East Coast one and the fourth
major container port in the US, is cleaner every year. People do eat the
fish they take from it. Fishing, crabbing, shrimping, oystering, and clam
raising are major industries here, and so are recreational boating and the
merchant trade. I have dealt with re-forestation elsewhere. Land use, water
retention, ground water quality, sewage and water treatment, and air
pollution standards are being continually raised here in this very
Republican state. There is no problem with swimming in any of the lakes near
here or eating the fish taken from them or our rivers. Our pollution
problems are very old ones caused over hundreds of years, long before anyone
had any ideas about controlling environmental quality. Much our heavy metals
contamination comes from a creosote plant which hasn't been in operation for
a hundred years, the naval base which has been closed for twenty, and lead
based paint and water pipes long out of use. These are problems endemic to
old port cities but not caused by my generation. You may think we are a
bunch of rat-bastard psycho-polluters but I have nothing to apologize for,
conservative Republican that I am.
He favors a five year ban on bill fishing to improve their population even
though, at the moment, it is his profession. It doesn't get any more serious
than putting yourself out of a job.
Pollution isn't preventable. Accidents happen all the time, humans being
human. Ship crews switch on the wrong pumps or ground on shifting sand bars.
The same things happen in factories. A Russian ship loaded with iron pellets
from the Ukraine went through a storm and sea water got into the cargo. If
you've had chemistry you know what that means. Cleaning up the spill as
quickly as possible and using the most modern techniques to re-furbish the
natural habitat is something environmental science can do. 'R' sees himself
as the white knight of environmental disasters and that's fine.
He doesn't feel the need to prove himself to anyone but himself and that's
fine too. He is a very individual type who sees himself in Nigeria one day
and Alaska the next, masterminding and directing environmental salvage
efforts. His interests at the moment are in researching natural, rather than
man made, restorative solutions like sea-grass filters and the use of
micro-organisms. He thinks that using man made chemicals, although sometimes
necessary, may cause long term and unforeseen problems with eco-systems.
OK, explain to me conservative ideology. I can't wait. Reaction has nothing
to do with anything but politics. Conservatives can be as pro-active as
anyone else on individual issues such as foreign affairs or the environment.
That's an entirely idealistic world view and precisely why I'm a Republican.
The UN dug wells all over sub-Saharan Africa to help with the water problem.
The locals used the more plentiful water to increase their herds (wealth)
which then destroyed the ground cover and created an ecological disaster by
over-grazing causing soil runoff and lowering the water table so that the
remaining pumps and wells couldn't be used. There are no quick or magical
solution to these international problems caused by superstition, ignorance,
and tribal value systems. Well intentioned idiots (Marx, Lenin, Mao, Ho,
Wilson, the UN) probably caused more human death and misery than even
natural disasters in modern history.
His most recent reported grade was a 102 in Organic Chemistry. He has no
semester grades yet from his radical prof whose tests are entirely
subjective essays almost impossible to re-grade on content. The drill
amongst kids like him is to regurgitate the crap they get in lectures
regardless if they believe it or not. I'm not talking about science here but
the politics. The fact they feel they must do this is unfortunate and every
bit as bad as the McCarthy era for stifling the free exchange and expression
of ideas which is what higher education is supposed to be about. The other
day he was applauded in the hallway by other students in his class for
refusing to give in to the bullying of a notorious tyrant. Some kids, it
seems, have principles.
He is well aware he isn't up to speed in hard science. That's why he is in
college. He isn't majoring in modern politics or political science.
I'm not saying there isn't. Just like a Pastor from the pulpit, it is best
said about a Prof that you don't know what his political affiliation is
because he doesn't push it from the lectern. I had a Rector once who never
ever mentioned politics in my hearing. For that reason he didn't loose the
attention of half of his congregation when speaking on subjects where his
opinion was important. This isn't a complicated message. A good friend of
mine with an IQ of nearly 180 and an undergraduate History GPA of 3.9 never
went to graduate school because none could be found where there was an even
handed History faculty who would give him a chance. He is now a published
writer on military history subjects after a career in military intelligence.
He did pick up a JD on the way, and passed the state BAR, just for fun. -the
Troll
hippo wrote:
Your presumption of lack of concern and money grubbing is typical of the
blind idiocy I have been talking about.
It isn't presumption. Its based on a) experience, albeit brief, in
corporate America b) that as a born and bred Westerner who now lives in
the Eastern US, I long for being able to drink natural water in the
"country" like I did in the Rockies when backpacking---can't do that.
Can't eat the fish that I catch here--too much mercury. Can't go
swimming in the lake near where my wife grew up--3M plant dumped way too
much chemical crap into it. I'm sorry you differ man, but as a person
who grew up in the Rockies and now lives in the East where the affects
of pollution can now be visibly and easily seen, you're going to have a
hard, hard, sell backed up with solid facts and figures that all of this
(and I'm just mentioning stuff outside my window, I haven't gotten into
specifics yet) is just accidental and that corporate America which
overwhelmingly supports and courts Republicans and lobbies for reduced
emission testing, reduced authority to test the air, to test meat
packing plants (do you have any idea how much contaminated meat has been
traced back to the meat packing plant in Greeley, CO (a place where a
brother of mine once worked and I interviewed for a job), but under the
Bush admin. the EPA and FDA can't test there on a regular basis, but
must wait until someone gets sick and POSITIVELY identify the Greeley
plant as the source WITHOUT testing there--that is the EPA must test (if
they are able) all the possible distributors first and declare them
disease free BEFORE they can test the Greeley plant. Sorry to go off on
this, but that sounds like money-grubbing and a lack of concern for not
just the environment but public health to me--and oh, yes, it was the
Republican party and the current president who reduced the EPA's
authority and the FDA's in this matter.) and the like is full of good
hearted intentions for the future, and that the Republican party which
has often, including the current administration, supported and enacted
legislation favoring reduced testing, reduced standards etc. is overly
concerned with my grandchildren's future. Sure, there are Republicans
who are, and there are environmentally concerned corporations
(Weyerhauser comes to mind), but by and large that isn't the case. And
even ranchers and sports men I know who on some environmental issues are
aware of the problems and work to resolve them, on other environmental
issues tow the line--so for example all in favor of restricting the
mining up stream from their fav fishing stream so that it doesn't kill
the fish, but all in favor of mining in and around the National Parks.
C) by decades long observation as a member of the Republican party and
being very aware of the platform, the legislation, etc that curbs govt
control and watch dogging in favor of "self-policing" in order to
supposedly stimulate economic growth--at the expense of public health
and welfare.
For every example of a Republican party member or a corporation that is
ecologically concerned, I can point to a dozen who aren't. So it isn't
my presumption, it is my experience supported by facts, platforms,
policies, and legislation introduced, supported, and signed by the
Republicans. (Which shouldn't be taken as some sort of blanket
endorsement of the Democrats either, so please let's not make this a "My
party is better than yours" debate.
Your are welcome to 'go off'. We all do it and obvious sincerity is welcome
here.
The congested East Coast can never be a 'clean' as the Rockies. There are
too many cars, factories, and swage treatment and electric generation
plants. The harbor of my city, a very old East Coast one and the fourth
major container port in the US, is cleaner every year. People do eat the
fish they take from it. Fishing, crabbing, shrimping, oystering, and clam
raising are major industries here, and so are recreational boating and the
merchant trade. I have dealt with re-forestation elsewhere. Land use, water
retention, ground water quality, sewage and water treatment, and air
pollution standards are being continually raised here in this very
Republican state. There is no problem with swimming in any of the lakes near
here or eating the fish taken from them or our rivers. Our pollution
problems are very old ones caused over hundreds of years, long before anyone
had any ideas about controlling environmental quality. Much our heavy metals
contamination comes from a creosote plant which hasn't been in operation for
a hundred years, the naval base which has been closed for twenty, and lead
based paint and water pipes long out of use. These are problems endemic to
old port cities but not caused by my generation. You may think we are a
bunch of rat-bastard psycho-polluters but I have nothing to apologize for,
conservative Republican that I am.
'R' chose his profession from any
number available to him because of his interest.
And I would question whether his "interest" is primarily based in
concern for "ecology" rather than on something else.
He favors a five year ban on bill fishing to improve their population even
though, at the moment, it is his profession. It doesn't get any more serious
than putting yourself out of a job.
He likes it because, unlike
prevention which is passive and has neither guarantees nor quantifiable
results, ecological re-something-ation
I don't know, I would think that LACK of chemical pollution would be a
pretty quantifiable result, but maybe that's just me. Further, it
demonstrates the point that his primary motivation is NOT the
environment and ecological concerns. Finally, how can ACTING FIRST in
order to PREVENT something that will happen WITHOUT that prior action be
"passive"? That is, someone involved in taking steps to prevent a
chemical accident isn't acted on, but rather is acting for, ie. is active.
Pollution isn't preventable. Accidents happen all the time, humans being
human. Ship crews switch on the wrong pumps or ground on shifting sand bars.
The same things happen in factories. A Russian ship loaded with iron pellets
from the Ukraine went through a storm and sea water got into the cargo. If
you've had chemistry you know what that means. Cleaning up the spill as
quickly as possible and using the most modern techniques to re-furbish the
natural habitat is something environmental science can do. 'R' sees himself
as the white knight of environmental disasters and that's fine.
(I have forgotten the technical term
again) is active with quantifiable results. His is an alpha personality
which requires constant demands and energy absorption. Doing lecture
tours
and checking off lists of corporate don'ts as a gray-suit government
bureaucrat wouldn't suit him at all.
And those are the only ways in which he can be involved in prevention?
I'll answer my own question: No. How about working with environmentally
sound organizations or Congress people to actively get legislation
passed and to highlight particular areas of concern in which a person of
his expertise and knowledge would be an important, nay vital,
contributor to the solutions? Not only would this be a good outlet for
an alpha type, but he'd be competing and working with other alpha types
creating the emotional fulfillment that you claim he needs and also
demonstrate that he is motivated chiefly by ecological concerns as a
conservative and Republican. As it is, this sounds like excuse making.
He doesn't feel the need to prove himself to anyone but himself and that's
fine too. He is a very individual type who sees himself in Nigeria one day
and Alaska the next, masterminding and directing environmental salvage
efforts. His interests at the moment are in researching natural, rather than
man made, restorative solutions like sea-grass filters and the use of
micro-organisms. He thinks that using man made chemicals, although sometimes
necessary, may cause long term and unforeseen problems with eco-systems.
Conservatism isn't an ideology. It is purely reactive.
A) Absolutely false. B) How sad that in this world you see yourself
only reacting to it, rather than acting.
OK, explain to me conservative ideology. I can't wait. Reaction has nothing
to do with anything but politics. Conservatives can be as pro-active as
anyone else on individual issues such as foreign affairs or the environment.
It shouldn't be a revelation that the EPA and Interior are comparatively
minor government agencies with comparatively minor functions.
a) I wouldn't call a department that governs national parks, and leases
govt land for grazing, mining etc "minor", but whatever and b) I think
my language indicates that I was not offering an exhaustive list, and
EPA, Interior, and the like....i. e. other posts of other agencies and
cabinet level departments and c) it is fallacious to take the two
examples cited, use the fallacy of reductio ad absurdam, and then ignore
the other areas cited: legislation, policies, vetoing other legislation
from Congress, not supporting (by ignoring) global dimming and global
warming warnings (remember that this administration said it didn't exist
until last year---it does exist, how big a problem how soon and what to
do are under debate, but it does exist. And this is the problem with so
much conservative ideologue rhetoric: it is FALLACIOUS in the extreme.
But fortunately for neo-cons, they don't teach logic or how to think in
public education anymore.
How they act
should certainly not be the only yardstick by which an administration is
judged by any citizen interested in the future.
It isn't, as previously suggested: appointments to posts that affect
environmental issues, legislation introduced or not introduced, policies
generated from the oval office, support (verbal, monetary, or other) to
concerns voiced by scientists and others (lets go back to the moon seems
to be Shrub's answer to the problem), support of international treaties,
pressure on developing nations and help for those nations so that they
don't make the same mistakes we did, but can still achieve the growth
they desire......I certainly didn't advocate that how the EPA goes so go
the Republicans; but again, the Republicans in general and this
administration in particular have a proven track record of unconcern on
these issues.
That's an entirely idealistic world view and precisely why I'm a Republican.
The UN dug wells all over sub-Saharan Africa to help with the water problem.
The locals used the more plentiful water to increase their herds (wealth)
which then destroyed the ground cover and created an ecological disaster by
over-grazing causing soil runoff and lowering the water table so that the
remaining pumps and wells couldn't be used. There are no quick or magical
solution to these international problems caused by superstition, ignorance,
and tribal value systems. Well intentioned idiots (Marx, Lenin, Mao, Ho,
Wilson, the UN) probably caused more human death and misery than even
natural disasters in modern history.
Political persuasion should
have nothing to do with how a student is received, accepted, graded, or
advanced in higher education.
