Bush vs. Kerry on Science

chrisspurgeon writes "The science journal Nature put 15 questions to Senator Kerry and President Bush. Read the candidates' responses on topics such as stem cell research, greenhouse emissions, and manned spaceflight to Mars."

Comments

Other candidates

[MadFarmAnimalz]

I would have liked to hear what the other candidates' responses would have been, for contrast. Kucinic in particular.

In a chart, even better.

(going to be some election, with even non-Americans like me taking this intense an interest, hm?)

Re:Other candidates

[Zorilla]

Yeah, too bad we're stuck with only two candidates. I'd rather see this question asked:

Interviewer: "Can either you, President Bush, or you, Senator Kerry, describe to us how your views differ on corporate elitism?"

(Tumbleweed rolls by)

Re:Other candidates

[goober]

Yeah, too bad we're stuck with only two candidates.

Uh...you can vote for whoever you want, not just those two. You will prolly have to get out of your pajamas though.

Re:Other candidates

[Zorilla]

...and prepare for another 4 years of Bush if one decides to vote third party.

Re:Other candidates

[Coryoth]

I would have liked to hear what the other candidates' responses would have been, for contrast. Kucinic in particular.

In a chart, even better.


I would have liked to have seen responses from Cobb, Badnarik and Nader. I think that would have made the whole thing look a lot less bland. We might actually have a few radically different opinions interjected in there instead of the usual bland drivel.

Jedidiah

Re:Other candidates

[Kris_J]

"...this election has driven voter turnout to it's highest level in centuries, six percent."

Re:Other candidates

[DuncMan]

Are you saying that no matter who you vote for, only the two 'big' candidates/ parties are eligible to win? So if 90% of voters voted for Michael Badnarik (I believe he represents your Libertarian Party), Dubya would win regardless?

I'm confused. Apparently I don't understand your American version of 'democracy'.

Re:Other candidates

[Deusy]

Well, I thought that Kerry's answers were generally a stark contrast to Bush's. Where as the Bush answers tended to be the standard ambiguous crap that usually comes out of his Whitehouse, the Kerry answers offered some firm decisions on some matters and ones that will make some officials sweat profusely if he wins.

For instance, on further Nuclear weapons, he was straight to the point. I paraphrase, "We will discontinue research for next-generation Nuclear weapons, they are not needed."

Also, he was very firm on all questions regarding international matters that America needs to work as part of the international community and not alone (read: not invading countries without the support of the UN or abandoning important treaties like Kyoto). It was good to see such positive assertions.

I also wonder why he's so consistent in referring to 'John Edwards and I'. Perhaps he wants to underline that he won't be a lone ranger?

This guy might actually be a reasonable dude. Of course, we all know that power corrupts, so it will be interesting to see if he (and John Edwards) stick to his (their) guns if Kerry does become the next president.

But whether Kerry can beat Bush probably comes down to whether people believe that Kerry will "kill those darned terrorisms that perpopulate the global world order and need exterminating by sending Arnie to war". Which is quite a sad indigtment of American politics. I don't know why I complain, British elections seem to pivot on who the Sun, Mirror, and Star (ie. the 'gutter' tabloids) tend to support. That and Blair is better than any current alternative.

Which makes me wonder... I wonder how Bush would do in a Prime Minister's Question time that Blair blazes through every Wednesday. (If you don't like Blair, you should watch PMQs, he's really rather good at verbally destroying anybody who attempts to attack him.)

Re:Other candidates

[MCraigW]

...and prepare for another 4 years of Bush if one decides to vote third party.

You assume that those that vote for some third party would vote for Kerry otherwise. This is incorrect.

Re:Other candidates

[Zorilla]

It is confusing, isn't it? Basically, only in a clean-room hypothetical, would 90% of voters choose a third party. In the real world, third party candidates either don't get very much media attention for potential voters to care or are considered a bit too extreme.

The theory that a vote for Nader/Badnarik is a vote for Bush stems from the idea that people who vote for change are probably voting for Kerry and not for Bush. So, by voting for a third-party, you're effectively taking a vote away from Kerry.

Re:Other candidates

[SomeoneGotMyNick]

I had posted this in a previous story. This newer story seems to be more "on topic". This expresses the sad state of democracy these days.

---
Since I recently moved, I tried re-registering to vote in the new district. My wife (hardcore Republican) said not to bother because I usually side on the independent and I would be "wasting my vote". Funny thing, when I pass by the political party tents at the local Fair, they all ask if I'm registered to vote. I say, "No". I let them speak their piece about registering to vote, and I'm usually ready to fill out the paperwork they provide as a convienience. When I mention the fact that people tell me I'd be wasting my vote because I side with Independents, they get all quiet and move on to the next person. I guess their mottos are, "Please support Democracy and register to vote (as long as you vote for us)"

Every time that happens, I see why I side with the independents.

Re:Other candidates

[kleinux]

> ...or abandoning important treaties like Kyoto...

Kerry stated in the article he does not support the Kyoto treaty.

Reference: http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040913/full/040913 -8.html
See 4th \par

Re:Other candidates

[gfxguy]

I disagree... Bush clearly states bills he's signed in the past and what he plans in the future, and in some cases is clearly more realistic than Kerry...

For example, on the stem cell question, Bush makes it quite clear that people should stop thinking of stem cell research as a solution to all medical problems, and especially NOW, at the current time, we shouldn't be giving false hope to people who have recently been diagnosed. Bush also talks about what he's actually done a lot more than Kerry, who has had 20 years to actually take the initiative on something.

As far as the nuclear weapons (and the missile defense question) go, here is where we start to see a stark difference in answers, and so it depends on which side of the fence you are on... both gave reasonable and direct responses, I just happen to support the President's side of those issues, especially now that North Korea has nuclear weapons and probably the conveyance to get them to U.S. soil. Moreover, in the past few years, we've seen other countries become nuclear powers... including India and, if I'm not mistaken, Pakistan. It behooves us to stay ahead of the curve.

By the fifteenth question, I was actually getting annoyed at the "John Edwards and I will pass..." respones. Really? You can sidestep congress and just pass those things on your own? Well, learn something new every day.

Re:Other candidates

[EinarH]

> ...or abandoning important treaties like Kyoto...

Kerry stated in the article he does not support the Kyoto treaty.

Read again.

like Kyoto..., as in international treaties, not necessarily the specific Kyoto treaty.

Re:Other candidates

[lylonius]

Both Bush and Kerry have not submitted their NPAT (National Political Awareness Test), but a few dozen other presidential candidates have:

http://www.vote-smart.org/election_president_party .php?party_name=All

and the 2004 Presidential Candidates Sucks-Rules-O-Meter

Re:Other candidates

[corian]

The theory that a vote for Nader/Badnarik is a vote for Bush stems from the idea that people who vote for change are probably voting for Kerry and not for Bush.

When the choice is between a candidate from Party A who supports invading Iraq, opposes gay marriage, and thingks the FCC should have additional censorhip rights and a candidate from Party B who supports invading Iraq, opposes gay marriage, and thingks the FCC should have additional censorhip rights, the only vote for change is Part C.

Kerry == Bush.

Re:Other candidates

[Politburo]

For example, on the stem cell question, Bush makes it quite clear that people should stop thinking of stem cell research as a solution to all medical problems, and especially NOW, at the current time, we shouldn't be giving false hope to people who have recently been diagnosed.

So we shouldn't research it, then?

Re:Other candidates

[MikeMacK]

Bush makes it quite clear that people should stop thinking of stem cell research as a solution to all medical problems, and especially NOW, at the current time, we shouldn't be giving false hope to people who have recently been diagnosed

Yeah, instead of false hope, it's much better to give them NO hope at all.

Re:Other candidates

[jdragan]

"...the Kerry answers offered some firm decisions on some matters and ones that will make some officials sweat profusely if he wins." Uh, I thought that President Bush said his administration was already doing what Kerry *Thinks* he is going to accomplish.

Re:Other candidates

[fatmonkeyboy]

It behooves us to stay ahead of the curve.

Well, the point is that our nuclear weapons are pretty "good". We can, quite easily, use them to nuke cities or islands full of civilians if we so desire.

What do you want to do? Nuke them harder?

Tactical weapons research...taking out military targets. That's worth researching. It can make war more humane while making our military force more powerful.

But I don't see any advantages in having nuclear weapons more devasting than what we already have.

Well, maybe for attacking space aliens or something.

Re:Other candidates

[gekko513]

So Bush and you don't support research in a field that may save the lives of millions of people, and would instead support research on how to more effectively kill millons of people. Nice...

Re:Other candidates

[thelaw]

I signed up to vote in New Jersey with the College Democrats, and promptly voted for the GOP for several years. I didn't tell them at the time that I was conservative, though, and in New Jersey, Democrats are anything but conservative.

Jon

Re:Other candidates

[kesteloot]

Really? You can sidestep congress and just pass those things on your own? Well, learn something new every day.

this reminds me of a bush quote The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job to interpret law. -- Dubya confusing the executive and the judicial branches of government in Austin, Texas, Nov. 22, 2000 http://www.dubyaspeak.com/presidency.shtml

Re:Other candidates

[Zorilla]

Yeah, someone at work asked me, "So, are you going for Bush, or Bush Lite?"

I mentioned something similar in the thread here. Apparently somebody doesn't like me talking about this because most of my responses in this thread are marked as overrated and flamebait in part.

Re:Other candidates

[fitten]

Go RTFA. He didn't say that. Bush said that we should, and will, continue stem cell research, both embryonic and adult. However, since the science is still in a fledgling state and currently offers little/no hope to those who are currently/recently diagnosed with things that *may* be solvable in the future by stem cell research, we shouldn't be giving them false hope by saying that there will be a cure for them next week. Barring some amazing breakthroughs, stem cell research is still probably a 20-year-out technology.

Re:Other candidates

[fitten]

Go RTFA before posting. Bush enumerated the monies his administration has *already* devoted to both embryonic and adult stem cell research and says that research will, and should, continue.

He said that people shouldn't be mis-selling it because the science is still in its infancy. Telling people who have issues that stem cell research *may* one-day cure that a cure will be tomorrow is bad in that it gives false hope.

Re:Other candidates

[Anonymous Coward]

"....I just happen to support the President's side of those issues, especially now that North Korea has nuclear weapons and probably the conveyance to get them to U.S. soil."

Your country has the nuclear capability to fuse North Korea into a sea of black glass ten times over now, how is twenty going to make you any safer? Answer: it won't. It does however impact the the way the rest of the world sees and relates to America, and not in a favourable way. Incidentally, India and Pakistan have had nuclear weapons for a long time so in terms of their being a "threat" or new on Bush's watch you are indeed quite wrong.

Re:Other candidates

[Martin Blank]

The plan is not to make larger nuclear weapons, but smaller, more precise weapons. This is far more difficult. If you look at the size of warheads over the years, you'll see that the average sizes rose on a fairly steady curve (the USSR's 40MT+ bombs notwithstanding), and then declined on a more rapid curve as warhead guidance systems became more accurate.

Mind you, I don't support the development of the new weapons. I'd rather put money into more reasonable and useful systems like hypersonic drones to deliver high-kinetic-energy slugs. There's a greater chance of a civilian payoff from that, more chance that it will work as planned, and it's politically less divisive.

Re:Other candidates

[CurbyKirby]

Really? You can sidestep congress and just pass those things on your own?

Yeah, by resorting to tactics that passed the PATRIOT Act like the Bush administration did. By using national tragedy to push though legislation that infringes upon rights with no guarantees and vague security goals.