No it shouldn't. So is R flunking? If he isn't, then I'd suggest that
he isn't being received, accepted, graded, or advanced (or not) by his
political persuasion. And if he gets a B instead of A, he should be
able to prove that he did A work to the university ombudsmen and that he
is being unfairly treated because he's a Republican or a conservative.
His most recent reported grade was a 102 in Organic Chemistry. He has no
semester grades yet from his radical prof whose tests are entirely
subjective essays almost impossible to re-grade on content. The drill
amongst kids like him is to regurgitate the crap they get in lectures
regardless if they believe it or not. I'm not talking about science here but
the politics. The fact they feel they must do this is unfortunate and every
bit as bad as the McCarthy era for stifling the free exchange and expression
of ideas which is what higher education is supposed to be about. The other
day he was applauded in the hallway by other students in his class for
refusing to give in to the bullying of a notorious tyrant. Some kids, it
seems, have principles.
Disciplines which indulge themselves in so
doing do themselves, their students, and the country a grave disservice.
And a student who doesn't get it and thinks they know more than the
professor is hardly in a position to make such accusations. I have
plenty of students when I teach Bible as Lit who read all sorts of
things into the text based on their faith, and refuse to learn how to
read the text for what it says....any text for what it says. And I'm
sure in the sciences it is the same.
He is well aware he isn't up to speed in hard science. That's why he is in
college. He isn't majoring in modern politics or political science.
An
example is Anthropology which was nearly finished by ideologically
motivated
'research' of Meade and others earlier last century and now must be
re-written. -the Troll
Yep, human beings sometimes screw up. The thing you don't seem to
realize is that we all have an ideology which drives us--there is no
such thing, not even the objective sciences as pure objectivity; it
isn't humanly possible. ANd by your own description here "R" is as
ideologically driven as anyone else.
I'm not saying there isn't. Just like a Pastor from the pulpit, it is best
said about a Prof that you don't know what his political affiliation is
because he doesn't push it from the lectern. I had a Rector once who never
ever mentioned politics in my hearing. For that reason he didn't loose the
attention of half of his congregation when speaking on subjects where his
opinion was important. This isn't a complicated message. A good friend of
mine with an IQ of nearly 180 and an undergraduate History GPA of 3.9 never
went to graduate school because none could be found where there was an even
handed History faculty who would give him a chance. He is now a published
writer on military history subjects after a career in military intelligence.
He did pick up a JD on the way, and passed the state BAR, just for fun. -the
Troll
-
martin reboul
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"hippo" <hippo@southsudan.net> wrote in message
news:pZOdnaDt9PCd7JPfRVn-oA@giganews.com...
I suppose I could be considered broadly left/liberal, but I ticked many of the
same boxes as you both did. I notice you had TWO anti-communist boxes though
Hippo, wheras poor old Fred only had one....
Cheers
Martin
news:pZOdnaDt9PCd7JPfRVn-oA@giganews.com...
"Larry Swain" wrote in message
While you decry labeling, you engage in labeling. Ironic, no? FOr
example, aren't you engaging in mythmaking that the left is monolithic,
definable, ideological movement?
The left is hardly monolithic although it is strongly ideological. There is
nothing wrong with labels as long as they have a semblance of accuracy and
are commonly understood and accepted. Conservatives I know never use either
'neocon' or 'paleocon' when referring to themselves. For the longest time I
thought it was some kind of joke. We understand any attempt at
sub-classification is pointless as proven by the experiment above with Fred.
Both of us were all over the issue map. -the Troll
I suppose I could be considered broadly left/liberal, but I ticked many of the
same boxes as you both did. I notice you had TWO anti-communist boxes though
Hippo, wheras poor old Fred only had one....
Cheers
Martin
-
hippo
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"Larry Swain" wrote in message
I didn't suppose either of us was. Eco-terrorism is fairly narrowly defined.
The charge of anti-environmentalism is a wider brush. -the Troll
hippo wrote:
On this, we're in 100 per cent agreement, as surprising as that may be.
Good, neither of us is anti-environment in spite of the caricature being
sold as good coin by politicians and certain radicals. -the Troll
And neither of us is an eco-terrorist in spite of the caricature being
sold as good coing by politicians and certain radicals.
I didn't suppose either of us was. Eco-terrorism is fairly narrowly defined.
The charge of anti-environmentalism is a wider brush. -the Troll
-
hippo
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"Larry Swain" wrote in message
[.]
Of course it is political in the sense that officials are elected. I mean it
should not be political in the sense of side taking. Environmentalists by
now, having cemented themselves at the hip with the Democrat Party, can
expect short shrift at the hands of Republicans now running the government.
What can the idiots expect to achieve having made an enemy of the present
administration by openly supporting the opposition? By side taking the
movement has kicked out conservatives like me. I was NOT welcome at their
meetings and was regularly shouted down. If you are looking for someone to
blame, look at the radicals now leading the environmental movement who have
foolishly alienated half of the US population and the only party presently
able to make things happen.
Yes, I suspect you are right, in fact I know you are. A client of mine in
New Brunswick has worked out a way to pulp wood chip using alcohol rather
than acid. It worked with hardwood chip in a mini-mill they built. Paper
making is a major cause of acid rain. With the alcohol method there would be
no pollutants. It is a closed system where the alcohol used is recycled. The
only bi-product is a chemical used in the manufacture of industrial cements
and more valuable than the paper. The problem is that old paper plants can
not easily be converted to the new method and why, I suspect, the process
hasn't been more widely used. There isn't a real economic stimulus to spend
the large sums needed to convert these old plants, even though the process
should be cheaper and far kinder to the environment. That's where
governments need to step in with incentives to convert the old plants. Once
over the hump we'd be good to go, as the kids say.
It may be obvious to you but it certainly isn't to the environmentalists
who, like lemmings, have been jumping off the political suicide cliff for
half a century now. Environmentalists needs to decide which is more
important, the environment, or other political issues and interests. They
can't expect sympathy or common cause with Republicans if they are
environmentalists and also Democrats, Socialists, Marxists, anti-globalists,
animal rightists, one worlders, Anarchists, or any of the other fruit cake
political movements out there. Those of us who aren't need an organization
which shuns any political activity outside of promoting and advancing
environmental issues, one which supports no candidates or parties, and has a
positive message instead of the unremitting negativism we get now.
Environmentalism needs something like that to be believed. Right now it is
seen by us as nothing but an action wing of the Democrat Party and its
issues little more than political propaganda in the form of scare tactics.
That means that nothing substantive gets done for the years there is a
Republican administration in office which lately looks like more often than
not. Remember it wasn't me who left the movement. I got shoved out the door
by narrow minded assholes who said the same thing you did; you can't be an
environmentalist and a Republican.
Yes it is over time. What doesn't work is force, threats, and supporting
only one party. Industry can and will invent biodegradable packaging if the
economic incentives are there for them.
They aren't when the environmentalists have shouldered everyone but the most
radical out of the movement and are donating millions to the opposition,
consistently confuse environmental issues with political ideology, criticize
and belittle every positive step made by Republicans as political
expediency, and otherwise make juvenile pains in the ass of themselves. They
have got to grow up or look at themselves in the mirror as the cause of
their own failure. -the Troll
hippo wrote:
[.]
In so far as ANY form of government (local, civic, state, or national)
is encouraged, expected, or needs to act on anything affecting the
environment (garbage collection, sewage treatment, industrial pollution,
auto-emissions...etc) it is political--it affects the "polis", and it
involves the actions of politicians. And unless all those politicians
agree on every issue and on the best way to address every issue, it is
going to be political in the extreme.
Of course it is political in the sense that officials are elected. I mean it
should not be political in the sense of side taking. Environmentalists by
now, having cemented themselves at the hip with the Democrat Party, can
expect short shrift at the hands of Republicans now running the government.
What can the idiots expect to achieve having made an enemy of the present
administration by openly supporting the opposition? By side taking the
movement has kicked out conservatives like me. I was NOT welcome at their
meetings and was regularly shouted down. If you are looking for someone to
blame, look at the radicals now leading the environmental movement who have
foolishly alienated half of the US population and the only party presently
able to make things happen.
Rational people can agree on the
need for laws like those governing polluters and pollution.
This has not always been the case. And rational people have not always
agreed on what those laws should say, how to measure compliance, what
levels to institute, what causes danger etc. And further, regrettably
there is such a thing as corruption and graft, and sometimes enforcers
have succumbed to "gifts" from the corporation to turn blind eyes to the
problems, or the companies have seen lobbying to NOT have a law enacted
as a cheaper more cost effective way of doing business than
"self-policing" of their practices that affect the environment.
Yes, I suspect you are right, in fact I know you are. A client of mine in
New Brunswick has worked out a way to pulp wood chip using alcohol rather
than acid. It worked with hardwood chip in a mini-mill they built. Paper
making is a major cause of acid rain. With the alcohol method there would be
no pollutants. It is a closed system where the alcohol used is recycled. The
only bi-product is a chemical used in the manufacture of industrial cements
and more valuable than the paper. The problem is that old paper plants can
not easily be converted to the new method and why, I suspect, the process
hasn't been more widely used. There isn't a real economic stimulus to spend
the large sums needed to convert these old plants, even though the process
should be cheaper and far kinder to the environment. That's where
governments need to step in with incentives to convert the old plants. Once
over the hump we'd be good to go, as the kids say.
It should always
be bi-partisan for the effort not to shrivel and die when the 'other'
party
is in power.
No one doubts this. Achieving it in practice isn't always possible
though.
It may be obvious to you but it certainly isn't to the environmentalists
who, like lemmings, have been jumping off the political suicide cliff for
half a century now. Environmentalists needs to decide which is more
important, the environment, or other political issues and interests. They
can't expect sympathy or common cause with Republicans if they are
environmentalists and also Democrats, Socialists, Marxists, anti-globalists,
animal rightists, one worlders, Anarchists, or any of the other fruit cake
political movements out there. Those of us who aren't need an organization
which shuns any political activity outside of promoting and advancing
environmental issues, one which supports no candidates or parties, and has a
positive message instead of the unremitting negativism we get now.
Environmentalism needs something like that to be believed. Right now it is
seen by us as nothing but an action wing of the Democrat Party and its
issues little more than political propaganda in the form of scare tactics.
That means that nothing substantive gets done for the years there is a
Republican administration in office which lately looks like more often than
not. Remember it wasn't me who left the movement. I got shoved out the door
by narrow minded assholes who said the same thing you did; you can't be an
environmentalist and a Republican.
Every citizen must be educated and brought on regardless of
party affiliation.
Sure. But that isn't enough. We've known for years the dangers of
filling landfills with non-biodegradable containers such as milk jugs
and the like. But we keep doing it and we don't pressure the milk
companies to change packaging. Education isn't enough.
Yes it is over time. What doesn't work is force, threats, and supporting
only one party. Industry can and will invent biodegradable packaging if the
economic incentives are there for them.
No issue this important should be seen as the private
venue of only one party. -the Troll
No one has argued that it is. The problem has been getting the
Republicans to realize it and be willing to do something substantial
about it.
They aren't when the environmentalists have shouldered everyone but the most
radical out of the movement and are donating millions to the opposition,
consistently confuse environmental issues with political ideology, criticize
and belittle every positive step made by Republicans as political
expediency, and otherwise make juvenile pains in the ass of themselves. They
have got to grow up or look at themselves in the mirror as the cause of
their own failure. -the Troll
-
hippo
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"martin reboul" wrote in message
Chuckle, he wasn't paying attention or I am doubly anti-communist. Reading
your posts I don't think you would react too well in an ant colony nanny
state. Like me you are a skeptic and too mistrustful of politicians,
bureaucrats, and governments, and far too individual and independent. You
are also willing to take personal responsibility. I am a conservative
because I always want the societal power fulcrum to be on the side of the
individual not the state. -the Troll
"hippo" wrote in message
The left is hardly monolithic although it is strongly ideological. There
is
nothing wrong with labels as long as they have a semblance of accuracy
and
are commonly understood and accepted. Conservatives I know never use
either
'neocon' or 'paleocon' when referring to themselves. For the longest
time I
thought it was some kind of joke. We understand any attempt at
sub-classification is pointless as proven by the experiment above with
Fred.
Both of us were all over the issue map.
I suppose I could be considered broadly left/liberal, but I ticked many of
the
same boxes as you both did. I notice you had TWO anti-communist boxes
though
Hippo, wheras poor old Fred only had one....
Chuckle, he wasn't paying attention or I am doubly anti-communist. Reading
your posts I don't think you would react too well in an ant colony nanny
state. Like me you are a skeptic and too mistrustful of politicians,
bureaucrats, and governments, and far too individual and independent. You
are also willing to take personal responsibility. I am a conservative
because I always want the societal power fulcrum to be on the side of the
individual not the state. -the Troll
-
Fred J. McCall
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"hippo" <hippo@southsudan.net> wrote:
:"martin reboul" wrote in message
:>
:> I suppose I could be considered broadly left/liberal, but I ticked many of the
:> same boxes as you both did. I notice you had TWO anti-communist boxes though
:> Hippo, wheras poor old Fred only had one....