Simply print a 300-some page document late at night and ask people to vote on it first thing in the morning, and see how many people are willing to vote against something with that name. Kudos to the 79 who did.

By the way, It probably took you till the fifteenth question because he didn't actually use the terms you supposedly found and quoted. Try these direct quotations:

Question 6: "John Edwards and I support a strategically balanced..."
Question 7: "John Edwards and I are committed to increasing funding..."
Question 8: "John Edwards and I would increase Federal funding..."
Question 9: "John Edwards and I believe that we can protect..."

I'm actually happy that Kerry realizes the universe doesn't revolve around him, and chooses to name his running mate.

Re:Other candidates

[hey!]

For example, on the stem cell question, Bush makes it quite clear that people should stop thinking of stem cell research as a solution to all medical problems, and especially NOW, at the current time, we shouldn't be giving false hope to people who have recently been diagnosed

Well, that's a bit of straw man isn't it? You don't have to have a cure for Alzheimer's NOW to justify research on a future stem cell based Alzheimer's treatment NOW.

Suppose a concerted stem cell research effort (not just getting out of the way, but active promotion) might lead to cures in, perhaps, ten or twenty years. Twenty years is within the expected lifetime of most Americans, and many would stand to benefit if successful therapies are devised. Even if stem cell research does not result in viable therapies in the lifetime of most Americans, it will still advance the basic science needed to find other avenues of therapy.

Re:Other candidates

[jdbo]

FYI, Kucinich is no longer a candidate, as of the Democratic Convention. (both he and Kerry were running in the Dem. primaries).

That aside, I would also have liked to hear other candidate's responses, including those of some of those who dropped out.

Re:Other candidates

[Bob Uhl]

Since researching it involves killing human beings, no.

That's the crux of the matter. If the embryo is human, killing him to get cells is no different from the Chinese executing convicts to harvest their organs; if the embryo is not human, then it's no different from killing a dog or a cat for medical research.

Since there are good , scientific reasons to believe that the embryo is a human being, then there is a strong case to be made against embryonic stem cell research.

One must also consider the fact that adult stem cell research is proving much more promising. Given that there are not infinite funds, would you spend money on less-hopeful research or more-hopeful research? To put it in other terms, would you rather invest $100 in an investment with a 6% return or one with a 37% return?

Re:Other candidates

[jasenj1]

Or those who are actually running. The Libertarians, Constitution Party, Green Party, and even Mr. Nader. Someday third party candidates will break the two party duopoly.

- Jasen.

Re:Other candidates

[Bob Uhl]

No, there's lots of hope: adult stem cell research is doing remarkable things, much more than embryonic stem cell research has done--and what's more, it doesn't require killing human beings to achieve.

Embryonic stem cell research is not fundamentally different from the Chinese practise of executing prisoners for their organs, nor from researching hypothermia by freezing human subjects. That is, when oen realises that the embryo is as human as Kerry, Bush or Michael Jordan.

Re:Other candidates

[gfxguy]

Not at all... Bush has increased stem cell research funding every single year he's been in office, and clearly says he'll continue to do so, and clearly says how important it is...

The problem is the left is playing emotional games with people who have been diagnosed, or someone they care about has been diagnosed, by giving them some sort of false sense of hope.

Look at Reagan's speech at the DNC about how the research might have helped his father... you could have replaced the "m" for millions with a "b" and Ronald Reagan would never have been saved. That doesn't mean don't do, it means stop playing on people's emotions.

Re:Other candidates

[Archangel Michael]

You are wrong too.

It is the Legistlature job to write laws(bills).

It is the Executives job to write laws(executive orders).

It is the Judicial job to write laws(judicial activism).

Here is my problem with John F. Kerry. He has had 20 something years in the Senate to author any legislation he thinks is good for America. Exactly what is his record on producing such legislation. Name 10. Name 9. Name 2. He has been sitting on his ASS for 20 years. 20 years of Senate, and still we don't know where he stands. It seems as if he is for and against everything. Prolife and prochoice. Pro Gun, anti gun.

Here is my problem with George W. Bush. He takes a stand, right or wrong, and "stays the course". We have a record of how things have been done for 4 years, and it is clear where he stands, like him or not.

Which is why I am voting LIBERTARIAN. With overriding moral platform of LIMITED Government AND Personal Responsibility. Government cannot replace responisibilty and the responsible don't need governance.

Re:Other candidates

[madstork2000]

AMEN. The "John Edwards and I will pass..." respones were annoying. Kerry's answers were exactly what you would expect from a campaign. They offered no real insight, just stuck to safe statements that the majority of his potential voters likely agreed with.

To be objective, Bush's responses were much the same, in that they were targetted at his supporters. the key difference I saw though was he did back up his statements with examples of his actions. So at least he has concrete examples of doing something.

With Kerry the "will do"'s remind me a lot of the kids running for class president, saying they will get us longer lunch periods, longer times between class, and cheaper parking stickers. When we all know that the position has neither the mandate nor the authority to do any of those things.

Also, the nuclear weapons issue made me cringe. we have had the power and the technology to blow ourselves up many time over for the last 60 years. What has kept us from doing so is 1. staying ahead of the pack, and 2. continued research.

If we shelve everything we will just full behind, or apear to full behind. Then we would apprear vulnerable and thus become an even more appealing target to our enemies. I say "appear" because the likely scenerio is that the nuclear programs would be officially scrapped, then shifted to some blck budget operation so we look clean, but in reality it is the same old story. Just like when the bilogical weapons and chemical weapons were supposedly dismantled in the 60's and 70's.

Anyway, if Kerry were actually to follow through on the nuclear arms issue, we would be much worse off, by continuing to pursue those weapons technologies, the programs will at least remain more public and not be forced "underground". The more public it is the more checks and balances their will be in place to safe guard the use. If is secret, then the potential for abuse is much greater.

All in all this interview was IMO an excellent example of how naive Kerry is (or at least is appearing to be). Did he do anything as a Senator to back up his stated opinions? Did he sponsor any legislation that would fit with his agenda? Perhaps he did, and if he did why didn't he support his arguments with examples of actions?

-MS2k

Re:Other candidates

[BigGerman]

And why do we need "support of UN" to invade other countries?

I am NOT talking about Iraq situation, just in general.

Re:Other candidates

[JustinMWard]

No, you are wrong.

Researching it involves taking embryos that weren't going to turn into humans, anyway.

Saying that it kills embryos is like saying that masturbation kills sperm.

Re:Other candidates

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is the left is playing emotional games with people who have been diagnosed, or someone they care about has been diagnosed, by giving them some sort of false sense of hope.

...in the same way Bush is playing with geeks using the Mars mission?

Re:Other candidates

[jdbo]

> We shouldn't be giving false hope to people who have
> recently been diagnosed

I entirely agree, it's better to remove any hope from these people (even in the case of long-term neuro-degenerative diseases, which may take decades to affect their victims), rather than to take the horrible risk that they may feel any sort of false hope.

It is clearly the role of government to crush false hope wherever it may be found, by whatever means necessary!

Re:Other candidates

[forgotten_my_nick]

I've seen Bush talk in public. There is no way in hell he wrote those answers. Probably got someone in the office to do it.

Re:Other candidates

[hb253]

What exactly does that prove?

Re:Other candidates

[Anonymous Coward]

Masturbation does kill sperm.

Every time you have a wank, you are killing up to 100 000 000 sperm. Whereas, if you have sex and get someone pregnant, then you are only killing 99 999 999 sperm.

And in a few years' time, your fucked-up brat will most likely be out sniffing solvents, stealing cars, intimidating passers-by, vandalising property and beating up shopkeepers who refuse to sell them fags and booze. You know, there's actually a generation of kids growing up now who think dope is shit, for the simple reason that they can't be bothered to roll a joint properly!

Re:Other candidates

[Abcd1234]

Indeed... in fact, it could be argued that *not* issuing the tissue is simply a waste. After all, we're perfectly willing to make use of donor organs from humans who died. Why shouldn't the same be true of embryonic stem cells?

Re:Other candidates

[nutshell42]

Your "scientific reasons" are more rubbish of the we're proving definitions sort.

That said some points: This definition of "pregnancy" was initiated to accommodate the introduction of the process of in vitro fertilization, where fertilization takes place artificially outside the mother in a petri dish, and then the embryo is artificially introduced into the woman's uterus so that implantation of the embryo can take place.

Unless they vastly improved their methods, in vitro fertilizations means artificial fertilization of a number of eggs. A part is then placed in the uterus (where most simply die off) the rest is frozen for some time to see if they are needed and end in the trash after that. Mass murder.

As the well-known neurological researcher D. Gareth Jones has succinctly put it, the parallelism between "brain death" and "brain birth" is scientifically invalid. "Brain death" is the gradual or rapid cessation of the functions of a brain. "Brain birth" is the very gradual acquisition of the functions of a developing neural system. This developing neural system is not a brain. He questions, in fact, the entire assumption and asks what neurological reasons there might be for concluding that an incapacity for consciousness becomes a capacity for consciousness once this point is passed.

Ok, if this neural system might already be a sign of consciousness he'll still have to explain how there should be consciousness before the cells start differentiating (somewhere around day 6 iirc). So the morning-after pill should be all right.

Now if you're not one of the pro-life pet-scientists you should agree that consciousness before about week 20 is ridiculous.

To put it in other terms, would you rather invest $100 in an investment with a 6% return or one with a 37% return?

a 6% investment because 37% sounds LIKE SOME INVSETEMENT HAILALE MBUNGA EXPRESIDENT OF NIGERIA WUOLD SUGEST TOO YU

Re:Other candidates

[Abcd1234]

No, you're wrong...

It is the Judicial job to write laws(judicial activism).

The judicial system seeks to interpret law, strike down unconstitutional laws (check on the legislative and executive branches), or alternatively, to set precedents based on interpretation of existing laws. However, they do not *make* laws.

Re:Other candidates

[Anonymous Coward]

"Go RTFA before posting."

Didn't you notice? You can't RTFA unless you have FLASH! I can't have it at work, and I refuse to install it at home.

Perhaps you could post the text for those of us who can't RTFA?

Re:Other candidates

[j0nb0y]

not invading countries without the support of the UN
Before we invaded, France said that they would veto *any* resolution authorizing *any* use of force against Iraq. At that point, the UN became useless for accomplishing anything in regards to rogue nations (Iraq, NK, Iran, etc) in the UN, as there was no threat of force. The ball was then in our court, and we decided that 12 years of violating the treaty that ended the first Gulf War was long enough. It was our fighters that had been enforcing the no fly zones, and being shot at nearly every day. It was our decision to go to war. We tried to go through the UN. The UN is now a failure. Major reforms are needed before it will ever be very useful again.

abandoning important treaties like Kyoto
Oh, you mean the "US has to conform to very strict environmental regulations but no one else as to do jack shit" treaty? I honestly don't think anyone should have to wonder why we opposed that one.

Re:Other candidates

[drew]

I would have liked it to have been readable without squinting.

Re:Other candidates

[mcmonkey]

"That's the crux of the matter. If the embryo is human, killing him to get cells is no different from the Chinese executing convicts to harvest their organs; if the embryo is not human, then it's no different from killing a dog or a cat for medical research."

So you oppose Bush's policy on embryonic stem cell research?

Re:Other candidates

[Ohreally_factor]

It can make war more humane while making our military force more powerful.

Mod this up + 5 funny!!

The history of weapons development is littered with hopes that a weapon will make a war "more humane", going back at least to the Gatling gun.