:
:Chuckle, he wasn't paying attention or I am doubly anti-communist.
Or Martin wasn't paying attention. I didn't list my choices by
showing both columns and checking one. I listed my choices by listing
the one I would check. Since that one was the same in both columns,
why would I list it twice?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
:"martin reboul" wrote in message
:>
:> I suppose I could be considered broadly left/liberal, but I ticked many of the
:> same boxes as you both did. I notice you had TWO anti-communist boxes though
:> Hippo, wheras poor old Fred only had one....
:
:Chuckle, he wasn't paying attention or I am doubly anti-communist.
Or Martin wasn't paying attention. I didn't list my choices by
showing both columns and checking one. I listed my choices by listing
the one I would check. Since that one was the same in both columns,
why would I list it twice?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
-
erilar
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
This may be on topic in your groups, but not in the one I read. Ever
thought of trimming irrelevant cross posting?
--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)
You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument
is that reason doesn't count. Isaac Asimov
Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo
thought of trimming irrelevant cross posting?
--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)
You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument
is that reason doesn't count. Isaac Asimov
Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo
-
martin reboul
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"hippo" <hippo@southsudan.net> wrote in message
news:WvOdnW2yd_8Vn5LfRVn-2Q@giganews.com...
Oddly enough, I call that love of freedom and individuality, and dislike of
being told what to do and controlled - which we obviously share - 'liberalism'.
I suppose that I too am 'conservative' in many ways, in that I value many 'old
fashioned' notions of decency, honour and fair-play... the ones that suit me
anyway... but always with a small 'C'!
To be quite honest I loathe politics, and find most people who are drawn into
party politics and blindly follow political creeds very tiresome. That doesn't
mean that I don't like arguing about it of course! My political philosophy is
'make it up as you go along'....
Cheers
Martin
news:WvOdnW2yd_8Vn5LfRVn-2Q@giganews.com...
"martin reboul" wrote in message
"hippo" wrote in message
The left is hardly monolithic although it is strongly ideological. There
is
nothing wrong with labels as long as they have a semblance of accuracy
and
are commonly understood and accepted. Conservatives I know never use
either
'neocon' or 'paleocon' when referring to themselves. For the longest
time I
thought it was some kind of joke. We understand any attempt at
sub-classification is pointless as proven by the experiment above with
Fred.
Both of us were all over the issue map.
I suppose I could be considered broadly left/liberal, but I ticked many of
the
same boxes as you both did. I notice you had TWO anti-communist boxes
though
Hippo, wheras poor old Fred only had one....
Chuckle, he wasn't paying attention or I am doubly anti-communist. Reading
your posts I don't think you would react too well in an ant colony nanny
state. Like me you are a skeptic and too mistrustful of politicians,
bureaucrats, and governments, and far too individual and independent. You
are also willing to take personal responsibility. I am a conservative
because I always want the societal power fulcrum to be on the side of the
individual not the state. -the Troll
Oddly enough, I call that love of freedom and individuality, and dislike of
being told what to do and controlled - which we obviously share - 'liberalism'.
I suppose that I too am 'conservative' in many ways, in that I value many 'old
fashioned' notions of decency, honour and fair-play... the ones that suit me
anyway... but always with a small 'C'!
To be quite honest I loathe politics, and find most people who are drawn into
party politics and blindly follow political creeds very tiresome. That doesn't
mean that I don't like arguing about it of course! My political philosophy is
'make it up as you go along'....
Cheers
Martin
-
Gjest
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
In a message dated 2/13/2005 10:52:01 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
martin.reboul@tiscali.co.uk writes:
My political philosophy is
'make it up as you go along'....
Cheers
Martin
This is the most insightful and correct statement I have read in a long,
long time.
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
martin.reboul@tiscali.co.uk writes:
My political philosophy is
'make it up as you go along'....
Cheers
Martin
This is the most insightful and correct statement I have read in a long,
long time.
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
-
Gjest
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
In a message dated 2/13/2005 10:52:01 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
martin.reboul@tiscali.co.uk writes:
My political philosophy is
'make it up as you go along'....
Cheers
Martin
This is the most insightful and correct statement I have read here in a
long, long time.
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
martin.reboul@tiscali.co.uk writes:
My political philosophy is
'make it up as you go along'....
Cheers
Martin
This is the most insightful and correct statement I have read here in a
long, long time.
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
-
Larry Swain
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
hippo wrote:
Sure, some of the left are, just as some of the right think that
everyone should be an evangelical, fundamentalist Christian believing in
the inerrancy of the Bible and if they have their way such a position
will be legislated. So what? Aren't you the one who expressed concern
about brushing all the right with the broad brush of
anti-environmentalism? Or in your statement above about the
"anti-clerical left" were you being specific about a certain type of
left? It isn't clear and if I've misunderstood your intent I apologize.
Civil rights has long been a battle cry of the left.
"Larry Swain" wrote in message
hippo wrote:
That's about right for me too. I'm not a believer but support the rights
of
religion and will defend it/them against the anti-clerical left.
The left isn't anti-clerical--some of the chief leftists of the last
half century (really a number in history) have been clerics. Ever hear
of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., that left leaning civil rights chap?
Some of the left certainly are, far more than are not. The movement overall
is anti-clerical. King was more of a civil rights leader than left-leaning
in politics.
Sure, some of the left are, just as some of the right think that
everyone should be an evangelical, fundamentalist Christian believing in
the inerrancy of the Bible and if they have their way such a position
will be legislated. So what? Aren't you the one who expressed concern
about brushing all the right with the broad brush of
anti-environmentalism? Or in your statement above about the
"anti-clerical left" were you being specific about a certain type of
left? It isn't clear and if I've misunderstood your intent I apologize.
Civil rights has long been a battle cry of the left.
-
Larry Swain
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
hippo wrote:
So? "neocon" doesn't refer to rank and file Republicans or
conservatives, but rather to a certain group in the administration and
Congress with a particular agenda; so not calling yourselves neocons
isn't surprising since it doesn't apply to you. And your lack of use of
the terms doesn't make the terms any the less apt: such as your
"anti-clerical left" isn't used by those such as the Communist Party
(extreme left) who is clearly anti-clerical; but it is still an apt
label for them isn't it?
"Larry Swain" wrote in message
While you decry labeling, you engage in labeling. Ironic, no? FOr
example, aren't you engaging in mythmaking that the left is monolithic,
definable, ideological movement?
The left is hardly monolithic although it is strongly ideological. There is
nothing wrong with labels as long as they have a semblance of accuracy and
are commonly understood and accepted. Conservatives I know never use either
'neocon' or 'paleocon' when referring to themselves. For the longest time I
thought it was some kind of joke. We understand any attempt at
sub-classification is pointless as proven by the experiment above with Fred.
Both of us were all over the issue map. -the Troll
So? "neocon" doesn't refer to rank and file Republicans or
conservatives, but rather to a certain group in the administration and
Congress with a particular agenda; so not calling yourselves neocons
isn't surprising since it doesn't apply to you. And your lack of use of
the terms doesn't make the terms any the less apt: such as your
"anti-clerical left" isn't used by those such as the Communist Party
(extreme left) who is clearly anti-clerical; but it is still an apt
label for them isn't it?
-
hippo
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"Larry Swain" wrote in message
The history of left movements is the history of anti-clericalism from the
Enlightenment and French Revolution. I shouldn't have to explain the fate of
clerics and religion in Eastern Europe from the '17 Revolution to the near
present or Spain during its Civil War. Anarchism and Communism saw religion
as in competition for people's loyalty and suppressed all forms of it
ruthlessly from Evangelicals in East Germany, Catholics in Poland, Muslims
in Kazakhstan, to Buddhists in China, Tibet, and Vietnam. These are cases
where radical left movements have taken over completely and were able to do
as they wished. The less radical left in the West, which must still work
within a democratic frame and contend with opposition, is less openly
anti-clerical but manifestations of its secularism and scorn for believers
of all faiths isn't hard to see from opposition to church schools to clerics
or believers holding public office and public displays if religious
symbolism. Marx's opinions on religion are by now clichés.
There certainly are left-leaning clerics and congregations of believers just
as there are non-believing conservatives like me, but the political divide
is more often than not also a divide between believers and secularists and
attacks against religion come almost exclusively from the left. There were
left clergy in Spain in 1936 too. They were the handful, outside of the
Basque region, who survived in Republican controlled Spain as opposed to the
6000 regular and secular clergy (including 6 Bishops) who didn't.
We live in a sadly imperfect world because we ourselves are imperfect and
imperfectable. IMHO religion is a manifestation of that humanity, however
flawed, and deserves toleration and protection right along with our great
creations in art and science, and even political idealism. I suppose you can
say I am opposed to radicalism in any form, including religious radicalism,
which is a definition of conservatism. -the Troll
hippo wrote:
The left isn't anti-clerical--some of the chief leftists of the last
half century (really a number in history) have been clerics. Ever hear
of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., that left leaning civil rights
chap?
Some of the left certainly are, far more than are not. The movement
overall
is anti-clerical. King was more of a civil rights leader than
left-leaning
in politics.
Sure, some of the left are, just as some of the right think that
everyone should be an evangelical, fundamentalist Christian believing in
the inerrancy of the Bible and if they have their way such a position
will be legislated. So what? Aren't you the one who expressed concern
about brushing all the right with the broad brush of
anti-environmentalism? Or in your statement above about the
"anti-clerical left" were you being specific about a certain type of
left? It isn't clear and if I've misunderstood your intent I apologize.
Civil rights has long been a battle cry of the left.
The history of left movements is the history of anti-clericalism from the
Enlightenment and French Revolution. I shouldn't have to explain the fate of
clerics and religion in Eastern Europe from the '17 Revolution to the near
present or Spain during its Civil War. Anarchism and Communism saw religion
as in competition for people's loyalty and suppressed all forms of it
ruthlessly from Evangelicals in East Germany, Catholics in Poland, Muslims
in Kazakhstan, to Buddhists in China, Tibet, and Vietnam. These are cases
where radical left movements have taken over completely and were able to do
as they wished. The less radical left in the West, which must still work
within a democratic frame and contend with opposition, is less openly
anti-clerical but manifestations of its secularism and scorn for believers
of all faiths isn't hard to see from opposition to church schools to clerics
or believers holding public office and public displays if religious
symbolism. Marx's opinions on religion are by now clichés.
There certainly are left-leaning clerics and congregations of believers just
as there are non-believing conservatives like me, but the political divide
is more often than not also a divide between believers and secularists and
attacks against religion come almost exclusively from the left. There were
left clergy in Spain in 1936 too. They were the handful, outside of the
Basque region, who survived in Republican controlled Spain as opposed to the
6000 regular and secular clergy (including 6 Bishops) who didn't.
We live in a sadly imperfect world because we ourselves are imperfect and
imperfectable. IMHO religion is a manifestation of that humanity, however
flawed, and deserves toleration and protection right along with our great
creations in art and science, and even political idealism. I suppose you can
say I am opposed to radicalism in any form, including religious radicalism,
which is a definition of conservatism. -the Troll
-
hippo
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"martin reboul" wrote in message
I though as much. Individualism and individual freedom is a Libertarian idea
which is a big part of modern American conservative philosophy and why we
are so violently anti-Socialist. To me you don't willingly hand you ass to a
committee, elected or not, to do with as it likes for what it sees as the
good of 'society'. Once that committee has the power, history seems to show,
it will always err on the side of giving itself more power and by making
more and more decisions for you. To me the result is a sick and dependent
society incapable of survival without the state. We are heading inexorably
in that direction but I don't intend making it easy for them for the sakes
of my grandchildren. -the Troll
"hippo" wrote in message
Reading your posts I don't think you would react too well in an ant
colony nanny
state. Like me you are a skeptic and too mistrustful of politicians,
bureaucrats, and governments, and far too individual and independent.
You
are also willing to take personal responsibility. I am a conservative
because I always want the societal power fulcrum to be on the side of
the
individual not the state. -the Troll
Oddly enough, I call that love of freedom and individuality, and dislike
of
being told what to do and controlled - which we obviously share -
'liberalism'.
I suppose that I too am 'conservative' in many ways, in that I value many
'old
fashioned' notions of decency, honour and fair-play... the ones that suit
me
anyway... but always with a small 'C'!
To be quite honest I loathe politics, and find most people who are drawn
into
party politics and blindly follow political creeds very tiresome. That
doesn't
mean that I don't like arguing about it of course! My political philosophy
is
'make it up as you go along'....