One side effect of our current crop of smart weapons that I haven't seen anyone discuss is the temptation to use them in a "pre-emptive" (read aggressive) war, since they will supposedly minimize civilian deaths. "We're not going after the people of Country X (read Iraq), we want to help them. We're only going after the military of Country X (read Iraq)." The problem we are seeing today is that when the people of Country X don't want you there in the first place, you still have to occupy it with soldiers using conventional weapons. Precision weapons, whether nuclear or not, cannot occupy a country nor "pacify" a population. You need boots on the ground for that.

When we realize the need for boots on the ground, and we realize that those boots are going to have to be there for a long time, taking casualties, maybe we won't be so quick to launch a "pre-emptive" (read aggressive) war.

Re:Other candidates

[MikeMacK]

But embryonic stem cell research has much more PROMISE than adult stem cells. If that wasn't true we wouldn't even be having this debate. If adult stem cell research has done more so far, it is only because scientists are not able to fully explore embryonic stem cells because of policies the Bush administration has put in place (only allowing funding to study the currently known stem cell lines).

As for whether we are killing human beings, or executing prisoners for their organs, nothing I say to you is ever going to convince you that a human life does not begin as soon as a sperm fertilizes an egg (nice web site by the way, I wasn't aware that some Libertarians were pro-life, I would have thought the woman's rights had some value to Libertarians) and nothing you say to me is going to convince me that a collection of cells does not a human being make and that the rights of the woman to choose to carry those cells should not be decided by the government.

Re:Other candidates

[gid-goo]

Because its bullshit. Anyone who can't see a marked constrast between having ANYONE and George Bush in the White House is living in la la land. The Onion had it exactly right when Bush was elected with the headline "At last, our long nightmare of Peace and Prosperity is finally over." While I would rather have someone who more closely represented my own personal views, which are pretty liberal, the people seem to want a lot of red meat and a little policy wrapped up in some more red meat. Too much information and the candidate is a "wonk," too much playing nice and the other guys steamrollers you with illegitimate black babies, spousal drug abuse and secretly funded attack teams which lie about your war record.

Re:Other candidates

[madcow_ucsb]

Don't know how that's flamebait. Some of us really do find them both equally unqualified. I'm not registered as a democrat and so wasn't involved in their primaries, but it boggles my mind that the party had *one* job to do: find someone better than Bush. That should really shouldn't have been a difficult task...

Last election I was registered republican and was willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. He dropped the ball in my opinion (enough to make me distance myself from the party altoghether) And I've got a number of friends who feel the same way. Unfortunately the democrats did a piss poor job selecting a candidate that could attract us former republicans.

*sigh*

Now I'm registered libertarian, but find my beliefs a bit too hypocritical to fit well with them either...

Re:Other candidates

[Anonymous Coward]

I was born in Vietnam and I can tell you that I appreciated what American soldiers have done but not the politicians. They have no plan to win the war. The people who viewed them as liberator turned against them. Does it sound familiar?

Personally, I don't think very highly of Kerry but I'd rather vote for him then Bush. At least, he struggled to get ahead instead of having everything handed to him on a silver platter.

Re:Other candidates

[Politburo]

You didn't answer me in the other story.. maybe you will here:

When I mention the fact that people tell me I'd be wasting my vote because I side with Independents, they get all quiet and move on to the next person.

Did the people speaking to you say this to you? They're not out there to counter whatever myths other people have told you. They're there to register you to vote, and hopefully convince you to vote for their candidate. If you make it clear that you're not going to change your mind easily, they won't waste time on you. Did they prevent you from registering?

I guess their mottos are, "Please support Democracy and register to vote (as long as you vote for us)"

No offense, but duh. If you thought it was anything more, you were being quite naive. However, did these people actually prevent you from registering or withdraw their assistance after you mentioned you were independent?

Every time that happens, I see why I side with the independents.

The irony of that speaks for itself.

Re:Other candidates

[tsm_sf]

As far as the nuclear weapons (and the missile defense question) go,[snip]It behooves us to stay ahead of the curve.

"Ahh, but this bomb will turn the surface of the earth hotter than two suns, Mr. President".

Re:Other candidates

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush also talks about what he's actually done a lot more than Kerry

Yes he has, unfortunately. Otherwise there would be no need to stop him.

Re:Other candidates

[npsimons]

The theory that a vote for Nader/Badnarik is a vote for Bush stems from the idea that people who vote for change are probably voting for Kerry and not for Bush. So, by voting for a third-party, you're effectively taking a vote away from Kerry.

While I realize that the above may not be your personal opinion, I have to say to everyone who holds this opinion: fuck you.

I've heard this crap argument from everyone from friends to my own father (who raised me as a social liberal, fiscal conservative), and I have one thing to say in response to it: YOU are stealing votes from third party candidates. I for one can't, in good conscience, vote for Bush OR Kerry. And while you might trumpet the lesser of two evils, I pity you for your shortsightedness and lack of character.

Re:Other candidates

[Toby_Tyke]

"I wonder how Bush would do in a Prime Minister's Question time that Blair blazes through every Wednesday"

You know, a friend of mine was just saying the other day that we should abolish PMQ's. After all, it's not like Blair ever gives a straight answer.

I have a different view. I think PMQ's performs a very important function. It ensures we will never have a moron as PM. Oh, we've had planty of nutty, misguided, and downright evil PM's, but 20th/21st century prime minister could honestly be described as stupid.

Re:Other candidates

[Colazar]

Or you can do like I'm going to do and vote Democratic, and hope that Kerry *dies*, so that Edwards becomes President.

OK, I'm not quite that cold. But I do consider VP to be the tie-breaker. (That, and who I think is going to control Congress--Republicans (or Democrats) in charge of everything is *bad*.)

Re:Other candidates

[goodydot]

To put it in other terms, would you rather invest $100 in an investment with a 6% return or one with a 37% return? 37 percent?! Why, that's almost 39 percent!

Re:Other candidates

[Colazar]

To spread the cost, and, if it goes badly, spread the blame.

Because if we can't convince our allies that invasion is the right course, it probably isn't.

Pin me down, and I'd say that "UN support" is a very good policy, but not a 100% requirement. But I'm a CPA, and we don't give 100% to *anything*.

Re:Other candidates

[zardinuk]

For example, on the stem cell question, Bush makes it quite clear that people should stop thinking of stem cell research as a solution to all medical problems, and especially NOW, at the current time, we shouldn't be giving false hope to people who have recently been diagnosed.

This is interesting because John Kerry makes it clear that he would not pursue a missile defense program NOW, but would wait for more research to be done before implementing anything (basically saying he doesn't support it at all). In my opinion, the missile defense is an issue we need to be dealing with now, where biotechnology research doesn't require a huge injection of tax dollars because its all covered in the private sector, and there is no clear goal in sight. Defense spending is always beneficial to society, whether the weapons are actually used or not.

Also, I think there may be a need for nuclear weapons in the future, shooting down other missiles or volleys of missiles would be a pretty good use for them, off the top of my head.

I'm glad to see that both support manned space exploration and ITER research.

Basically, like gfxguy says, Bush has a record to tout, John Kerry does not. I don't trust John Kerry personally, I don't trust any democrat. Character matters a lot to me, more than the things they say they would do. As I recall, clinton said he was going to lower taxes.

Re:Other candidates

[AuMatar]

And to you I point out- the prisoner's dillema. As long as a significant portion of the population refuses to vote third party, doing so yourself just helps to ensure the worst possible option wins. Its just simple math. Unless you change elections to a system where you can vote for a third party and not harm the better of the big two, we're stuck witht his system.

Re:Other candidates

[bitrott]

Here is my problem with John F. Kerry. He has had 20 something years in the Senate to author any legislation he thinks is good for America. Exactly what is his record on producing such legislation. Name 10. Name 9. Name 2. He has been sitting on his ASS for 20 years. 20 years of Senate, and still we don't know where he stands. It seems as if he is for and against everything. Prolife and prochoice. Pro Gun, anti gun.

Yeah, that's called 'being a moderate'. How many politicians can effectively navigate the waters of public opinion to create a single, solid voting record for their constituency? Is it POSSIBLE that his constituency has complicated views on a variety of issues? Does he HAVE to 'stay the [party platform] course'?

And here you're proporting diversity of political opinion by supporting libertarians? I usually vote libertarian, but I know Conservative attack rhetoric when I see it.

Re:Other candidates

[MrResistor]

And while you might trumpet the lesser of two evils, I pity you for your shortsightedness and lack of character.

As I pity you for yours.

Really, it's just a difference of priorities. IMO the most important thing is to get Bush out, mainly because he'll take Cheney, Ashcroft, and the rest with him. The action most likely to achieve that is to vote for Kerry.

I may disagree with Kerry on a few issues, but I think he'll be a fine president. I don't need, or even want, a clone of myself or a puppet who just parrots my beliefs. What I want is someone capable of independent thought, who's not so blinded by their ideals that they can't at least give consideration to the opposing viewpoint.

I see those qualities in Kerry, and therefor conclude that he will be a fine president. Yeah I have some disagreements with him, but I have equivalent or stronger disagreements with every third party candidate I know anything about. A thoughtful man can be reasoned with, and is capable of changing his stance when he finds the available facts warrant it. So, I pick the one most likely to unseat Bush, which, if you recall, is my primary goal in this election.

Since I'm sure you're wondering what I meant in my opening sentence, here it is: Your shortsightedness is you apparant failure to recognize the extent of the damage Bush and company will do, not just in America but all over the world, if given another four years. Your lack of character is your refusal to do what's necessary to prevent that.

Remember, the only thing necessary for evil triumph is for good men to do nothing. I think you are a good man (social liberal + fiscal conservative = good in my book) who has allowed himself to be blinded by his ideals.

I don't mean to flame you necessarily, but it has always been my opinion that anyone taking so aggressive a stance has clearly missed something, and needs to be hit in the face with an opposing viewpoint.

Re:Other candidates

[jay95]

Not every issue is black and white!

Here is my problem with John F. Kerry. He has had 20 something years in the Senate to author any legislation he thinks is good for America. Exactly what is his record on producing such legislation. Name 10. Name 9. Name 2. He has been sitting on his ASS for 20 years. 20 years of Senate, and still we don't know where he stands.

Maybe if you got off YOUR ASS and actually did some research, you would find out what his record is. Or do you expect the US media to spoonfeed this to you?

Try this:
"In his almost 20 year career, he has sponsored (667) and co-sponsored (4117) a total of 4784 bills and amendments. By comparison, during the same years, John McCain only was associated with a total of 4247."

Or try his voting history

Prolife and prochoice.
He is prolife in his own life, but he doesn't want to force his opinion on everybody else who is prochoice. How is that a bad thing?

Pro Gun, anti gun.
He is for the assault weapons ban. That doesn't mean he is anti-gun. He still supports the right to bear arms, but there are limits on what arms we should be able to bear, don't you agree?

Re:Other candidates

[Anonymous Coward]

No shit. Kyoto was designed to pull the whackos on like an old boot. It is a policy that is designed to cripple the US economically, garbed in idealist environmentalist clothing.

So their standard response becomes "You're not for Kyoto? Oh, then you must hate our Mother Earth".

My standard response is "No I'm not for Kyoto. I like being on top and am not willing to give my position up for the "world's good", because I'm certain that the "world" doesn't have my best interests at heart.

Re:Other candidates

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I'm crazy, but invading another country under false pretenses seems extreme to me. Voting for somebody that was against the war seems like the sane choice. But, maybe I'm just crazy.

Re:Other candidates

[Anonymous Coward]

No offense, but duh. If you thought it was anything more, you were being quite naive. However, did these people actually prevent you from registering or withdraw their assistance after you mentioned you were independent?

I know several highly partisan people. The debates they get into get so heated the paint peels off the walls. But there's one thing they will agree one. Vote. It doesn't matter for who. Vote. The reason is, they love democracy and they respect it even over their own political views. So this story of people who suddenly aren't so excited when you turn out to only be interested in this silly democracy thing, and not their party in particular, is a little shocking to me. What are they there for? Just trying to improve their chances of getting power? That's pathetic, and as we see here, that's part of the reason they don't get as many people to vote with them as they could.

Re:Other candidates

[bajcsi]

By voting libertarian, while you make a sincere vote and support a multiparty system the reality of the sistuation is that it will NOT effect change. The third party candidate will not win anytime soon, as much as we would like to see it happen, because americans are currently too deeply ingrained in the two party system. Therefore, by voting libertarian, you are essentially throwing away your vote to apathy and might as well stay at home on election day.

i don't have any problem with you vote, I would love to see multiple parties have a chance, but i don't believe it's something that will occur for at least a few more election cycles...

Bajcsi

Re:Other candidates

[tekunokurato]

While I think you have an excellent point, once can STILL claim that wars are more humane with preemptive striking with (some) degree of fairness. If the preemptive strike is well-reasoned, then in theory it ALSO saves lives.

Not that I know of any preemptive strikes that are well-reasoned, of course.

Re:Other candidates

[el-spectre]

Incidently, the purpose of the Gatling gun was to make war more horrific. So scary that we would realize that it was pointless.

Dr. Gatling meant well, but it backfired.

I would suggest that a precision bomb is 'more humane' than a massive carpet bombing, but neither is what you'd call a happy thing...

Re:Other candidates

[Anonymous Coward]

Or do you expect the US media to spoonfeed this to you?

Well, they do seem to have the time to spoonfeed us forged documents. ;)

Re:Other candidates

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact still stands; a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush...

Re:Other candidates

[Anonymous Coward]

And this wonderful new system is???

Re:Other candidates

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, masturbation does kill sperm (since they can't live outside the human body).

-Munch "Good concept, bad analogy" Wolf

Re:Other candidates

[Anonymous Coward]

So Bush says.

But Bush's economics professor from Yale says Bush told him things that agree with the tone of the documents. As does another former-Texas politician, (Democrat).

And yet Bush can't produce any, of what should be a great many, documents to support his version of events. The very abscense of documents of where there should be a mountain of paperwork lends credibility to claims of his crew sanitising his record by destroying unflattering documents, which must have been practically the entire record since all they can find is a dental checkup.

Contrast that with Kerry, who obviously wasn't in the somewhat more laxed guard, where many documents were produced to support his version of events.

But one thing we do know. Bush is an iveterate coward, who surrounds himself with other cowards like Cheney and Rumsfeld (who *literally* can't tell the difference between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.) and prides himself on being able to abdicate his authority to those knuckleheads, and absolve himself of any responsability, because if God wanted it to be any different he would have heard a flaming rosebush talk to him. He spends the lives of better men cheaply. He sent Powell to lie to the UN with information he knew was false. More than ONE THOUSAND of my countrymen's lives later his excuse is, "Hussein wasn't a nice person. Heh heh. What do you want me to do, freedom hater." The least he could do is be like Teddy Rossevelt and put his kids into the lions teeth, and have them not come back. And in Teddy's case, the cause was actually just, though poor comfort that was I'm sure.

Re:Other candidates

[AuMatar]

Runoff and Concordet both do so. Basicly any system that isn't plurality and where your vote falls through to secondary choices should your primary fail.

Re:Other candidates

[Politburo]

We're getting deep into hypotheticals here because neither of us were actually present for the situation described by the GP.

So this story of people who suddenly aren't so excited when you turn out to only be interested in this silly democracy thing, and not their party in particular, is a little shocking to me.

IMO, the probable reason he was blown off was because he wanted to engage the GOTV workers in a debate about 3rd parties. That's simply not what they were out there to do. So long as they continued to assist him in registering to vote, I don't see a problem.

I hope you understand there is a lot of animosity from Democrats towards 3rd parties after the 2000 election. To have someone interested in registering and then bait you with a question like "Why do people tell me I'm wasting my vote when I vote for a 3rd party?" would piss me off too. Could the GOTV workers have handled it better? Probably. But I don't fault them for what they did, assuming they did not deny the GP the opportunity to register.

Re:Other candidates

[thrash242]

He is for the assault weapons ban. That doesn't mean he is anti-gun. He still supports the right to bear arms, but there are limits on what arms we should be able to bear, don't you agree?

No. This means he is anti-gun. The AWB was either a step toward cumulatively banning all guns, or a feel-good piece of legislation that takes away our rights for no good reason, depending on how you look at it. The fact is that "assault weapons" aren't any more dangerous than hunting rifles or any other semi-automatic firearms. In fact they're *less* powerful than many hunting rifles. If you believe otherwise, you've obviously been duped by the outright deceitful (at least about this issue) media and anti-gun politicians.

Re:Other candidates

[thrash242]

I don't think we do. The UN is a corrupt organization that can't even agree that what is going on in the Sudan is genocide and agree to do something about it. The leader of that country's government, which has killed millions based on race, is on the UN "human rights commission", which to me means that the UN is a joke.

I think the US should pull out of the UN, personally. We are a sovereign nation, and if we see fit to intervene, we can. Let me state, however, that I am against intervention in general, but if we do intervene, I don't think we need the UN.

Re:Other candidates

[Darby]

Now I'm registered libertarian, but find my beliefs a bit too hypocritical to fit well with them either...

You find you own beliefs hypocritical?!?
You're either the most honest person ever, or you meant something else by that.
Care to clarify?

Re:Other candidates

[Anonymous Coward]

What about IRV's too?

http://www.fairvote.org/irv/

Re:Other candidates

[Anonymous Coward]

The people who claim that Bush stands firm are only repeating what they have heard from others.

Bush stood firm on Iraq having WMD, even though none were found to have been created after the 1st Bush war.

Bush stood firm on not Nation Building, but invaded Iraq claiming that they knew where illegal weapons would be found.

Bush stood firm on letting the UN vote to approve action against Iraq until he discovered that he would not get the required votes to go to war.

Bush did stand firm on a veto of the 87 Billion dollar war bill if provisions on VA health care were not taken out.

Re:Other candidates

[Archangel Michael]

THAT is not what I asked, is it? I asked for anyone to show LEGISLATION that Kerry has AUTHORED, not where he stands on any issue. I understand that he doesn't stand for anything, or more accurately, that he stands for everything.

I am libertarian. Limited Government is NOT left, NOR right. If you are LEFT and LIBERTARIAN, then you are confused. Nobody has a "RIGHT" that depends upon action of others. If you have to do something to me, for you to excersise your "right" it is NOT a right, IE taxing people to support things you THINK others deserve and calling it a RIGHT is wrong.

Right to keep and bear arms is a RIGHT, clearly outlined in the Constitution, yet I don't see anyone trying to raise taxes so that everyone who WANTS a gun can HAVE a gun. But under your typical Republicrat (both parties), they think it is PERFECTLY acceptable for people to be taxed for health care, something that is NOT a right. Go Figure.

Re:Other candidates

[Archangel Michael]

Prolife and prochoice.
He is prolife in his own life, but he doesn't want to force his opinion on everybody else who is prochoice. How is that a bad thing?

If he PERSONALLY thinks Abortion is Murder, then he SHOULD be against it professionally. Taking a moral stand is a GOOD thing, don't you think?

How bout if I phrase it this way. Personally I am Prochoice, but politically I am against all abortions. Not possible you say? Exactly, I say.

Re:Other candidates

[damiam]

Kerry and Bush have some similar opinions. They are not the same. Anyone who thinks so has is completely uninformed about their platforms.

Now, Kerry is much closer to Bush then, say, Nadar or Badnarik. But since they have no chance of winning, the pragmatic vote for change is Kerry. In the meantime, you can lobby for a saner non-plurality voting system that would allow people to vote for third parties without wasting their vote.

Re:Other candidates

[bjtuna]

I, for, one, am likely voting Libertarian because here in Idaho, Bush is going to win by a 50-60 point spread. My vote against Bush - be it for Kerry, Nader, Badnarik or Kodos - is a *statement*, so I might as well vote with the candidate whose views most closely align with my own.

Re:Other candidates

[Aexia]

If he PERSONALLY thinks Abortion is Murder, then he SHOULD be against it professionally. Taking a moral stand is a GOOD thing, don't you think?

I think it's the difference between being a vegan in your personal life and opposing measures to mandate veganism.

Whereas, your stance of being a meat-eater while attempting to force others to become vegans is not dissimilar to efforts by closeted Republicans to oppose gay marriage.

Re:Other candidates

[wealthychef]

The only way the American people won't face the "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" type of dilemma is the following: Instant Runoff Voting. http://www.fairvote.org/irv/ This is something we need to get going and fast! Election reform is not about money, it's about the two major parties' death grip on the process. IRV and proportional representation would be very helpful. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/prlib.htm

Re:Other candidates

[Darby]

In my opinion, the missile defense is an issue we need to be dealing with now,

Any particular reason?
The biggest threats we face have nothing to do with missles.
Even if missles were a major issue in this day and age, given the ridiculousness of the whole Star Wars concept, why exactly is it so imperative to spend billions on something with practically zero chance of working?

Character matters a lot to me, more than the things they say they would do.

Really? I assume from this that you are extremely anti-Bush given the record he has. You didn't really make it clear since you mostly spoke against Kerry rather than for anything.
Kerry has the advantage of not having lied to start a war. He also didn't dismantle our anti-terrorism apparatus leading up to the greatest attack on our soil in our country's history to go after dirty pictures and terminally ill people smoking dope.

Yep, character is important to me to. That's why if we had any left in our country Bush would have been beaten to death in the streets by now as the traitor his actions have proven himself to be.

Re:Other candidates

[Anonymous Coward]

For instance, on further Nuclear weapons, he was straight to the point. I paraphrase, "We will discontinue research for next-generation Nuclear weapons, they are not needed."

His actions tell a different story though. He was absent from roll call 349 when research into low yield earth penetrating nukes was approved. If I remember correctly he gave a nice speech in opposition but didn't bother to actually cast his nay vote.

Re:Other candidates

[zardinuk]

Any particular reason?

Yes, because people don't consider a missile strike simply because it hasn't happened yet. The terrorists used Jets in 9/11, but they're using home-made missiles against israel right now, you bet your ass they'd use larger missiles if they could assemble them.

I'm not going to say much about your anti-bush rant. He didn't lie, Kerry and Clinton are both proven liars. 9/11 commission vindicated Bush. Everyone in America thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, we knew he did at one time and now we have no idea where they are. It's a moot point.

And if you think character means beating people to death in the street for their opinions, you're an idiot.

Re:Other candidates

[ahodgson]

but there are limits on what arms we should be able to bear, don't you agree?

If you can think of a way to actually keep them away from criminals, then sure. Keeping them away from only from law-abiding citizens accomplishes nothing.

Re:Other candidates

[bonkedproducer]

I can clarify from my standpoint, since I feel much the same as the parent poster on this - there are many things the libertarians stand for that I disagree with - I'll prepare to be modded down here...

I support the war in Iraq, I think it should have happened a lot sooner, preferably while Clinton was still in office. My friends, and my comrades were fired upon daily by Iraqi forces for almost 10 years with little but slaps on the wrist in response. Had we removed Sadam from power sooner, childhood friends of mine would not walk with a permenant limp from the Kobar towers bombing in 96, and their best friends would not have been buried in a flag draped coffin before they had a chance to live life and achieve their potential.