I though as much. Individualism and individual freedom is a Libertarian idea
which is a big part of modern American conservative philosophy and why we
are so violently anti-Socialist. To me you don't willingly hand you ass to a
committee, elected or not, to do with as it likes for what it sees as the
good of 'society'. Once that committee has the power, history seems to show,
it will always err on the side of giving itself more power and by making
more and more decisions for you. To me the result is a sick and dependent
society incapable of survival without the state. We are heading inexorably
in that direction but I don't intend making it easy for them for the sakes
of my grandchildren. -the Troll
-
hippo
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"Larry Swain" wrote in message
You are right but letting the bad guys define you without complaint isn't a
good idea either. I don't think the left has it right. Rumsfeld is no
'neocon' by their accepted definition, and neither is Dr. Rice, Cheney,
Powell, or the President himself. I don't know if it is true about
Wolfowitz, Pearl, Rowe and the rest because I don't know enough about them.
To me this 'neocon' conspiracy stuff was invented by propagandists to
frighten children. -the Troll
hippo wrote:
The left is hardly monolithic although it is strongly ideological. There
is
nothing wrong with labels as long as they have a semblance of accuracy
and
are commonly understood and accepted. Conservatives I know never use
either
'neocon' or 'paleocon' when referring to themselves. For the longest
time I
thought it was some kind of joke. We understand any attempt at
sub-classification is pointless as proven by the experiment above with
Fred.
Both of us were all over the issue map. -the Troll
So? "neocon" doesn't refer to rank and file Republicans or
conservatives, but rather to a certain group in the administration and
Congress with a particular agenda; so not calling yourselves neocons
isn't surprising since it doesn't apply to you. And your lack of use of
the terms doesn't make the terms any the less apt: such as your
"anti-clerical left" isn't used by those such as the Communist Party
(extreme left) who is clearly anti-clerical; but it is still an apt
label for them isn't it?
You are right but letting the bad guys define you without complaint isn't a
good idea either. I don't think the left has it right. Rumsfeld is no
'neocon' by their accepted definition, and neither is Dr. Rice, Cheney,
Powell, or the President himself. I don't know if it is true about
Wolfowitz, Pearl, Rowe and the rest because I don't know enough about them.
To me this 'neocon' conspiracy stuff was invented by propagandists to
frighten children. -the Troll
-
Family Historian
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
He wrote:
My political philosophy is
'make it up as you go along'....
Kinda sounds like what John Kerry did this last presidential race.....
Ed Crabtree (Missouri)
familyhistorian@kc.rr.com
Outgoing emails scanned by McAfee VirusScan
My political philosophy is
'make it up as you go along'....
Kinda sounds like what John Kerry did this last presidential race.....
Ed Crabtree (Missouri)
familyhistorian@kc.rr.com
Outgoing emails scanned by McAfee VirusScan
-
Larry Swain
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
hippo wrote:
Depends on the rhetorician using the brush and who s/he wants to paint.....
"Larry Swain" wrote in message
hippo wrote:
On this, we're in 100 per cent agreement, as surprising as that may be.
Good, neither of us is anti-environment in spite of the caricature being
sold as good coin by politicians and certain radicals. -the Troll
And neither of us is an eco-terrorist in spite of the caricature being
sold as good coing by politicians and certain radicals.
I didn't suppose either of us was. Eco-terrorism is fairly narrowly defined.
The charge of anti-environmentalism is a wider brush. -the Troll
Depends on the rhetorician using the brush and who s/he wants to paint.....
-
Larry Swain
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
hippo wrote:
I didn't say that it should. Even the Rockies have changed rather
drastically since I was young where you can no longer drink the water,
where garbage is everywhere to be seen, where mining has left recent
scars and towns that no longer have decent drinking water not to mention
the dearth of wildlife and fishing that result.
The harbor of my city, a very old East Coast one and the fourth
The question is whether or not the Republicans have been the ones to
initiate the cleanup.
Which doesn't answer the question I asked. And he isn't putting himself
out of a job so much as recognizing that if he isn't laid off for a
while, he'll be out of a job permanently. Better the short term evil
than the long term, permanent one.
Many chemical spills are.
Accidents happen all the time, humans being human.
So, we shouldn't for example teach teenagers how to prevent pregnancies
that are unwanted (leading to abortion) or to prevent sexually
transmitted diseases because, well accidents happen? We shouldn't do
everything possible to ensure that tainted meat doesn't get into the
food supply because, hmm, accidents happen? I'm sorry, I disagree.
Sure accidents happen all the time, but that's no reason not to work
very, very, very hard at prevention.
Sidestepping the issue raised entirely.
Yes, but you're the one who says that conservativesare reactive--and if
you're only reacting (or did you reactionary), then you aren't being
proactive. QED. As for explaining to you conservative ideology, don't
be ridiculous. Conservatives are just as ideological as liberals and
the left--with the caveat that we are talking about conservative
ideologies and liberal ideologies since neither is monolithic.
A) which sidesteps the issue again and B) so we shouldn't take part in
things like the Kyoto accord, or begin to import whale products from
Norway and Japan and hunt them to extinction? I thought you said you
were ecologically minded?
And so we should do nothing, because that's better. Further, you see
herdsman of the sub-Sahara as a "developing" nation? Interesting
definition there.
But if the questions have anything to do with material beyond the
subject matter of the class, then it can be questioned and challenged.
The drill
So give me an example of a test question from this prof that is
"political" rather than scientific.
Exactly the opint. Is he really in a position to discern what's going
on, or is his perspective skewed? Further, knowledge doesn't happen in
a vacuum, and knowledge once acquired should result in action, whether
intellectual action or some other type. It sounds to me like their
knowledge of what we're doing environmentally has stirred his
professor's to action, as it should.
Poppycock on both counts.
I had a Rector once who never
More poppycock. If he had those kind of talents he would have been
welcomed in many departments....political affiliation isn't on the
application.
"Larry Swain" wrote in message
Your are welcome to 'go off'. We all do it and obvious sincerity is welcome
here.
The congested East Coast can never be a 'clean' as the Rockies. There are
too many cars, factories, and swage treatment and electric generation
plants.
I didn't say that it should. Even the Rockies have changed rather
drastically since I was young where you can no longer drink the water,
where garbage is everywhere to be seen, where mining has left recent
scars and towns that no longer have decent drinking water not to mention
the dearth of wildlife and fishing that result.
The harbor of my city, a very old East Coast one and the fourth
major container port in the US, is cleaner every year. People do eat the
fish they take from it. Fishing, crabbing, shrimping, oystering, and clam
raising are major industries here, and so are recreational boating and the
merchant trade. I have dealt with re-forestation elsewhere. Land use, water
retention, ground water quality, sewage and water treatment, and air
pollution standards are being continually raised here in this very
Republican state.
The question is whether or not the Republicans have been the ones to
initiate the cleanup.
'R' chose his profession from any
number available to him because of his interest.
And I would question whether his "interest" is primarily based in
concern for "ecology" rather than on something else.
He favors a five year ban on bill fishing to improve their population even
though, at the moment, it is his profession. It doesn't get any more serious
than putting yourself out of a job.
Which doesn't answer the question I asked. And he isn't putting himself
out of a job so much as recognizing that if he isn't laid off for a
while, he'll be out of a job permanently. Better the short term evil
than the long term, permanent one.
He likes it because, unlike
prevention which is passive and has neither guarantees nor quantifiable
results, ecological re-something-ation
I don't know, I would think that LACK of chemical pollution would be a
pretty quantifiable result, but maybe that's just me. Further, it
demonstrates the point that his primary motivation is NOT the
environment and ecological concerns. Finally, how can ACTING FIRST in
order to PREVENT something that will happen WITHOUT that prior action be
"passive"? That is, someone involved in taking steps to prevent a
chemical accident isn't acted on, but rather is acting for, ie. is active.
Pollution isn't preventable.
Many chemical spills are.
Accidents happen all the time, humans being human.
So, we shouldn't for example teach teenagers how to prevent pregnancies
that are unwanted (leading to abortion) or to prevent sexually
transmitted diseases because, well accidents happen? We shouldn't do
everything possible to ensure that tainted meat doesn't get into the
food supply because, hmm, accidents happen? I'm sorry, I disagree.
Sure accidents happen all the time, but that's no reason not to work
very, very, very hard at prevention.
He doesn't feel the need to prove himself to anyone but himself and that's
fine too. He is a very individual type who sees himself in Nigeria one day
and Alaska the next, masterminding and directing environmental salvage
efforts. His interests at the moment are in researching natural, rather than
man made, restorative solutions like sea-grass filters and the use of
micro-organisms. He thinks that using man made chemicals, although sometimes
necessary, may cause long term and unforeseen problems with eco-systems.
Sidestepping the issue raised entirely.
Conservatism isn't an ideology. It is purely reactive.
A) Absolutely false. B) How sad that in this world you see yourself
only reacting to it, rather than acting.
OK, explain to me conservative ideology. I can't wait. Reaction has nothing
to do with anything but politics. Conservatives can be as pro-active as
anyone else on individual issues such as foreign affairs or the environment.
Yes, but you're the one who says that conservativesare reactive--and if
you're only reacting (or did you reactionary), then you aren't being
proactive. QED. As for explaining to you conservative ideology, don't
be ridiculous. Conservatives are just as ideological as liberals and
the left--with the caveat that we are talking about conservative
ideologies and liberal ideologies since neither is monolithic.
It isn't, as previously suggested: appointments to posts that affect
environmental issues, legislation introduced or not introduced, policies
generated from the oval office, support (verbal, monetary, or other) to
concerns voiced by scientists and others (lets go back to the moon seems
to be Shrub's answer to the problem), support of international treaties,
pressure on developing nations and help for those nations so that they
don't make the same mistakes we did, but can still achieve the growth
they desire......I certainly didn't advocate that how the EPA goes so go
the Republicans; but again, the Republicans in general and this
administration in particular have a proven track record of unconcern on
these issues.
That's an entirely idealistic world view and precisely why I'm a Republican.
A) which sidesteps the issue again and B) so we shouldn't take part in
things like the Kyoto accord, or begin to import whale products from
Norway and Japan and hunt them to extinction? I thought you said you
were ecologically minded?
The UN dug wells all over sub-Saharan Africa to help with the water problem.
The locals used the more plentiful water to increase their herds (wealth)
which then destroyed the ground cover and created an ecological disaster by
over-grazing causing soil runoff and lowering the water table so that the
remaining pumps and wells couldn't be used. There are no quick or magical
solution to these international problems caused by superstition, ignorance,
and tribal value systems. Well intentioned idiots (Marx, Lenin, Mao, Ho,
Wilson, the UN) probably caused more human death and misery than even
natural disasters in modern history.
And so we should do nothing, because that's better. Further, you see
herdsman of the sub-Sahara as a "developing" nation? Interesting
definition there.
Political persuasion should
have nothing to do with how a student is received, accepted, graded, or
advanced in higher education.
No it shouldn't. So is R flunking? If he isn't, then I'd suggest that
he isn't being received, accepted, graded, or advanced (or not) by his
political persuasion. And if he gets a B instead of A, he should be
able to prove that he did A work to the university ombudsmen and that he
is being unfairly treated because he's a Republican or a conservative.
His most recent reported grade was a 102 in Organic Chemistry. He has no
semester grades yet from his radical prof whose tests are entirely
subjective essays almost impossible to re-grade on content.
But if the questions have anything to do with material beyond the
subject matter of the class, then it can be questioned and challenged.
The drill
amongst kids like him is to regurgitate the crap they get in lectures
regardless if they believe it or not. I'm not talking about science here but
the politics.
So give me an example of a test question from this prof that is
"political" rather than scientific.
Disciplines which indulge themselves in so
doing do themselves, their students, and the country a grave disservice.
And a student who doesn't get it and thinks they know more than the
professor is hardly in a position to make such accusations. I have
plenty of students when I teach Bible as Lit who read all sorts of
things into the text based on their faith, and refuse to learn how to
read the text for what it says....any text for what it says. And I'm
sure in the sciences it is the same.
He is well aware he isn't up to speed in hard science. That's why he is in
college. He isn't majoring in modern politics or political science.
Exactly the opint. Is he really in a position to discern what's going
on, or is his perspective skewed? Further, knowledge doesn't happen in
a vacuum, and knowledge once acquired should result in action, whether
intellectual action or some other type. It sounds to me like their
knowledge of what we're doing environmentally has stirred his
professor's to action, as it should.
An
example is Anthropology which was nearly finished by ideologically
motivated
'research' of Meade and others earlier last century and now must be
re-written. -the Troll
Yep, human beings sometimes screw up. The thing you don't seem to
realize is that we all have an ideology which drives us--there is no
such thing, not even the objective sciences as pure objectivity; it
isn't humanly possible. ANd by your own description here "R" is as
ideologically driven as anyone else.
I'm not saying there isn't. Just like a Pastor from the pulpit, it is best
said about a Prof that you don't know what his political affiliation is
because he doesn't push it from the lectern.
Poppycock on both counts.