But, the Libertarian Party is strongly against the war in Iraq, and many in high positions there have said some very venomous things about those of us that feel the war was the right thing to do in Iraq. Many fall into the "anybody but Bush" group as well, and are vocal about that. With all that said, I feel that when I look at the LP, I have to admit their platform and beliefs are the one I agree MOST with, and will be casting my vote for them with the knowledge that I will not be waking up on November 3rd with Michael Badnarik as the President elect of the country I love enough to have laid my life on the line to defend.

Perhaps it comes down to the fact that I feel strongly that I should vote FOR something instead of against something - and I feel that is a more persuasive argument and goal than any other that has been placed before me.

Re:Other candidates

[Anonymous Coward]

I refuse to install it at home

Out comes the balance scale... On the one side, we have the righteousness of not installing morally wrong software. On the other side, we have the interest in learning about morally wrong political practices. My my, what a ethical nightmare this is! It appears that one of your values might just have to be compromised! I feel so, SO sorry for you, I really do.

Re:Other candidates

[Anonymous Coward]

That's BS and you know it. I could easily say that getting my finger cut off is not fundamentally different from the Chinese practice of excuting prisoners for their organs. My finger is a living collection of cells, more so than an embryo. It is alive, has veins, arteries, nerves and a skeletal structure, none of which an embryo possess. Women ovulate once a month, you probably jack-off 100x more than that in a month. Do you consider that killing a human life too? All of the components are there, so by your twisted logic, how is that any different?

What next? "You're on the verge of peritonitis, but don't get that appendix removed, it's alive and you'll be no better than those people who research hypothermia by freezing human subjects."

Give me a fucking break. There are more important issues that _people_ are facing right now that could be greatly supplemented from additional embryonic stem cell research.

Re:Other candidates

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you think Kerry wrote his? For that matter, what makes you think ANY politician with enough money writes any of their own words?

Re:Other candidates

[hambonewilkins]

Just so you know, in America "fags" means homosexuals, not cigarettes. Just so you know.

Re:Other candidates

[Anonymous Coward]

splitting hairs a bit? i would think they make common law...

Re:Other candidates

[MrResistor]

If we shelve everything we will just full behind, or apear to full behind. Then we would apprear vulnerable and thus become an even more appealing target to our enemies. I say "appear" because the likely scenerio is that the nuclear programs would be officially scrapped, then shifted to some blck budget operation so we look clean, but in reality it is the same old story. Just like when the bilogical weapons and chemical weapons were supposedly dismantled in the 60's and 70's.

What a crock!

You can only destroy the world once. Since, as you were so kind as to point out for me, we have had many times that capability for decades, developing further mass-destructive capability is a pointless waste of resources.

Yeah, MAD seemed to work fine in the Cold War, but since the demise of the Soviet Union our stockpile is mostly useless, even as a deterent. Our Cold War stockpile still exists, and that's public knowledge all over the world. But that didn't stop 9/11, did it?

And you call Kerry naive...

Re:Other candidates

[bluewee]

From the Simpsons

Man: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away! ..........

Re:Other candidates

[Darby]

I can clarify from my standpoint, since I feel much the same as the parent poster on this - there are many things the libertarians stand for that I disagree with

OK, I see what you mean, and I can see how that might be what the OP meant.

I think you're missing the whole point of the vast majority of people's objections to the Iraq war though.
The problem that anybody I've heard talking about it isn't that we're there, it's that GWB lied about everything regarding it.
If he had made the case that Saddam was a bad person or whatever, then We The People would have had a chance to discuss the merits of the points. At that point, even if I disagreed with those reasons, or that they formed an appropriate justification for an invasion, then so be it, but at least there is integrity involved.
As it is, he made up a bunch of crap. Presented blatant lies, half truths, and actively mislead the American people. To this day he has not provided a proper justification for doing it.

Do you see the difference?

Personally, I feel his actions amount to no less than treason. I would feel that way regardless of whether I thought the war was the greatest thing ever, or if I thought it was the worst.

Re:Other candidates

[Darby]

you bet your ass they'd use larger missiles if they could assemble them.

You ignore the point that a missle defense system won't do shit about it. That's hardly a problem when a suitcase bomb would be easier and more effective

I'm not going to say much about your anti-bush rant. He didn't lie,

What?!?!?
He lied about the Uranium. He lied about WMDs. He said we knew exactly where the massive stockpiles were, not just that at some point he had them.

9/11 commission vindicated Bush.

Read the report again.
He seriously downgraded terrorism investigations to go after terminally ill people smoking dope.
It didn't completely condemn him, but it sure as hell didn't vindicate him.

Everyone in America thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction,

Right, that would be due to the *lies* Bush told about them.

Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick.
If you are truly that out of touch with reality, it is pointless to try and reason with you. You are beyond the reach of sanity if you actually believe the things you wrote when they are 100% proven false. I pity you, but I pity the rest of us more if you're actually voting based on the delusions you are suffering from.

And if you think character means beating people to death in the street for their opinions, you're an idiot.

Character means standing up for freedom, not cowardly supporting those who try to destroy it as you are doing.

Re:Other candidates

[bonkedproducer]

GWB didn't lie about it - the definition of a lie requires that the teller know it is untrue. No one prior to the war ever presented a remotely credible argument that Sadam didn't have the weapons, even those that opposed the war stated that the evidence available showed he had them. I for one still believe he did. I was a munitions expert in the USAF, I was also an instructor for NBC (Nuclear, Biologic, and Chemical) Protection and can tell you that it would be possible to hide enough weapons to kill everyone in the middle east in an area roughly the size of a football field.

It's not hard to find proof of other items such as a wing of MIGs buried in the desert that took us months to find, and we knew where they were hidden - (meaning a Fighter Wing, not the wing of an aircraft) Also, what the people that scoff at the advice that duct tape and garbage bags can protect you from a biological or chemical attack fail to realize is that many components of chemical and biological weapons are completely benign before mixed, and even if found would not be considered a WMD - Bleach is a common example, if you found a warehouse full of bleach or chlorine you wouldn't call it a find of WMD, but with less than a days work that could be combined with other "normal" chemicals to produce dangerous chemical munitons.

You can't have it both ways - either Bush, and Kerry, and the French, the Russians, the Brits, the vast majority of the UN, all intentionally lied and said the Iraq had WMD, or you have to say they were all wrong - not demonize an individual as a liar because he said the same thing the people you agree with (who you do not call liars) said.

Re:Other candidates

[MrResistor]

Defense spending is always beneficial to society, whether the weapons are actually used or not.

Really! How is expending massive amounts of resources on something that's not at all useful beneficial to society? Would you mind detailing the benefits to your everyday man on the street of being able to destroy the world even more times over than we already can?

Also, I think there may be a need for nuclear weapons in the future, shooting down other missiles or volleys of missiles would be a pretty good use for them, off the top of my head.

Sure, as long as you don't mind completely frying your power and communications grids! And how great would it be to have that cloud of radiation drifting across the country! Seriously, that's about the stupidest idea for nuclear weapons use I think I've ever heard.

Bush has a record to tout, John Kerry does not.

Bullshit. Kerry has a 20 year record to tout. Turn off the Faux News and try doing some basic research for yourself.

You may disagree with his beliefs, and that's fine. You have that right in America, at least as long as we can prevent another PATRIOT Act from being passed. But saying he doesn't have a record is pure and utter bullshit.

I don't trust John Kerry personally, I don't trust any democrat. Character matters a lot to me, more than the things they say they would do.

And yet you trust Bush and company, even though they're PROVEN liars? You Bush-puppets never cease to amaze me!

As I recall, clinton said he was going to lower taxes.

I won't try and defend Clinton, but at least none of his lies resulted in 1000+ dead Americans.

Re:Other candidates

[gfxguy]

That's a bit disingenuous... it may not be perfect but we have a missile system right now, we don't have a cure for Parkinson's.

And it's really a cheap shot that while George Bush is the first president to approve funds for stem cell research, and those funds have increased every years he's been in office, to say that he's not giving people any hope... he's simply not giving them false hope.

Re:Other candidates

[MrResistor]

I've been considering re-registering as a Republican for a while now. I figure then I'd get to vote against the greater evil twice!

Re:Other candidates

[Ironsides]

Really? You can sidestep congress and just pass those things on your own?

Actually, The President can sidestep Congress and use "Execuitive Orders" to do just about anything he dam well pleases. And ALL presidents have used this method for passing things into law quickly. The execuitive branch has the power to overturn it and Congress can always pass a law that (if it isn't vetoed) overturns it. Also, the next President can execuitive order a previous one to oblivion. SO yess, The President can sidestep Congress. It's just usually frowned upon in some cases.

Re:Other candidates

[Ironsides]

Tactical weapons research...taking out military targets. That's worth researching. It can make war more humane while making our military force more powerful.

But I don't see any advantages in having nuclear weapons more devasting than what we already have.

They ARE researching tactical nukes. It has been easy to make larger and more powerful nukes. I think China detonated a 100 Megaton or one in the atmosphere at one point. We KNOW NOW how to make larger nukes. Its making small efficient nukes that are hard. Like ones that are weaker than 20 kilotons. (Remember I SAID EFFICIENT). In nuclear weapons, 1-10 kilotons is not that easy to produce without having a lot of fallout. Tactical nukes are on the wish list of weapons.

Remember kiddies, the first nuclear weapon ever used was detonated in New Mexico,U.S.

Re:Other candidates

[jadavis]

It is clearly the role of government to crush false hope wherever it may be found, by whatever means necessary!

A substantial number of people in this country feel it is immoral to use embryonic stem cells for research. The ban on using new embryonic stem cells applies only to federally-funded research projects.

So, one might also ask: is it the role of government to confiscate resources from some people (122 million people are outside of the federal tax system, according to this source) and conduct research that many of those people do not believe in?

I prefer there to be embryonic stem cell research. But I would not favor confiscating other people's money to do it, particularly if those people are not like-minded about the type of research.

Re:Other candidates

[Darby]

GWB didn't lie about it - the definition of a lie requires that the teller know it is untrue.

It isn't that he said Saddam had them. It's that he (and his administration) said that they had this quantity of this particular agent and we know exactly where they are located.

It's the whole Niger Uranium thing which was plagiarized from a student paper. When this evidence was refuted, they outed a CIA operative in retaliation.

It's the fact that he said that Iraq was an immenent threat to us which it quite clearly wasn't. He was a bad egg (to totally understate), but there is zero evidence that he had any plans against our nation. Even if he did, the idea that he was a major threat is silly. Here's why:
You believe he still had these mass quantities of weapons. If that were true and it is also true that he was a threat to us, then I see no possible explanation for why our soldiers weren't attacked with them.

Seriously, he was a grave threat to us way over here, yet when his own country is invaded, he won't use his fearsome arsenal?
It doesn't add up.

You can't have it both ways - either Bush, and Kerry, and the French, the Russians, the Brits, the vast majority of the UN, all intentionally lied and said the Iraq had WMD, or you have to say they were all wrong - not demonize an individual as a liar because he said the same thing the people you agree with (who you do not call liars) said.

Kerry, the French, the Russians etc. didn't start a war over it which has had the affect of stirring up terrorist recruitment, enriching Halliburton, and taking our forces away from the people who actually *did* attack us.

It's not a lie to say you think somebody has something (assuming you do), but it is a lie to say for a fact he does, and he's coming to murder your children with them blah blah blah in the interest of starting a war rather than presenting the facts and an actual case for it.