I had a Rector once who never
ever mentioned politics in my hearing. For that reason he didn't loose the
attention of half of his congregation when speaking on subjects where his
opinion was important. This isn't a complicated message. A good friend of
mine with an IQ of nearly 180 and an undergraduate History GPA of 3.9 never
went to graduate school because none could be found where there was an even
handed History faculty who would give him a chance. He is now a published
writer on military history subjects after a career in military intelligence.
He did pick up a JD on the way, and passed the state BAR, just for fun. -the
Troll
More poppycock. If he had those kind of talents he would have been
welcomed in many departments....political affiliation isn't on the
application.
-
hippo
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"Larry Swain" wrote in message
Nope, read the definitions. -the Troll
hippo wrote:
I didn't suppose either of us was. Eco-terrorism is fairly narrowly
defined.
The charge of anti-environmentalism is a wider brush. -the Troll
Depends on the rhetorician using the brush and who s/he wants to
paint.....
Nope, read the definitions. -the Troll
-
hippo
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"Larry Swain" wrote in message
It hasn't happened by magic and there are no Democrats in the lineup for
credit.
Crap. It is forward thinking for any 22 year old kid and any objective
person would see that. He didn't intend to make fishing a life's profession
but it has helped put him through school working summers. If there is a
moratorium on bill fishing he will have to take a much lower paying job and
assume debt.
[.]
Not by a specific person which was the point of the remark.
How in bloody blue blazes can you make an idiotic assumption like that from
what I posted. We aren't talking about teen pregnancy or tainted meat. We
are talking about chemical spills.
Only to someone who has already made an uninformed decision.
Conservativism is reaction to social revolutionary ideology. It is not an
ideology itself since it is not even a single system of governance let alone
based upon an idea. Presently it supports and protects the economic system
and system of governance now in place which happen to be capitalist
democracy neither of which is invented, new, or based upon an idea. The free
market has been with us since probably the Paleolithic even though Adam
Smith was the first to identify it as an economic system, and the fifth
century Greeks understood democracy. You can't be an ideologue without an
ideology.
The Kyoto accord was as fair as loaded dice and effected US sovereignty. It
never would have passed the Congress even if Bush had signed it. Wisely he
decided not to hand himself a major legislative defeat right out of the box.
For everyone else it was nothing but a feel good lie since it was only the
US which would have been held to its provisions. No one gave a tinkers damn
if Nicaragua, Peru, or any other developing country did or even thought for
a second they would even try. The same goes for the international court,
anti-mine treaty, and other mechanisms set up to make the US the world's
bogy man and siphon off its sovereignty.
We should help with disease and with developing economies but NOT by sending
money to corrupt regimes. The Israelis send teams for foreign aid to teach,
inoculate, and cure. They pay these teams but give nothing to governments.
We should do nothing that has not been thought out entirely and practiced.
Yes and I mentioned that.
"R' is not here to ask. I will ask him.
We will see what action the prof will take. The prof he had last year for an
independent study course admits the present prof is a political radical but
doesn't think he is small minded enough to punish 'R' for holding different
political views or challenging him in class. The same prof told 'R' that he
himself is a left radical but intentionally separates his political views
from his lectures precisely because he doesn't want his students frightened
to tell the truth as they see it.
Your opinion not mine.
No it isn't but the bias within the department is very real. He would have
had no trouble getting into any graduate school in the country. The problem
would have been staying there. Even as an undergraduate I fled into a
military college to get away from radical professors. I had been in
intelligence and knew the crap they were spouting were lies. I couldn't
contradict them because I was still under the statute of limitations for my
security clearance and could have been sent to prison. You can have no idea
how frustrating the experience was. -the Troll
hippo wrote:
The question is whether or not the Republicans have been the ones to
initiate the cleanup.
It hasn't happened by magic and there are no Democrats in the lineup for
credit.
And I would question whether his "interest" is primarily based in
concern for "ecology" rather than on something else.
He favors a five year ban on bill fishing to improve their population
even
though, at the moment, it is his profession. It doesn't get any more
serious
than putting yourself out of a job.
Which doesn't answer the question I asked. And he isn't putting himself
out of a job so much as recognizing that if he isn't laid off for a
while, he'll be out of a job permanently. Better the short term evil
than the long term, permanent one.
Crap. It is forward thinking for any 22 year old kid and any objective
person would see that. He didn't intend to make fishing a life's profession
but it has helped put him through school working summers. If there is a
moratorium on bill fishing he will have to take a much lower paying job and
assume debt.
[.]
Pollution isn't preventable.
Many chemical spills are.
Not by a specific person which was the point of the remark.
Accidents happen all the time, humans being human.
So, we shouldn't for example teach teenagers how to prevent pregnancies
that are unwanted (leading to abortion) or to prevent sexually
transmitted diseases because, well accidents happen? We shouldn't do
everything possible to ensure that tainted meat doesn't get into the
food supply because, hmm, accidents happen? I'm sorry, I disagree.
Sure accidents happen all the time, but that's no reason not to work
very, very, very hard at prevention.
How in bloody blue blazes can you make an idiotic assumption like that from
what I posted. We aren't talking about teen pregnancy or tainted meat. We
are talking about chemical spills.
He doesn't feel the need to prove himself to anyone but himself and
that's
fine too. He is a very individual type who sees himself in Nigeria one
day
and Alaska the next, masterminding and directing environmental salvage
efforts. His interests at the moment are in researching natural, rather
than
man made, restorative solutions like sea-grass filters and the use of
micro-organisms. He thinks that using man made chemicals, although
sometimes
necessary, may cause long term and unforeseen problems with eco-systems.
Sidestepping the issue raised entirely.
Only to someone who has already made an uninformed decision.
Conservatism isn't an ideology. It is purely reactive.
A) Absolutely false. B) How sad that in this world you see yourself
only reacting to it, rather than acting.
OK, explain to me conservative ideology. I can't wait. Reaction has
nothing
to do with anything but politics. Conservatives can be as pro-active as
anyone else on individual issues such as foreign affairs or the
environment.
Yes, but you're the one who says that conservativesare reactive--and if
you're only reacting (or did you reactionary), then you aren't being
proactive. QED. As for explaining to you conservative ideology, don't
be ridiculous. Conservatives are just as ideological as liberals and
the left--with the caveat that we are talking about conservative
ideologies and liberal ideologies since neither is monolithic.
Conservativism is reaction to social revolutionary ideology. It is not an
ideology itself since it is not even a single system of governance let alone
based upon an idea. Presently it supports and protects the economic system
and system of governance now in place which happen to be capitalist
democracy neither of which is invented, new, or based upon an idea. The free
market has been with us since probably the Paleolithic even though Adam
Smith was the first to identify it as an economic system, and the fifth
century Greeks understood democracy. You can't be an ideologue without an
ideology.
That's an entirely idealistic world view and precisely why I'm a
Republican.
A) which sidesteps the issue again and B) so we shouldn't take part in
things like the Kyoto accord, or begin to import whale products from
Norway and Japan and hunt them to extinction? I thought you said you
were ecologically minded?
The Kyoto accord was as fair as loaded dice and effected US sovereignty. It
never would have passed the Congress even if Bush had signed it. Wisely he
decided not to hand himself a major legislative defeat right out of the box.
For everyone else it was nothing but a feel good lie since it was only the
US which would have been held to its provisions. No one gave a tinkers damn
if Nicaragua, Peru, or any other developing country did or even thought for
a second they would even try. The same goes for the international court,
anti-mine treaty, and other mechanisms set up to make the US the world's
bogy man and siphon off its sovereignty.
The UN dug wells all over sub-Saharan Africa to help with the water
problem.
The locals used the more plentiful water to increase their herds
(wealth)
which then destroyed the ground cover and created an ecological disaster
by
over-grazing causing soil runoff and lowering the water table so that
the
remaining pumps and wells couldn't be used. There are no quick or
magical
solution to these international problems caused by superstition,
ignorance,
and tribal value systems. Well intentioned idiots (Marx, Lenin, Mao, Ho,
Wilson, the UN) probably caused more human death and misery than even
natural disasters in modern history.
And so we should do nothing, because that's better. Further, you see
herdsman of the sub-Sahara as a "developing" nation? Interesting
definition there.
We should help with disease and with developing economies but NOT by sending
money to corrupt regimes. The Israelis send teams for foreign aid to teach,
inoculate, and cure. They pay these teams but give nothing to governments.
We should do nothing that has not been thought out entirely and practiced.
No it shouldn't. So is R flunking? If he isn't, then I'd suggest that
he isn't being received, accepted, graded, or advanced (or not) by his
political persuasion. And if he gets a B instead of A, he should be
able to prove that he did A work to the university ombudsmen and that he
is being unfairly treated because he's a Republican or a conservative.
His most recent reported grade was a 102 in Organic Chemistry. He has no
semester grades yet from his radical prof whose tests are entirely
subjective essays almost impossible to re-grade on content.
But if the questions have anything to do with material beyond the
subject matter of the class, then it can be questioned and challenged.
Yes and I mentioned that.
The drill
amongst kids like him is to regurgitate the crap they get in lectures
regardless if they believe it or not. I'm not talking about science here
but
the politics.
So give me an example of a test question from this prof that is
"political" rather than scientific.
"R' is not here to ask. I will ask him.
He is well aware he isn't up to speed in hard science. That's why he is
in
college. He isn't majoring in modern politics or political science.
Exactly the opint. Is he really in a position to discern what's going
on, or is his perspective skewed? Further, knowledge doesn't happen in
a vacuum, and knowledge once acquired should result in action, whether
intellectual action or some other type. It sounds to me like their
knowledge of what we're doing environmentally has stirred his
professor's to action, as it should.
We will see what action the prof will take. The prof he had last year for an
independent study course admits the present prof is a political radical but
doesn't think he is small minded enough to punish 'R' for holding different
political views or challenging him in class. The same prof told 'R' that he
himself is a left radical but intentionally separates his political views
from his lectures precisely because he doesn't want his students frightened
to tell the truth as they see it.
I'm not saying there isn't. Just like a Pastor from the pulpit, it is
best
said about a Prof that you don't know what his political affiliation is
because he doesn't push it from the lectern.
Poppycock on both counts.
Your opinion not mine.
I had a Rector once who never
ever mentioned politics in my hearing. For that reason he didn't loose
the
attention of half of his congregation when speaking on subjects where
his
opinion was important. This isn't a complicated message. A good friend
of
mine with an IQ of nearly 180 and an undergraduate History GPA of 3.9
never
went to graduate school because none could be found where there was an
even
handed History faculty who would give him a chance. He is now a
published
writer on military history subjects after a career in military
intelligence.
He did pick up a JD on the way, and passed the state BAR, just for
fun. -the
Troll
More poppycock. If he had those kind of talents he would have been
welcomed in many departments....political affiliation isn't on the
application.
No it isn't but the bias within the department is very real. He would have
had no trouble getting into any graduate school in the country. The problem
would have been staying there. Even as an undergraduate I fled into a
military college to get away from radical professors. I had been in
intelligence and knew the crap they were spouting were lies. I couldn't
contradict them because I was still under the statute of limitations for my
security clearance and could have been sent to prison. You can have no idea
how frustrating the experience was. -the Troll
-
Rick B
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"hippo" <hippo@southsudan.net> wrote in message
news:gYWdnXBxuL3VVI3fRVn-jg@giganews.com...
That is primarily because the Catholic Church has been a consistently
conservative anti-democratic organization. There was no difference between
the higher clergy and the Aristocracy. As an institution the clergy has
fought science, the Enlightenment and democracy tooth-and-nail for 500
years. To eliminate the aristocracy and monarchies it was necessary to also
eliminate the clergy. I can't see that there has been a lot of change,
either.
You know, I don't support the Czar, Stalin, or currently Putin. But the
Orthodox Church was a principle support for the Czar and any revolutino
against the Czar had to also be a revolution against the Orthodox Church. I
disagree that Soviet communism saw religion as competition for the people's
loyalty. They saw the religious as organized revolutionaries attempting to
overthrow the Communists. Can you say they were wrong? Pope John Paul II is
certainly an example of the effort of the churches to overthrow the
Communists. That is way beyond "competition for people's loyalty." To expect
the state not to defend itself is ridiculous, and to blame the defenses on
mere ideology is worse than ridiculous. It is like saying that we are
attacking the insurgents in Iraq merely because they are spreading Islam.
Sort of like any number of right-wing dictatorships. Pinochet and the
Argentine generals come to mind immediately. Of which there have been a lot
more than there have been radical left movements that took over and
installed an authoritarian government.
Load of utter crap. Try being a Jew or belong to an atheist family and live
in a small southern town and go to school. Or being Gay, for that matter.
The scorn, approbation and yes, the beatings from the religious are quite
frequent. The religious get nothing like that. The High School in Sante Fe,
TX is an excellent example.
This fiction of the poor, abused Christians is such a load of crap it is
hard to beleive anyone can say it and not immediately break out laughing at
the idiocy of it.