That is the issue I have with it, which was really the point I was trying to make.
It isn't a question of being for or against attacking Iraq, it's the dishonest manipulative way in which it was done. It's the fact that his cronies have been egging this on since long before 9/11. It's the fact that this war is comnpletely unrelated to those events, but Bush used that as an excuse to both push for the destruction of freedom at home while calling anybody who disagree d with him a terrorist and a traitor and to start a war of profit with zero benefit for American safety.

All the while, Afghanistan is back under the control of the brutal warlords who preceded the Taliban. One city is under control of the Government we set up, and heroin production is back. We really should have cleaned up that mess before wading in somewhere else. Especially somewhere that was no threat to us and had nothing to do with the other events.

Re:Other candidates

[EvolutionKills]

Um, no. Stem cell research is not a 20-year-out technology. Injecting stem cells into a wounded area, such as an injured spinal column and manipulating them to regrow functional tissues may be a 20-year out technology. But one of the main uses of stem cells is as a much-improved model for human tissues. Current non-stem cell lines used as research models come from cancers that have been harvested (such as HeLa cells) or from non human mammals. These are of limited use as models, since cancer cells and normal tissue cells are fundamentally different, often in ways that can't be anticipated. Stem cell research will provide researchers of human diseases a much more useful and accurate model *immediately*. That is not an exaggeration. Labs are set up and ready to go for this stuff, and we may well see cures or treatments advanced by years or decades when the restrictions are removed. That may mean the public sees results as near to immediately as one could fathom (read: as soon as the treatments pass through FDA trials and testing).

Fundamentally, I think this is a case of gross misrepresentation of the issue at hand by interested parties, which is not an uncommon tactic, and I certainly wouldn't go waving my hands around about a 'conspiracy' or anything. El presidente has cast the issue into a strictly moralist light, confusing the public into believing that there's questionable science and benefits to stem cells (they aren't questionable--ask any biologist involved in disease research), while also making it appear to be a clear-cut ethical choice (it's not--the fetuses are already being thrown out at fertility clinics). In sum, stem cell research is extremely promising 20 years out, but is every bit as promising on the order of a month out (from when their use is condoned), and present no more of an ethical dilemma than using, say, a car accident victim's organs for the benefit of another human being.

If you don't believe me, fine, go read about it for yourself. But learn how to read a scientific journal, talk to a biologist, talk to an ethicist, a priest, or a rabbi, or whatever; don't just take the president's word for it during a time when potentially life-saving technologies are being used as ammunition for politics.

Re:Other candidates

[madcow_ucsb]

Hmm probably not the best word....

Ok, take firearms. LP generally says it's none of the government's business. I agree with that. But then I've got a problem with a guy down the street mounting a minigun on the top of his jeep. If I try to analyze the difference rationally, there's really no difference, but it just doesn't sit right.

So I find myself agreeing with the arguments and yet I have an arbitrary limit to how far I'll accept them that's difficult to rationalize. So clearly there's a contradiction there.

Similar thing with drugs, for example. I think marijuana should be able to be sold right next to the cigarettes. But I'd prefer they kept the heroin out. Again, an arbitrary line there.

Maybe "moderate" would've been a better term. I just don't like having beliefs that I can't fully justify.

*shrug*

Re:Other candidates

[Nataku564]

You, sir, rock.

Re:Other candidates

[Nataku564]

Hm ... you know, he did say short sightedness ... and thats pretty much what I see in your post. Goal this election - get bush out. Goal next year ... well the republicans are obviously going to put up some horrendous evil, and your goal will be to keep Kerry in office. That, or Kerry will prove himself to be Bush-Lite, and your primary goal will be to get him out of office ... and so the cycle continues.

Wake up dude. Me, or anyone else voting for a third party does not contribute to Bush staying in office. The 50% or so of all voters that VOTE FOR BUSH are the ones that put/are keeping him in office. Go talk to them instead of redirecting your frustration at people who obviously also believe that Bush shouldn't be in office.

Re:Other candidates

[Minna Kirai]

littered with hopes that a weapon will make a war "more humane"

The submachinegun made war a lot more "humane". It became possible to keep surrendered prisoners alive, instead of killing them all.

One could also argue that the lengthy war between the USA and USSR from 1951-1989 was relatively humane.

Re:Other candidates

[Minna Kirai]

Let's get this straight. First, you think that Kerry never did much in government:

Exactly what is his record on producing such legislation. Name 10. Name 9. Name 2

And then you decide to support the Libertarians, who don't want government to do anything:

I am voting LIBERTARIAN. With overriding moral platform of LIMITED Government

Sounds like Kerry is the man for you! With him leading the government, it won't do anything!

Re:Other candidates

[Minna Kirai]

The fact is that "assault weapons" aren't any more dangerous than hunting rifles or any other semi-automatic firearms. In fact they're *less* powerful than many hunting rifles.

So if you had 10 friends, and you all decided to kill 1000 kids in a school, you'd prefer hunting rifles above AK-47s?

It's bizarre that Bush can claim to be the strongest anti-terrorism candidate, when he's allowing terrorists to buy these excellent tools from right inside the USA.

Re:Other candidates

[blahfern]

I may disagree with Kerry on a few issues, but I think he'll be a fine president.

Let me know what issues you disagree with Kerry on and I'm quite sure I can find you a quote from him that supports it.

Your shortsightedness is you apparant failure to recognize the extent of the damage Bush and company will do, not just in America but all over the world, if given another four years.

Shortsightedness!? Can you explain to me what exactly Kerry has stood for in the last 19 years as Senator? It seems to me that his positions have come about rather suddenly (shortsightedness?) 'Bush and company' have endured many hardships regarding the nation: Economic consequences of the Clinton years; Corporate scandals; Hostages in China; 9/11. In spite of all this, they have created the opportunity for people to create the jobs (over 3 million new jobs and counting) to grow our economy. Not to mention taking the necessary steps to protect our citizens against the ever-growing threat of TERRORISM...remember?

And again, I continue to disagree with your views on third party choices. To me, I even see a non-vote as a vote. Meaning that it fine for someone to cast a vote as they see it, even if it is futile for the final outcome.

Re:Other candidates

[Minna Kirai]

is a *statement*, so I might as well vote with the candidate whose views most closely align with my own

But you still have to choose what statement you want to make.

By voting LP, you (and 100s of others like you, I'm assuming) give them a fraction of a percentage point higher in national polling, which will be ignored and forgotten by Nov 4th.

By voting Kerry, you might be able to push him up to winning the popular vote, even if he loses the electoral college. That will both reduce Bush's effectiness in office (because he'll be percieved to lack a mandate), and encourage future election reform in the USA (such as abolition of the Electoral College)

So it depends on whether you put more priority on a pro-Libertarian or anti-Bush message.

Re:Other candidates

[Minna Kirai]

Since there are good , scientific reasons to believe that the embryo is a human being, then there is a strong case to be made against embryonic stem cell research.

If that's true, then there's an even stronger case to be made against in-vitro fertilization (aka test-tube babies, aka reproductive therapy).

To save money, the doctors always make a bunch of embryos at once, then implant them one at a time until one starts growing. Once the pregancy is going well, the leftovers are just thrown out. MURDER! And it's hundreds of times as common as stem-cell research would be. We must ban it right away!

Re:Other candidates

[riprjak]

Considering as far as I understand it, the US struggles to have half its eligible voters turn out to elections; does it really matter who votes for who when the chances of even a majority of the population actively supporting the winning candidate is fairly slim???

Universal, compulsory sufferage is the only way to fly. Compulsory Sufferage is the price of true freedom.

Re:Other candidates

[zardinuk]

Character means standing up for freedom, not cowardly supporting those who try to destroy it as you are doing.

You're so ridiculously hyprocritical it's funny. What do you think the war in Iraq is? A land grab? You need a dose of reality, crackpot.

You sound like you're just upset that all the leaders you support have no integrity. Namely Clinton, but Kerry has got a few red flags, well documented in "Unfit for Command". How bout those forged documents I'm hearing about lately? That's the kindof shit that makes me sick.

You can't really do much about the suitcase bomb, but there are detectors in Washington DC and port cities that could potentially stop something like that. A missile is a pretty obvious way to get a bomb into the country. Saddam Hussein used them. I would say an easier weapon would be a makeshift unmanned aircraft. Continued development of the PAC missile, the airborne laser, these are all good efforts. But keep bitching.

I don't know where you get the impression that I'm out of touch with reality. You basically confirmed all my comments, but continued expressing your hatred for George Bush. I think you're also upset because the Patriot Act makes you feel paranoid that law officers will bust down your door and raid your indoor marijuana garden. I glean this from your thinking that funds were diverted(?) from terrorism to the drug war, and your "standing up for freedom" insanity. Am I right? You should quit smokin the dope, it rots your brain.

Re:Other candidates

[zardinuk]

Really! How is expending massive amounts of resources on something that's not at all useful beneficial to society? Would you mind detailing the benefits to your everyday man on the street of being able to destroy the world even more times over than we already can?

Allow me to enlighten you. Back in the 80's, Jimmy Carter cut a lot of defense funding, among other bad decisions. This resulted in thousands of people losing their jobs. I was living in southern california at the time. I remember property value plummeting and interest rates skyrocketing. Also, a lot of defense spending goes into jets, rocket engines, communications technologies like satellites, the GPS system, earth observing satellites (environment), I could go on and on. This is really quite a simple concept, I don't think many of your liberal buddies would argue with me.

Sure, as long as you don't mind completely frying your power and communications grids! And how great would it be to have that cloud of radiation drifting across the country! Seriously, that's about the stupidest idea for nuclear weapons use I think I've ever heard.

It would be better than standing by and watching the nuclear missiles hit our cities! A cloud of nuclear fallout over the ocean is not so bad in comparison. This is quite simple also, perhaps I didn't communicate my point well the first time.

Bullshit. Kerry has a 20 year record to tout. Turn off the Faux News and try doing some basic research for yourself.

A 20 year record. That says a lot. During that 20 year record, he didn't sponsor a single bill. He just voted, and his votes were pretty bad. Another patriot act? Has your life been turned upside down by the infernal patriot act? :( By the way, I don't have cable.

And yet you trust Bush and company, even though they're PROVEN liars?

When was this proven? Darby, who I replied to a few minutes ago, agrees with me that it wasn't proven. See thats the thing. I believe Bush has a set of moral values, and I trust he wouldn't do that, and what would he possibly have to gain? Everybody knows your approval ratings go down when the hippies start calling you a war monger.

I won't try and defend Clinton...

I'd rather have Clinton than Kerry.

Re:Other candidates

[PipianJ]

I don't mean to flame you necessarily, but it has always been my opinion that anyone taking so aggressive a stance has clearly missed something, and needs to be hit in the face with an opposing viewpoint.

Doesn't sound to me like you're much better on the aggression issue. Think before you speak.

Re:Other candidates

[Bush Pig]

You must be an Australian.

I think the reason that Australia is actually a more robust democracy than the US, and that Australians seem to have less of an impulse towards Fascism, is largely down to compulsory attendance at a polling station on election day. And once you're there, you might as well vote.

Re:Other candidates

[j_w_d]

Here is my problem with John F. Kerry. He has had 20 something years in the Senate to author any legislation he thinks is good for America. Exactly what is his record on producing such legislation. Name 10. Name 9. Name 2. He has been sitting on his ASS for 20 years. 20 years of Senate, and still we don't know where he stands. It seems as if he is for and against everything. Prolife and prochoice. Pro Gun, anti gun.