That the best you have to offer? Just to use the name "Marx" somehow
justifies your biased opinion?
Right-wing fiction. The rare instances that it is found to be true are
overgeneralized to smear the so-called left.
Then there were the socialist, anarchists, and union organizers who Franco
and his troops brutally killed, at least as many as clerics, monarchists and
Falangists who were killed in that extremely brutal Civil War. There were
over a million refugees who left Spain as a result, and Franco went after
the remaining Republicans, killing them or giving them llong prison terms,
until the end of his life. How was the Communist attacks in the USSR on
religious people any different? Except that Franco was more brutal.
I will not tolerate Jehovas Witnessess at my door, I will not tolerate the
idiot who sets up a loud-peaker system and yells at everyone who passes him
that they are going to Hell, and I will not tolerate any attempt to teach
Intelligent Design in a science class. This last is because a science class
teaches scientific thinking, and Intelligent design is not and cannot be
made into scientific thinking. [It might be philosophy, but not good
philosophy. It might be taught in a philosophy class, but I would expect the
instructor to also teach what makes it poor philosophy.]
The "Christian" with a loudspeaker should get the same treatment I give the
kids with loud speakers in their cars. I call the cops. Has nothing to do
with his (bad) Christianity. But so-called Christians should not expect to
be allowed to evangelize and not opposed. What you call "scorn" for
Christians I consider oppostion to their often very, very wrong ideas.
news:gYWdnXBxuL3VVI3fRVn-jg@giganews.com...
"Larry Swain" wrote in message
hippo wrote:
The left isn't anti-clerical--some of the chief leftists of the last
half century (really a number in history) have been clerics. Ever hear
of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., that left leaning civil rights
chap?
Some of the left certainly are, far more than are not. The movement
overall
is anti-clerical. King was more of a civil rights leader than
left-leaning
in politics.
Sure, some of the left are, just as some of the right think that
everyone should be an evangelical, fundamentalist Christian believing in
the inerrancy of the Bible and if they have their way such a position
will be legislated. So what? Aren't you the one who expressed concern
about brushing all the right with the broad brush of
anti-environmentalism? Or in your statement above about the
"anti-clerical left" were you being specific about a certain type of
left? It isn't clear and if I've misunderstood your intent I apologize.
Civil rights has long been a battle cry of the left.
The history of left movements is the history of anti-clericalism from the
Enlightenment and French Revolution.
That is primarily because the Catholic Church has been a consistently
conservative anti-democratic organization. There was no difference between
the higher clergy and the Aristocracy. As an institution the clergy has
fought science, the Enlightenment and democracy tooth-and-nail for 500
years. To eliminate the aristocracy and monarchies it was necessary to also
eliminate the clergy. I can't see that there has been a lot of change,
either.
I shouldn't have to explain the fate of
clerics and religion in Eastern Europe from the '17 Revolution to the near
present or Spain during its Civil War. Anarchism and Communism saw
religion
as in competition for people's loyalty and suppressed all forms of it
ruthlessly from Evangelicals in East Germany, Catholics in Poland, Muslims
in Kazakhstan, to Buddhists in China, Tibet, and Vietnam.
You know, I don't support the Czar, Stalin, or currently Putin. But the
Orthodox Church was a principle support for the Czar and any revolutino
against the Czar had to also be a revolution against the Orthodox Church. I
disagree that Soviet communism saw religion as competition for the people's
loyalty. They saw the religious as organized revolutionaries attempting to
overthrow the Communists. Can you say they were wrong? Pope John Paul II is
certainly an example of the effort of the churches to overthrow the
Communists. That is way beyond "competition for people's loyalty." To expect
the state not to defend itself is ridiculous, and to blame the defenses on
mere ideology is worse than ridiculous. It is like saying that we are
attacking the insurgents in Iraq merely because they are spreading Islam.
These are cases
where radical left movements have taken over completely and were able to
do
as they wished.
Sort of like any number of right-wing dictatorships. Pinochet and the
Argentine generals come to mind immediately. Of which there have been a lot
more than there have been radical left movements that took over and
installed an authoritarian government.
The less radical left in the West, which must still work
within a democratic frame and contend with opposition, is less openly
anti-clerical but manifestations of its secularism and scorn for believers
of all faiths isn't hard to see from opposition to church schools to
clerics
or believers holding public office and public displays if religious
symbolism.
Load of utter crap. Try being a Jew or belong to an atheist family and live
in a small southern town and go to school. Or being Gay, for that matter.
The scorn, approbation and yes, the beatings from the religious are quite
frequent. The religious get nothing like that. The High School in Sante Fe,
TX is an excellent example.
This fiction of the poor, abused Christians is such a load of crap it is
hard to beleive anyone can say it and not immediately break out laughing at
the idiocy of it.
Marx's opinions on religion are by now clichés.
That the best you have to offer? Just to use the name "Marx" somehow
justifies your biased opinion?
There certainly are left-leaning clerics and congregations of believers
just
as there are non-believing conservatives like me, but the political divide
is more often than not also a divide between believers and secularists
Right-wing fiction. The rare instances that it is found to be true are
overgeneralized to smear the so-called left.
and
attacks against religion come almost exclusively from the left. There were
left clergy in Spain in 1936 too. They were the handful, outside of the
Basque region, who survived in Republican controlled Spain as opposed to
the
6000 regular and secular clergy (including 6 Bishops) who didn't.
Then there were the socialist, anarchists, and union organizers who Franco
and his troops brutally killed, at least as many as clerics, monarchists and
Falangists who were killed in that extremely brutal Civil War. There were
over a million refugees who left Spain as a result, and Franco went after
the remaining Republicans, killing them or giving them llong prison terms,
until the end of his life. How was the Communist attacks in the USSR on
religious people any different? Except that Franco was more brutal.
We live in a sadly imperfect world because we ourselves are imperfect and
imperfectable. IMHO religion is a manifestation of that humanity, however
flawed, and deserves toleration and protection right along with our great
creations in art and science, and even political idealism.
I will not tolerate Jehovas Witnessess at my door, I will not tolerate the
idiot who sets up a loud-peaker system and yells at everyone who passes him
that they are going to Hell, and I will not tolerate any attempt to teach
Intelligent Design in a science class. This last is because a science class
teaches scientific thinking, and Intelligent design is not and cannot be
made into scientific thinking. [It might be philosophy, but not good
philosophy. It might be taught in a philosophy class, but I would expect the
instructor to also teach what makes it poor philosophy.]
The "Christian" with a loudspeaker should get the same treatment I give the
kids with loud speakers in their cars. I call the cops. Has nothing to do
with his (bad) Christianity. But so-called Christians should not expect to
be allowed to evangelize and not opposed. What you call "scorn" for
Christians I consider oppostion to their often very, very wrong ideas.
I suppose you can
say I am opposed to radicalism in any form, including religious
radicalism,
which is a definition of conservatism. -the Troll
But religious radicalism is often super-conservatism.
-
hippo
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"Rick B" wrote in message
Yes that's true but the argument was anti-clericalism and only
anti-clericalism. We have to deal with these bits one at a time.
I say the left is anti-clerical and you are telling me that they (the
Church) deserved it which is the usual left argument. If the left was only
concerned about the prelates (lords) of the Church which did oppress the
lower classes then they wouldn't have killed monks, nuns, and itinerant
mendicant friars, many of them illiterate (in Russia). Well they damned well
did kill them which makes your argument a lie. Cloistered regular clergy and
mendicant friars oppress no one. The first rarely leave their monasteries or
convents and the second are usually poorer than the poorest peasant, owning
nothing, and spend their lives administering to the poor. Buddhist monks
oppressed no one but they were killed by Mao and Ho in their thousands. They
were killed because the hard Left feared their message and competition both
in Russia, Republican Spain, most of Eastern Europe, China, Vietnam, Laos,
Cambodia, and Korea. They had reason too. They are now dying or dead and
religion remains in spite if the hundreds of thousands martyred for their
beliefs in the past century. -the Troll
"hippo" wrote in message
The history of left movements is the history of anti-clericalism from
the
Enlightenment and French Revolution.
That is primarily because the Catholic Church has been a consistently
conservative anti-democratic organization. There was no difference between
the higher clergy and the Aristocracy. As an institution the clergy has
fought science, the Enlightenment and democracy tooth-and-nail for 500
years. To eliminate the aristocracy and monarchies it was necessary to
also
eliminate the clergy. I can't see that there has been a lot of change,
either.
I shouldn't have to explain the fate of
clerics and religion in Eastern Europe from the '17 Revolution to the
near
present or Spain during its Civil War. Anarchism and Communism saw
religion
as in competition for people's loyalty and suppressed all forms of it
ruthlessly from Evangelicals in East Germany, Catholics in Poland,
Muslims
in Kazakhstan, to Buddhists in China, Tibet, and Vietnam.
You know, I don't support the Czar, Stalin, or currently Putin. But the
Orthodox Church was a principle support for the Czar and any revolutino
against the Czar had to also be a revolution against the Orthodox Church.
I
disagree that Soviet communism saw religion as competition for the
people's
loyalty. They saw the religious as organized revolutionaries attempting to
overthrow the Communists. Can you say they were wrong? Pope John Paul II
is
certainly an example of the effort of the churches to overthrow the
Communists. That is way beyond "competition for people's loyalty." To
expect
the state not to defend itself is ridiculous, and to blame the defenses on
mere ideology is worse than ridiculous. It is like saying that we are
attacking the insurgents in Iraq merely because they are spreading Islam.
These are cases
where radical left movements have taken over completely and were able to
do
as they wished.
Sort of like any number of right-wing dictatorships. Pinochet and the
Argentine generals come to mind immediately. Of which there have been a
lot
more than there have been radical left movements that took over and
installed an authoritarian government.
The less radical left in the West, which must still work
within a democratic frame and contend with opposition, is less openly
anti-clerical but manifestations of its secularism and scorn for
believers
of all faiths isn't hard to see from opposition to church schools to
clerics
or believers holding public office and public displays if religious
symbolism.
Load of utter crap. Try being a Jew or belong to an atheist family and
live
in a small southern town and go to school. Or being Gay, for that matter.
The scorn, approbation and yes, the beatings from the religious are quite
frequent. The religious get nothing like that. The High School in Sante
Fe,
TX is an excellent example.
This fiction of the poor, abused Christians is such a load of crap it is
hard to beleive anyone can say it and not immediately break out laughing
at
the idiocy of it.
Marx's opinions on religion are by now clichés.
That the best you have to offer? Just to use the name "Marx" somehow
justifies your biased opinion?
There certainly are left-leaning clerics and congregations of believers
just
as there are non-believing conservatives like me, but the political
divide
is more often than not also a divide between believers and secularists
Right-wing fiction. The rare instances that it is found to be true are
overgeneralized to smear the so-called left.
and
attacks against religion come almost exclusively from the left. There
were
left clergy in Spain in 1936 too. They were the handful, outside of the
Basque region, who survived in Republican controlled Spain as opposed to
the
6000 regular and secular clergy (including 6 Bishops) who didn't.
Then there were the socialist, anarchists, and union organizers who Franco
and his troops brutally killed, at least as many as clerics, monarchists
and
Falangists who were killed in that extremely brutal Civil War. There were
over a million refugees who left Spain as a result, and Franco went after
the remaining Republicans, killing them or giving them llong prison terms,
until the end of his life. How was the Communist attacks in the USSR on
religious people any different? Except that Franco was more brutal.
We live in a sadly imperfect world because we ourselves are imperfect
and
imperfectable. IMHO religion is a manifestation of that humanity,
however
flawed, and deserves toleration and protection right along with our
great
creations in art and science, and even political idealism.
I will not tolerate Jehovas Witnessess at my door, I will not tolerate the
idiot who sets up a loud-peaker system and yells at everyone who passes
him
that they are going to Hell, and I will not tolerate any attempt to teach
Intelligent Design in a science class. This last is because a science
class
teaches scientific thinking, and Intelligent design is not and cannot be
made into scientific thinking. [It might be philosophy, but not good
philosophy. It might be taught in a philosophy class, but I would expect
the
instructor to also teach what makes it poor philosophy.]
The "Christian" with a loudspeaker should get the same treatment I give
the
kids with loud speakers in their cars. I call the cops. Has nothing to do
with his (bad) Christianity. But so-called Christians should not expect to
be allowed to evangelize and not opposed. What you call "scorn" for
Christians I consider oppostion to their often very, very wrong ideas.
I suppose you can
say I am opposed to radicalism in any form, including religious
radicalism,
which is a definition of conservatism. -the Troll
But religious radicalism is often super-conservatism.
Yes that's true but the argument was anti-clericalism and only
anti-clericalism. We have to deal with these bits one at a time.
I say the left is anti-clerical and you are telling me that they (the
Church) deserved it which is the usual left argument. If the left was only
concerned about the prelates (lords) of the Church which did oppress the
lower classes then they wouldn't have killed monks, nuns, and itinerant
mendicant friars, many of them illiterate (in Russia). Well they damned well
did kill them which makes your argument a lie. Cloistered regular clergy and
mendicant friars oppress no one. The first rarely leave their monasteries or
convents and the second are usually poorer than the poorest peasant, owning
nothing, and spend their lives administering to the poor. Buddhist monks
oppressed no one but they were killed by Mao and Ho in their thousands. They
were killed because the hard Left feared their message and competition both
in Russia, Republican Spain, most of Eastern Europe, China, Vietnam, Laos,
Cambodia, and Korea. They had reason too. They are now dying or dead and
religion remains in spite if the hundreds of thousands martyred for their
beliefs in the past century. -the Troll
-
Dad
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"hippo" <hippo@southsudan.net> wrote in message
news:ndWdnfF6F-de-IjfRVn-qA@giganews.com...
news:ndWdnfF6F-de-IjfRVn-qA@giganews.com...
"Rick B" wrote in message
"hippo" wrote in message
The history of left movements is the history of anti-clericalism from
the
Enlightenment and French Revolution.
That is primarily because the Catholic Church has been a consistently
conservative anti-democratic organization. There was no difference
between
the higher clergy and the Aristocracy. As an institution the clergy has
fought science, the Enlightenment and democracy tooth-and-nail for 500
years. To eliminate the aristocracy and monarchies it was necessary to
also
eliminate the clergy. I can't see that there has been a lot of change,
either.
I shouldn't have to explain the fate of
clerics and religion in Eastern Europe from the '17 Revolution to the
near
present or Spain during its Civil War. Anarchism and Communism saw
religion
as in competition for people's loyalty and suppressed all forms of it
ruthlessly from Evangelicals in East Germany, Catholics in Poland,
Muslims
in Kazakhstan, to Buddhists in China, Tibet, and Vietnam.
You know, I don't support the Czar, Stalin, or currently Putin. But the
Orthodox Church was a principle support for the Czar and any revolutino
against the Czar had to also be a revolution against the Orthodox Church.
I
disagree that Soviet communism saw religion as competition for the
people's
loyalty. They saw the religious as organized revolutionaries attempting
to
overthrow the Communists. Can you say they were wrong? Pope John Paul II
is
certainly an example of the effort of the churches to overthrow the
Communists. That is way beyond "competition for people's loyalty." To
expect
the state not to defend itself is ridiculous, and to blame the defenses
on
mere ideology is worse than ridiculous. It is like saying that we are
attacking the insurgents in Iraq merely because they are spreading Islam.
These are cases
where radical left movements have taken over completely and were able
to
do
as they wished.
Sort of like any number of right-wing dictatorships. Pinochet and the
Argentine generals come to mind immediately. Of which there have been a
lot
more than there have been radical left movements that took over and
installed an authoritarian government.
The less radical left in the West, which must still work
within a democratic frame and contend with opposition, is less openly
anti-clerical but manifestations of its secularism and scorn for
believers
of all faiths isn't hard to see from opposition to church schools to
clerics
or believers holding public office and public displays if religious
symbolism.
Load of utter crap. Try being a Jew or belong to an atheist family and
live
in a small southern town and go to school. Or being Gay, for that matter.
The scorn, approbation and yes, the beatings from the religious are quite
frequent. The religious get nothing like that. The High School in Sante
Fe,
TX is an excellent example.
This fiction of the poor, abused Christians is such a load of crap it is
hard to beleive anyone can say it and not immediately break out laughing
at
the idiocy of it.
Marx's opinions on religion are by now clichés.
That the best you have to offer? Just to use the name "Marx" somehow
justifies your biased opinion?
There certainly are left-leaning clerics and congregations of believers
just
as there are non-believing conservatives like me, but the political
divide
is more often than not also a divide between believers and secularists
Right-wing fiction. The rare instances that it is found to be true are
overgeneralized to smear the so-called left.
and
attacks against religion come almost exclusively from the left. There
were
left clergy in Spain in 1936 too. They were the handful, outside of the
Basque region, who survived in Republican controlled Spain as opposed
to
the
6000 regular and secular clergy (including 6 Bishops) who didn't.
Then there were the socialist, anarchists, and union organizers who
Franco
and his troops brutally killed, at least as many as clerics, monarchists
and
Falangists who were killed in that extremely brutal Civil War. There were
over a million refugees who left Spain as a result, and Franco went after
the remaining Republicans, killing them or giving them llong prison
terms,
until the end of his life. How was the Communist attacks in the USSR on
religious people any different? Except that Franco was more brutal.
We live in a sadly imperfect world because we ourselves are imperfect
and
imperfectable. IMHO religion is a manifestation of that humanity,
however
flawed, and deserves toleration and protection right along with our
great
creations in art and science, and even political idealism.
I will not tolerate Jehovas Witnessess at my door, I will not tolerate
the
idiot who sets up a loud-peaker system and yells at everyone who passes
him
that they are going to Hell, and I will not tolerate any attempt to teach
Intelligent Design in a science class. This last is because a science
class
teaches scientific thinking, and Intelligent design is not and cannot be
made into scientific thinking. [It might be philosophy, but not good
philosophy. It might be taught in a philosophy class, but I would expect
the
instructor to also teach what makes it poor philosophy.]
The "Christian" with a loudspeaker should get the same treatment I give
the
kids with loud speakers in their cars. I call the cops. Has nothing to do
with his (bad) Christianity. But so-called Christians should not expect
to
be allowed to evangelize and not opposed. What you call "scorn" for
Christians I consider oppostion to their often very, very wrong ideas.
I suppose you can
say I am opposed to radicalism in any form, including religious
radicalism,
which is a definition of conservatism. -the Troll
But religious radicalism is often super-conservatism.
Yes that's true but the argument was anti-clericalism and only
anti-clericalism. We have to deal with these bits one at a time.
I say the left is anti-clerical and you are telling me that they (the
Church) deserved it which is the usual left argument. If the left was only
concerned about the prelates (lords) of the Church which did oppress the
lower classes then they wouldn't have killed monks, nuns, and itinerant
mendicant friars, many of them illiterate (in Russia). Well they damned
well
did kill them which makes your argument a lie. Cloistered regular clergy
and
mendicant friars oppress no one. The first rarely leave their monasteries
or
convents and the second are usually poorer than the poorest peasant,
owning
nothing, and spend their lives administering to the poor. Buddhist monks
oppressed no one but they were killed by Mao and Ho in their thousands.
They
were killed because the hard Left feared their message and competition
both
in Russia, Republican Spain, most of Eastern Europe, China, Vietnam, Laos,
Cambodia, and Korea. They had reason too. They are now dying or dead and
religion remains in spite if the hundreds of thousands martyred for their
beliefs in the past century. -the Troll
-
Rick B
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"hippo" <hippo@southsudan.net> wrote in message
news:ndWdnfF6F-de-IjfRVn-qA@giganews.com...
No, that is NOT my argument. My argument is that (with some exceptions) the
religious were not killed and oppressed because of leftist ideology. As in
the Spanish Civil War, it was part of a much larger conflict.
Perhaps you will tell me that the Carmelite nuns killed in Central America
(El Salvador, I think) were killed because the right-wing death squad who
killed them were acting out of leftist ideology. Or the nun who was recently
killed in the Amazon by right-wing farmers who objected to her activism was
killed
The USSR was a special case, and was an authoritarian government who treated
all religious just as the right-wing Nazis treated Jews, Gypsies, the
handicapped and yes, Christians. All of those were threats to the
authoritarian or totalitarian government, just as the Falun Gong in China is
today. It isn't about the ideology, but rather their allegiance to an
opposing organization that could (and often did) threaten the authoritarian
government.
When you say "the Left" is anti-clerical, you are over generalizing mostly
inappropriate incidents and ignoring alternative reasons to make your case.
They were also targetted by the RVN government, too.
In Latin America it is the hard right that has martyred many religious. Is
that ideology also?
I notice that you give the religious the credit for eliminating those
authoritarian and totalitarian governments, and no credit at all to the
non-religious who also died fighting those same governments.
And once again, you persist in your fallacy that there is something called
"The Left" which includes and is driven by some fictional "Hard Left." By
doing so, you conflate the clearly different conservative-liberal axis with
governments that exist on the Democratic - authoratarian - totalitarian
axis.
The two axis are quite different, and neither axis is necessarily linear.
When you conflate the two, you confuse characteristics from the
conservative - liberal axis as indicating behavior found in totalitarian
governments. Yet the behavior of Franco, Pinochet, the AUC, and the
Argentine Generals is frequently as anti-clerical as anything found in
totalitarian Communist nations.
And how to you explain the fact that the Christian population of Jerusalem
has dropped from about 20% to under 2%? Hard Left Jews? Of course, the
Christian (and Jewish) populations of Baghdad and Damascus have dropped
sharply in the last 50 years? Hard Left ideology? Hardly.
Gee. The poor Christian martyrs in the US who are told they can't place a 2
1/2 ton rock with the 10 commandments on it in the Supreme Court building
are Soooooo oppressed! Try placing a statue of Shiva or Ganesh there and see
what happens. Or a copy of Das Kapital. Or a Star of David. Or, my
preference, a statue of the Buddha. (I prefer the Thai version - Hinayana -
myself. No "God" involved in that.) Such a horrible "leftist" scorn and
rejection of Christianity.
But then, I am Episcopalian (High Church, or Catholic-lite), so clearly my
views on Christianity are leftist anti-clericalism. It is also an element of
religious Faith to me that I will NEVER utter the statement "I take Jesus
Christ as my Lord and Savior." on command even if for some strange and
unlikely theological reason I might decide to practice the idea behind that
set of useless words. There is no difference between Jimmy Swaggert and
Billy Graham. Media Christian Evangelists are fools and crooks. Their
followers are fools and marks.
And I really like and respect Reverend Johnson, his wife and son who own and
operate the free-will Baptist Church two lots down from my home. But they
are Christians, not scam artists. But then, I am a moderate with
Christian-based ideals, which automatically makes me a Democrat in Texas.
The Republican Party here is positively non-Christian, no matter that they
claim the label. They are more Avon sales people than Christians.
news:ndWdnfF6F-de-IjfRVn-qA@giganews.com...
"Rick B" wrote in message
"hippo" wrote in message
The history of left movements is the history of anti-clericalism from
the
Enlightenment and French Revolution.
That is primarily because the Catholic Church has been a consistently
conservative anti-democratic organization. There was no difference
between
the higher clergy and the Aristocracy. As an institution the clergy has
fought science, the Enlightenment and democracy tooth-and-nail for 500
years. To eliminate the aristocracy and monarchies it was necessary to
also
eliminate the clergy. I can't see that there has been a lot of change,
either.
I shouldn't have to explain the fate of
clerics and religion in Eastern Europe from the '17 Revolution to the
near
present or Spain during its Civil War. Anarchism and Communism saw
religion
as in competition for people's loyalty and suppressed all forms of it
ruthlessly from Evangelicals in East Germany, Catholics in Poland,
Muslims
in Kazakhstan, to Buddhists in China, Tibet, and Vietnam.
You know, I don't support the Czar, Stalin, or currently Putin. But the
Orthodox Church was a principle support for the Czar and any revolutino
against the Czar had to also be a revolution against the Orthodox Church.
I
disagree that Soviet communism saw religion as competition for the
people's
loyalty. They saw the religious as organized revolutionaries attempting
to
overthrow the Communists. Can you say they were wrong? Pope John Paul II
is
certainly an example of the effort of the churches to overthrow the
Communists. That is way beyond "competition for people's loyalty." To
expect
the state not to defend itself is ridiculous, and to blame the defenses
on
mere ideology is worse than ridiculous. It is like saying that we are
attacking the insurgents in Iraq merely because they are spreading Islam.
These are cases
where radical left movements have taken over completely and were able
to
do
as they wished.
Sort of like any number of right-wing dictatorships. Pinochet and the
Argentine generals come to mind immediately. Of which there have been a
lot
more than there have been radical left movements that took over and
installed an authoritarian government.
The less radical left in the West, which must still work
within a democratic frame and contend with opposition, is less openly
anti-clerical but manifestations of its secularism and scorn for
believers
of all faiths isn't hard to see from opposition to church schools to
clerics
or believers holding public office and public displays if religious
symbolism.
Load of utter crap. Try being a Jew or belong to an atheist family and
live
in a small southern town and go to school. Or being Gay, for that matter.
The scorn, approbation and yes, the beatings from the religious are quite
frequent. The religious get nothing like that. The High School in Sante
Fe,
TX is an excellent example.
This fiction of the poor, abused Christians is such a load of crap it is
hard to beleive anyone can say it and not immediately break out laughing
at
the idiocy of it.
Marx's opinions on religion are by now clichés.
That the best you have to offer? Just to use the name "Marx" somehow
justifies your biased opinion?