You've just explained why Kerry would make a good Libertarian candidate. He knows there are multiple sides to any issue, isn't afraid to change his mind, and obviously has helped to limit big government by not expanding it through stupid new laws. Bush in contrast knows only one side of any issue - this looks decisive to those with an IQ of 100 or less, is obviously antiliberty - otherwise Ashcroft would be looking for a job, and has problems with his father that are a significant hazard to the nation and should not be ameliorated in the Whitehouse showing Dad how it should be done.

Re:Other candidates

[jay95]

Taking a moral stand is a GOOD thing, don't you think?

Taking a moral stand is fine, but when you start trying to codify your morals and religious beliefs into the law is where I draw the line.

Re:Other candidates

[jay95]

So if you were being shot at, which would you rather have aimed at you? I would think an assault weapon would make it easier to "mow down" a group of people.

Basically, my point is what purpose is there for owning an assault weapon?

Re:Other candidates

[Doc Ruby]

We already invaded Iraq - that was Bush. If you're interested in Kerry's role, he voted to give the President the option, "as necessary to defend America", when presented with the President's evidence of WMDs, and his staff's public talk about "mushroom clouds" and "45 minutes until deployment", as well as fake Niger uranium delivery documents. Kerry will do what a reasonable President must do: supply the currently committed troops with enough force to stabilize their position, then transition to a UN force led by the US to get us out. Without actually being president, and with the current liar in the office, it's too early to guess what strategy will actually work best, once the actual classified government facts are uncovered for the new president. We're in the Bush nightmare. I welcome the chance to wake into some kind of Kerry pain in the ass, rather than the living hell a second Bush term would be. And the simple facts of American elections are that voting for a third party is a vote for Bush. Don't kick yourself later - help yourself out now.

Re:Other candidates

[riprjak]

:) that is exactly the point.

Our federating politicians understood us completely. While we are here we may as well do the bloody job right...

Thats why our voter turnout is 95+% (enrollment is compulsory but not actively enforced) and generally better than 98% of people enter valid ballots.

Re:Other candidates

[Darby]

You're so ridiculously hyprocritical it's funny.
You clearly have no idea what that word means.

What do you think the war in Iraq is? A land grab?

Presumably, you think it's "Standing up for freedom".
There's really no other way to interpret your ravings.
Given that there was no possible way in which Iraq could be perceived as a threat to us, it's obviously not that.
Now, look at who is in the administration that decided (well before 9/11) to invade Iraq. We have Donald Rumsfeld who sold the gas Saddam used to murder a crapload of Kurds. Hmmm.. freedom fighter or war mongering opportunist? That's clear. He doesn't care how many people dies if he makes a buck.
Dick Cheney? Hmmm... Well he's making bank off of this occupation. Even if he has to short the people who are dying to make him that buck.

No, the reality is that this is a war to bury a lot of bodies.
Of course, one so well informed as yourself knows that we had a deal with the Kurds that they would revolt and that we would back them. Of course, when it came time to honor our word, we stepped back and let Saddam use *our* gas on them without a word.
And of course, your great wisdom includes the fact that Iraq was selling oil for Euros and if that spread, our economy would tank.
Sure, but it's all about the freedom. Even if we have to give up ours.
Cowardly traitors like you make me sick.
You obviously don't know the difference between Patriotism and jingoism, because you're demonstrating the latter.

You sound like you're just upset that all the leaders you support have no integrity. Namely Clinton

Typical delusional idiocy. I never claimed to support Clinton. Additionally, you think a blowjob is worse than murder. Unless you're giving it, right Sparky?

How bout those forged documents I'm hearing about lately?

What, the ones that say the same thing as the real ones but weren't the actual copies?

Oh wow, the President is proven to be a cowardly deserter, but they copied off of somebody else's paper. That's much worse, really it is.

A missile is a pretty obvious way to get a bomb into the country. Saddam Hussein used them.

Hot tip, Sparky: We're more than 200 miles from Iraq. The atlas is your friend.

think you're also upset because the Patriot Act makes you feel paranoid that law officers will bust down your door and raid your indoor marijuana garden

No, not really.
I'm just a bit bothered by an administration that thinks putting old dying people in jail for smoking a plant is more important than terrorists that they were warned by 7 different countries in increasing detail, who were planning on attacking our freaking country.
I'm sorry you're so sick and deluded that you have your priorities so out of whack.

Re:Other candidates

[fantastic amounts]

That this qualifies as "insightful" is troubling indeed. A. Kerry would not have unilaterally invaded Iraq if he had been president--he is not surrounded by maniac ideologues who are bent on the idea of taking control of Iraq oil, putting a military foothold in Iraq, and who think (quite idiotically, as we now see) that democracy will flourish throughout the middle east after Saddam's removal. Kerry HAS made statements indicating that he would have voted the same way, as a senator, even knowing that WMD were not there. But making the (poorly considered) decision to give the president war powers as leverage is hardly as bad as BushCo's decision to invade unilaterally. The Bush decision is insubstantially different from, say Hitler invading Poland. (Spell out some compelling differences for me, and convince me...I'm listening.) B. Gay marriage. Bush wants a constitutional amendment banning it. Kerry does not. Nevermind, for a moment, that a constitutional amendment will never happen and that it's just an empty gesture to the nutjobs on the far right. It's a significant difference between the two candidates. C. OK, I'm going to change the subject from FCC blah blah blah and point out what is undoubtedly the most significant difference between the two candidates. If Bush is reelected, and any of the supreme court justices keeping Roe v Wade alive retire or die, he will appoint a conservative judge--a nice young one who'll serve for decades--and give right-to-lifers a great chance of making abortion illegal in America. Kerry won't. Let's not even talk about clear skies, healthy forests, or any of the environmental catastrophes Bush has fostered to line pockets of businessmen. Let's not even talk about a third of our deficit resulting from tax cuts for the rich. Or the patriot act. Or Guantanamo. Or, ritual torture in military and CIA-run prisons, sanctioned by Rumsfeld. Or, sidestepping Geneva conventions. Bush's personal council advised the administration on this one--it is simply incredible that people accept all the shocking precedents of this administration and are still willing to propose that the two candidates are the same.

Re:Other candidates

[jdbo]

> I prefer there to be embryonic stem cell research. But I
> would not favor confiscating other people's money to do
> it, particularly if those people are not like-minded about
> the type of research.

The "confiscating other people's money" rhetoric is nice touch, a sure-fire way to get people offended over how their tax dollars are used.

It's also an absurd complaint in any real economic sense- as long as you're paying for health care, a certain portion of those monies are goig to be going towards privately-funded research - which means that some (insignificant fraction) of your health care $ is going to stem cell research. Get over it.

Furthermore, the federal funding for stem cell research limits the research (actually very few potentially viable lines are allowed, fewer than the announced # of allowed lines) in such a way as to emasculate the research possibilities; allocating fewer funds would have been preferable to these restrictions, but the other approach is used to look good to the layman, while appealing to those who lobby oppose the research (who will look more closely at the actual results).

Finally, this ignores the fact that the stem-cell research ban
can be used as a club even against research groups/foundations who accept fed. funds for unrelated research, while also pursuing stem cell research using private funds. This is also in that "actual results" category.

FYI, the "The Growing Class of Americans Who Pay No Federal Income Taxes" report you cite might easily be read as "The Growing American Lower/Poverty Class". Those who live in poverty ( a quickly growing class) get to pay no taxes - and what luckie duckies they are!

Re:Other candidates

[BorgCopyeditor]

Same to you, punk. I hope you don't live in Florida, where Nader was illegally placed on the ballot at the last minute by an executive order by Jeb Bush, using the fucking hurricane as a pretext.

While you're exercising your ineffectual vote, ask yourself why the president's brother would go to such lengths (as indeed he did in the 2000 election). Do you suppose it's in the interest of fairness?

BUSH WANTS YOU TO VOTE FOR NADER!!!

Re:Other candidates

[thrash242]

You've obviously bought into the media spin if you think it makes it easier to "mow down" people.

If I had to be shot at with either an M16 or a typical hunting rifle, I'd pick an M16. They shoot a .223, which is barely bigger than a .22, if you know what that is (hint: they're mainly used for target practice and shooting small rodents). Deer hunters typically use .30 or larger caliber.

See, I think you think that an "assault weapon" (I use quotes because that's not even a real type of weapon--it's made up to sound like assault rifle and thus, to confuse the two) is fully automatic. It's not. It's semiautomatic. That means you pull the trigger and *bang*. You pull the trigger again and *bang*. Contrast this with automatic, which means that as long as you hold the trigger down, it rapidly fires. Many rifles and all pistols are semiautomatic. The weapons banned are not machine guns. They don't shoot any faster and they don't use any more powerful ammunition. If you look into the (now expired) ban, the criteria include things like: flash suppressor, bayonet lug, pistol grip, etc. These things are all cosmetic or at most ergonomic and have no effect on lethality. This is why all manufacturers had to do to make their rifles legal was to change minor cosmetic things. Of course, the media calls this a "loophole", but it's not, that's just the arbitrary criteria that is in the ban.

I'm not exaggerating at all when I say this: the ban only affects civilian guns that *look like* military guns. The civilian versions are semiautomatic and are made to be next to impossible to convert to automatic. It's a ban on "scary looking" guns, nothing more, nothing less.

As I've said, I have not heard *one* argument for the ban coming from someone who actually understood weapons and the ban. The media knows that most people will just accept what they say and sure enough, most people think that the ban is of fully-automatic weapons like the AK-47. Fully automatic weapons have been heavily restricted since 1934. Before that, anyone could buy a Thompson Submachine gun (a tommy gun--what gangsters use in movies) for about $200. Now you have to have a special license that is quite hard to get to own an automatic weapon.

As for purposes for owning one: many people collect them (since they *look like* military rifles), they're accurate, they're reliable, they're durable, and the main thing is that there is no logical reason to *not* let someone have one.

Re:Other candidates

[BorgCopyeditor]

GWB didn't lie about it - the definition of a lie requires that the teller know it is untrue.

How convenient. If I want to convince the kids in my neighborhood to break into the house of the people down the street who are away on vacation, I can say "There are great big bags of candy just waiting there for us to take." Since I don't know that it is untrue (assuming I haven't been in the house and that there may in fact be candy there), I cannot by your reasoning be said to have "lied" when the kids I formed into a gang come back and tell me there was no candy at all.

Re:Other candidates

[jdbo]

Actually, we almost have an unproven, untested, deployed-only-for-political-reasons missle system "right now".

> And it's really a cheap shot .. to say that he's not giving
> people any hope... he's simply not giving them false
> hope.

OK, I admit that we don't have a cure for Parkinson's (and a host ofneurological diseases)... but what other practical hopes for a cure do we have beyond stem cell research? Maybe the same fairy that will make our missile defense system work will also be able to cure all those afflicted!

Seriously, I think that providing funding (which the majority of citizens approve of) while applying restrictions that make the funding very unattractive, even detrimental (details which do not make the front page, but will be noticed by and appreciated by those vehemently opposing the funding, and are naturally paying more attention) is called being disingenuous.

It's like the old political trick of having a photo-op with the Boy Scouts (i.e. insert popular group here) just before cutting their funding; the majority will see the photo and associate the politician with the popular group, but won't necessarily notice that the story attached is about the politician undermining that group.

It's not what Bush professes to do that crushes hope, it's the disingenuity in how he undermines these professed goals that crushes hope.

Re:Other candidates

[BorgCopyeditor]

He has been sitting on his ASS for 20 years. 20 years of Senate, and still we don't know where he stands.