There certainly are left-leaning clerics and congregations of believers
just
as there are non-believing conservatives like me, but the political
divide
is more often than not also a divide between believers and secularists
Right-wing fiction. The rare instances that it is found to be true are
overgeneralized to smear the so-called left.
and
attacks against religion come almost exclusively from the left. There
were
left clergy in Spain in 1936 too. They were the handful, outside of the
Basque region, who survived in Republican controlled Spain as opposed
to
the
6000 regular and secular clergy (including 6 Bishops) who didn't.
Then there were the socialist, anarchists, and union organizers who
Franco
and his troops brutally killed, at least as many as clerics, monarchists
and
Falangists who were killed in that extremely brutal Civil War. There were
over a million refugees who left Spain as a result, and Franco went after
the remaining Republicans, killing them or giving them llong prison
terms,
until the end of his life. How was the Communist attacks in the USSR on
religious people any different? Except that Franco was more brutal.
We live in a sadly imperfect world because we ourselves are imperfect
and
imperfectable. IMHO religion is a manifestation of that humanity,
however
flawed, and deserves toleration and protection right along with our
great
creations in art and science, and even political idealism.
I will not tolerate Jehovas Witnessess at my door, I will not tolerate
the
idiot who sets up a loud-peaker system and yells at everyone who passes
him
that they are going to Hell, and I will not tolerate any attempt to teach
Intelligent Design in a science class. This last is because a science
class
teaches scientific thinking, and Intelligent design is not and cannot be
made into scientific thinking. [It might be philosophy, but not good
philosophy. It might be taught in a philosophy class, but I would expect
the
instructor to also teach what makes it poor philosophy.]
The "Christian" with a loudspeaker should get the same treatment I give
the
kids with loud speakers in their cars. I call the cops. Has nothing to do
with his (bad) Christianity. But so-called Christians should not expect
to
be allowed to evangelize and not opposed. What you call "scorn" for
Christians I consider oppostion to their often very, very wrong ideas.
I suppose you can
say I am opposed to radicalism in any form, including religious
radicalism,
which is a definition of conservatism. -the Troll
But religious radicalism is often super-conservatism.
Yes that's true but the argument was anti-clericalism and only
anti-clericalism. We have to deal with these bits one at a time.
I say the left is anti-clerical and you are telling me that they (the
Church) deserved it which is the usual left argument.
No, that is NOT my argument. My argument is that (with some exceptions) the
religious were not killed and oppressed because of leftist ideology. As in
the Spanish Civil War, it was part of a much larger conflict.
Perhaps you will tell me that the Carmelite nuns killed in Central America
(El Salvador, I think) were killed because the right-wing death squad who
killed them were acting out of leftist ideology. Or the nun who was recently
killed in the Amazon by right-wing farmers who objected to her activism was
killed
If the left was only
concerned about the prelates (lords) of the Church which did oppress the
lower classes then they wouldn't have killed monks, nuns, and itinerant
mendicant friars, many of them illiterate (in Russia). Well they damned
well
did kill them which makes your argument a lie.
The USSR was a special case, and was an authoritarian government who treated
all religious just as the right-wing Nazis treated Jews, Gypsies, the
handicapped and yes, Christians. All of those were threats to the
authoritarian or totalitarian government, just as the Falun Gong in China is
today. It isn't about the ideology, but rather their allegiance to an
opposing organization that could (and often did) threaten the authoritarian
government.
When you say "the Left" is anti-clerical, you are over generalizing mostly
inappropriate incidents and ignoring alternative reasons to make your case.
Cloistered regular clergy and
mendicant friars oppress no one. The first rarely leave their monasteries
or
convents and the second are usually poorer than the poorest peasant,
owning
nothing, and spend their lives administering to the poor. Buddhist monks
oppressed no one but they were killed by Mao and Ho in their thousands.
They were also targetted by the RVN government, too.
They
were killed because the hard Left feared their message and competition
both
in Russia, Republican Spain, most of Eastern Europe, China, Vietnam, Laos,
Cambodia, and Korea. They had reason too. They are now dying or dead and
religion remains in spite if the hundreds of thousands martyred for their
beliefs in the past century. -the Troll
In Latin America it is the hard right that has martyred many religious. Is
that ideology also?
I notice that you give the religious the credit for eliminating those
authoritarian and totalitarian governments, and no credit at all to the
non-religious who also died fighting those same governments.
And once again, you persist in your fallacy that there is something called
"The Left" which includes and is driven by some fictional "Hard Left." By
doing so, you conflate the clearly different conservative-liberal axis with
governments that exist on the Democratic - authoratarian - totalitarian
axis.
The two axis are quite different, and neither axis is necessarily linear.
When you conflate the two, you confuse characteristics from the
conservative - liberal axis as indicating behavior found in totalitarian
governments. Yet the behavior of Franco, Pinochet, the AUC, and the
Argentine Generals is frequently as anti-clerical as anything found in
totalitarian Communist nations.
And how to you explain the fact that the Christian population of Jerusalem
has dropped from about 20% to under 2%? Hard Left Jews? Of course, the
Christian (and Jewish) populations of Baghdad and Damascus have dropped
sharply in the last 50 years? Hard Left ideology? Hardly.
Gee. The poor Christian martyrs in the US who are told they can't place a 2
1/2 ton rock with the 10 commandments on it in the Supreme Court building
are Soooooo oppressed! Try placing a statue of Shiva or Ganesh there and see
what happens. Or a copy of Das Kapital. Or a Star of David. Or, my
preference, a statue of the Buddha. (I prefer the Thai version - Hinayana -
myself. No "God" involved in that.) Such a horrible "leftist" scorn and
rejection of Christianity.
But then, I am Episcopalian (High Church, or Catholic-lite), so clearly my
views on Christianity are leftist anti-clericalism. It is also an element of
religious Faith to me that I will NEVER utter the statement "I take Jesus
Christ as my Lord and Savior." on command even if for some strange and
unlikely theological reason I might decide to practice the idea behind that
set of useless words. There is no difference between Jimmy Swaggert and
Billy Graham. Media Christian Evangelists are fools and crooks. Their
followers are fools and marks.
And I really like and respect Reverend Johnson, his wife and son who own and
operate the free-will Baptist Church two lots down from my home. But they
are Christians, not scam artists. But then, I am a moderate with
Christian-based ideals, which automatically makes me a Democrat in Texas.
The Republican Party here is positively non-Christian, no matter that they
claim the label. They are more Avon sales people than Christians.
-
hippo
Re: Great Moments In Higher Education
"Rick B" wrote in message
[.]
Conflict? Unarmed monks and nuns were dragged out and shot in the street.
They were no threat to anyone. The *entire* reason they were killed was
radical left ideology.
The religious killed in South and Central America were killed for individual
revolutionary political activism against the state. Others, the vast
majority, who did not participate were not harmed.
Lenin's government was at first not authoritarian. Still it was policy,
communist policy, to get rid of religious influence in the Marxist state.
Religious were killed without regard to individual crimes or power.
......but only as individuals and not killed.
No I don't. They were sometimes influential like the Catholic Church in
Poland and Hungary.
Dictatorships are not anti-clerical. They target individuals who oppose them
and leave clergy who are not political activists alone.
That is a non sequitor and stupid. The left is not the only group which
practices anti-clericalism and Jerusalem is a dangerous place for everyone.
News organizations, corporations, and embassies have reduced their staffs
there.
Why whould you be left because of your sect? I was raised an Anglo-Catholic
and none of my parishes or Priests were even slightly leftist.
Wow, and I'm prone to generalizing? I think you are not moderate and not at
all generous. Do you actually know Billy Graham? I don't so I can't say if
he is a Christian or not. -the Troll
"hippo" wrote in message
[.]
I say the left is anti-clerical and you are telling me that they (the
Church) deserved it which is the usual left argument.
No, that is NOT my argument. My argument is that (with some exceptions)
the
religious were not killed and oppressed because of leftist ideology. As in
the Spanish Civil War, it was part of a much larger conflict.
Conflict? Unarmed monks and nuns were dragged out and shot in the street.
They were no threat to anyone. The *entire* reason they were killed was
radical left ideology.
Perhaps you will tell me that the Carmelite nuns killed in Central America
(El Salvador, I think) were killed because the right-wing death squad who
killed them were acting out of leftist ideology. Or the nun who was
recently
killed in the Amazon by right-wing farmers who objected to her activism
was
killed
The religious killed in South and Central America were killed for individual
revolutionary political activism against the state. Others, the vast
majority, who did not participate were not harmed.
If the left was only
concerned about the prelates (lords) of the Church which did oppress the
lower classes then they wouldn't have killed monks, nuns, and itinerant
mendicant friars, many of them illiterate (in Russia). Well they damned
well
did kill them which makes your argument a lie.
The USSR was a special case, and was an authoritarian government who
treated
all religious just as the right-wing Nazis treated Jews, Gypsies, the
handicapped and yes, Christians. All of those were threats to the
authoritarian or totalitarian government, just as the Falun Gong in China
is
today. It isn't about the ideology, but rather their allegiance to an
opposing organization that could (and often did) threaten the
authoritarian
government.
When you say "the Left" is anti-clerical, you are over generalizing mostly
inappropriate incidents and ignoring alternative reasons to make your
case.
Lenin's government was at first not authoritarian. Still it was policy,
communist policy, to get rid of religious influence in the Marxist state.
Religious were killed without regard to individual crimes or power.
Cloistered regular clergy and
mendicant friars oppress no one. The first rarely leave their
monasteries
or
convents and the second are usually poorer than the poorest peasant,
owning
nothing, and spend their lives administering to the poor. Buddhist
monks
oppressed no one but they were killed by Mao and Ho in their thousands.
They were also targetted by the RVN government, too.
......but only as individuals and not killed.
They
were killed because the hard Left feared their message and competition
both
in Russia, Republican Spain, most of Eastern Europe, China, Vietnam,
Laos,
Cambodia, and Korea. They had reason too. They are now dying or dead and
religion remains in spite if the hundreds of thousands martyred for
their
beliefs in the past century.
In Latin America it is the hard right that has martyred many religious. Is
that ideology also?
I notice that you give the religious the credit for eliminating those
authoritarian and totalitarian governments, and no credit at all to the
non-religious who also died fighting those same governments.
No I don't. They were sometimes influential like the Catholic Church in
Poland and Hungary.
And once again, you persist in your fallacy that there is something called
"The Left" which includes and is driven by some fictional "Hard Left." By
doing so, you conflate the clearly different conservative-liberal axis
with
governments that exist on the Democratic - authoratarian - totalitarian
axis.
The two axis are quite different, and neither axis is necessarily linear.
When you conflate the two, you confuse characteristics from the
conservative - liberal axis as indicating behavior found in totalitarian
governments. Yet the behavior of Franco, Pinochet, the AUC, and the
Argentine Generals is frequently as anti-clerical as anything found in
totalitarian Communist nations.
Dictatorships are not anti-clerical. They target individuals who oppose them
and leave clergy who are not political activists alone.
And how to you explain the fact that the Christian population of Jerusalem
has dropped from about 20% to under 2%? Hard Left Jews? Of course, the
Christian (and Jewish) populations of Baghdad and Damascus have dropped
sharply in the last 50 years? Hard Left ideology? Hardly.
That is a non sequitor and stupid. The left is not the only group which
practices anti-clericalism and Jerusalem is a dangerous place for everyone.
News organizations, corporations, and embassies have reduced their staffs
there.
Gee. The poor Christian martyrs in the US who are told they can't place a
2
1/2 ton rock with the 10 commandments on it in the Supreme Court building
are Soooooo oppressed! Try placing a statue of Shiva or Ganesh there and
see
what happens. Or a copy of Das Kapital. Or a Star of David. Or, my
preference, a statue of the Buddha. (I prefer the Thai version -
Hinayana -
myself. No "God" involved in that.) Such a horrible "leftist" scorn and
rejection of Christianity.
But then, I am Episcopalian (High Church, or Catholic-lite), so clearly my
views on Christianity are leftist anti-clericalism. It is also an element
of
religious Faith to me that I will NEVER utter the statement "I take Jesus
Christ as my Lord and Savior." on command even if for some strange and
unlikely theological reason I might decide to practice the idea behind
that
set of useless words. There is no difference between Jimmy Swaggert and
Billy Graham. Media Christian Evangelists are fools and crooks. Their
followers are fools and marks.
Why whould you be left because of your sect? I was raised an Anglo-Catholic
and none of my parishes or Priests were even slightly leftist.
And I really like and respect Reverend Johnson, his wife and son who own
and
operate the free-will Baptist Church two lots down from my home. But they
are Christians, not scam artists. But then, I am a moderate with
Christian-based ideals, which automatically makes me a Democrat in Texas.
The Republican Party here is positively non-Christian, no matter that they
claim the label. They are more Avon sales people than Christians.
Wow, and I'm prone to generalizing? I think you are not moderate and not at
all generous. Do you actually know Billy Graham? I don't so I can't say if
he is a Christian or not. -the Troll