He's been making speeches on the floor of the Senate, in campaigning, and before that as an activist, then as a district attorney, for 30-something years! Maybe you could look at a few of those statements instead of putting your ignorance on display, and incidentally just parroting Republican talking points.

Also, I'd call hunting down and prosecuting BCCI was pretty significant work. You might start by googling that if you want to know more.

Re:Other candidates

[BorgCopyeditor]

Kerry has got a few red flags, well documented in "Unfit for Command". How bout those forged documents I'm hearing about lately? That's the kindof shit that makes me sick.

Oh, boy. WTF does the action of CBS news have to do with Kerry's integrity? Second, the book you mention, by contrast, does have a lot to do with Bush's integrity, given that key members of the SBVFTs were outed as Bush campaign operatives. That's all for now.

Re:Other candidates

[BorgCopyeditor]

We are a sovereign nation, and if we see fit to intervene, we can.

So, I suppose you supported Iraq's decision to "intervene" in Kuwait?

Re:Other candidates

[thrash242]

If I was going to kill 1000 kids in a school, I would think a submachine gun would be ideal. Or I'd use bombs, which is what those terrorists did. And no, I'd never do such a thing, but I'm answering your question objectively. The question is meaningless, however, since the terrorists had access to *fully automatic* assault rifles, which have nothing to do with "assault weapons". You still don't seem to understand the former ban. You might as well say that the "assault weapon" ban expiring will lead to more terrorists having nukes. They're not the same thing.

"Assault weapons", as defined in the ban, are *NOT* machine guns, assault rifles, submachine guns, etc. Those things have been very heavily restricted since 1934. If you don't believe me, and you have some semblance of interest in the truth, look it up yourself. In fact, screw that. In an effort to smite ignorance of this issue once and for all, I'll post links:

• Definition of "Assault Weapon--the site is against the ban, but the info is accurate"
• Here is another definition, if you prefer an impartial site
• Definition of Semiautomatic
• Defintion of Automatic--contrast with Semiautomatic

Now, if you still support the ban, then that's fine, but I at least want you and anyone else who reads this to understand it, and not fall for the anti-gun media spin. And I'm not being a paranoid nut by saying that. The media *reguarly* implies that the ban is a ban on automatic weapons (machine guns), but it's simply not true. TV news programs have even shown fully-auto weapons firing while talking about the ban, which IMO is really dishonest. That would be similar to showing a violent angry mob attacking people and vandalizing property while talking about anti-Bush/war/America/whatever protestors that happen to be peaceful and orderly.

You see, terrorists don't, by nature, obey laws and they get automatic illegal weapons on the black market or some such place. Same with criminals. Do you really think a criminal is going to buy a weapon (whether legal or not) through proper channels where they can be traced to the weapon? And if they wanted automatic weapons (machine guns), they still would be out of luck, as they're still restricted and it's highly unlikely that a criminal or terrorist would be able to get through the huge amount of red-tape (including a comprehensive FBI background check) to get a license. You see, the media is deceiving you; AK-47s are *still illegal*.

There are very few instances of terrorists using AK-47s or any other assault rifle in the US that I know of, mainly because they're hard to aquire and are very indiscreet as well. They generally use bombs, boxcutters, planes, etc. The terrorists that I see with AK-47s are in other countries where they have easy access to them.

Re:Other candidates

[thrash242]

Nope.

I never said everyone would agree with us if we chose to intervene. They obviously don't. However, we're not trying to conquer Iraq. Iraq was trying to conquer Kuwait.

Most of the world didn't like Iraq invading Kuwait and drove them out.

Sovereign nations can do whatever they like; if other countries don't like it, they (being sovereign nation) can attampt to stop the first nation.

I simply meant that the US is not the slave of the UN and can act on its own (as can other nations).

Re:Other candidates

[Minna Kirai]

If I was going to kill 1000 kids in a school, I would think a submachine gun would be ideal.

If you want to kill a lot of children or other relatively non-threatening targets, a fully-automatic weapon is actually a mistake. You just waste ammo on bursts when single precise shots (at most, COM + head tap) is all you need. The best weapon for that is a short-barrel autoloading (not autofiring) carbine with a nice, big, 50-round mag. The kind of thing that's now legal to carry all over the USA. (Load it up with hollowpoint)

been very heavily restricted since 1934. If you don't believe me

I know all about J Dillenger and St. Valentine's Day, thanks.

You see, terrorists don't, by nature, obey laws and they get automatic illegal weapons on the black market or some such place.

Even though terrorists & other criminals are willing to break laws, they take risks of discovery whenever they do. Legalizing something makes it easier for criminals to carry and acquire.

Do you really think a criminal is going to buy a weapon (whether legal or not) through proper channels where they can be traced to the weapon?

No, I think they'll find a gun shop near the target city, and rob it just prior to the scheduled rampage. Although, since many terrorists don't expect to survive their own assaults, they won't care about leaving paper-trails traceable to themselves.

AK-47s are *still illegal*

Not all AK-47s are machine guns. There are semi-autos.

Re:Other candidates

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why I am voting LIBERTARIAN. With overriding moral platform of LIMITED Government AND Personal Responsibility. Government cannot replace responisibilty and the responsible don't need governance.

This assumes that the majority of people are responsbile.

Of course they're responsible. This is why they sue everybody else, because the other party wasn't being responsible.

Re:Other candidates

[The Panther!]

Dude, this is some funny shit. I haven't laughed out loud at a forum post in a loooong time. Thanks!

Re:Other candidates

[bonkedproducer]

Well, speaking of convenience - if every one of the other kids who argued against you going in there said "We shouldn't go in - but they do have big bags of candy" then you would have to call them liars by your definition too. This is what pisses me off about people saying "GWB LIED TO SEND US TO WAR." But then say that the French and Russians, and people like Kerry "DIDN'T LIE" you can't have it both ways.

I wouldn't fault you on that if you didn't single out the one person you disagree with, but if you siad you felt that everyone who claimed they had them lied. That is where I am not being two-faced here, but many who call him a liar are.

Re:Other candidates

[gekko513]

I read the F article, and he says that ongoing research will not have it's funding cancelled, but no research that is based on cells that aren't already harvested will get funding.

The scientists says that this severely limits their work, so, yes, Bush isn't supporting stem cell research.

Re:Other candidates

[Anonymous Coward]

What's humane about making the USA even more powerful?

Re:Other candidates

[zardinuk]

Whoop de doo. A lawyer! You're talking about a lawyer. Read about Zach Exley, Here.

If you think an overanxious lawyer reflects the integrity of George Bush, you're an idiot. Thinking that Zach Exley is coordinating between the Kerry Campaign and moveon.org is easier to believe. I don't know of any "bush campaign operatives". Chris LaCivita doesn't work for the bush campaign.

The swift boat vets have been upset with John Kerry ever since his 1971 testimony. 250 vets don't just fall into place by as a result of someone elses scheming.

Re:Other candidates

[zardinuk]

You clearly have no idea what that word means.

What are you, a child? You confirm that you understand the hypocrisy and try to defend yourself in the following paragraph.

Given that there was no possible way in which Iraq could be perceived as a threat to us, it's obviously not that.

Oh nevermind, apparently you don't understand. I was referring to the war to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein. I had no idea what you were talking about, Donald Rumsfeld selling GAS to Saddam Hussein. Here in the US, we have outlawed chemical weapons. We don't manufacture gas. Donald Rumsfeld attempted a diplomatic relationship with Saddam Hussein but was stabbed in the back. You can read all about it here. It's so ridiculously stupid of you to find Donald Rumsfeld at fault. You are truly an idiot, and now you're officially a liar.

Dick Cheney? Hmmm... Well he's making bank off of this occupation.

Care to explain this? This may very well be a lie, I don't have time to refute you, you've already been discredited. Dick Cheney makes "bank" as the vice president already. He went in their a multi-millionaire.

Typical delusional idiocy. I never claimed to support Clinton. Additionally, you think a blowjob is worse than murder. Unless you're giving it, right Sparky?

No, I already told you, all I care about is integrity. Clinton lied to the nation. This is really sad, you've sunk to homosexual accusations. Maybe someone will step in and save you with some real arguments.

What, the ones that say the same thing as the real ones but weren't the actual copies? Oh wow, the President is proven to be a cowardly deserter, but they copied off of somebody else's paper. That's much worse, really it is.

What are you talking about now? Copies? No they were copies of forgeries, haven't you heard? CBS News is probably going to be investigated for criminal acts. There is a cover up going on by Dan Rather, claiming that they are authentic without releasing the source. If you're one of those that believes "sure they were forgeries, but they're TRUE!" then you're an idiot. Why don't you go look for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Hot tip, Sparky: We're more than 200 miles from Iraq. The atlas is your friend.

I don't even know why I bother with you crackpots. You're more afraid of a nuclear bomb in a suitcase than missiles. Ok.

No, not really. I'm just a bit bothered by an administration that thinks putting old dying people in jail for smoking a plant is more important than terrorists that they were warned by 7 different countries in increasing detail, who were planning on attacking our freaking country. I'm sorry you're so sick and deluded that you have your priorities so out of whack.

Ok, so you're a druggie who thinks that the patriot act was designed to catch druggies. Bill Clinton's administration, Sandy Berger, was given an opportunity to have Bin Laden on a plate, and knowing he was a threat passed up the opportunity. Recently, Sandy Berger removed and apparently "lost" a bunch of files from the national archive. Personally I think this guy is worse than any druggie like yourself, but he gets off free. This is truly an injustice. As for your claim that 9/11 could have been prevented, the 9/11 commission found that George Bush could not be held accountable for that. This is another moot point. By the way, throwing druggies in jail is not a priority of mine. I think they're mentally ill and need psychological help. But to say that Bush "diverted" funds is pure nonsense. You can't say that. When funding is cut for one thing, it doesn't automatically go somewhere else, does this make sense to you?

Seek psychological help, it's never to late to turn your life around. And if you ever get arrested under provisions of the Patriot Act, your right to privacy will protect you in court, unless you're a illegal terrorist ;)

Re:Other candidates

[JenniefromtheShire]

I couldn't have said this better myself, fantastic_amounts. The fact that you aren't getting modded _up_ for what I feel are very insightful comments re: the Bush v. Kerry candidacy is equally troubling to me. I do not believe that Kerry is Bush Light nor is he trying to be.

Kerry is a former Navy ensign who might very well have used force against Saddam based on what he knew about the WMDs or lack thereof--and I disagree with him on this point, because I did and do not support the war in Iraq--but I can see that he would have gone about a military action against Iraq very, very differently (and probably more effectively) than Bush & Co. have done. By doing all of the above (what you just mentioned re: alienating our major global allies, pissing off the UN, tacitly approving the use of torture in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere), we've basically dug ourselves into a hole from which it is going to be near-impossible to get out. As President, Kerry can at least mitigate the further chaos in Iraq by rallying the UN back to our side and garnering support from our allies with a little honesty and humility for a change. And gee, while we're at it, maybe we can actually DO something in Sudan instead of sidestepping the genocide factor as Bush is now. That is a job I would hate to inherit, but I applaud Kerry for stepping up to the challenge--and he has my vote this November.

The agendas of the right-wing Religious Republicans and the more egalitarian Democrats in not just the Iraq war, but in other areas of foreign and domestic policy, are so markedly different that it boggles my mind that people can still be referring to Bush and Kerry as Coke and Pepsi as they did with Bush and Gore in 2000. If you're really not bothering to do much reading on where the candidates stand on the issues, then I guess it's understandable (but not condonable) that you would feel that way. I would respectfully refer anyone who needs some reading up on the issues to go to georgewbush.com and johnkerry.com to read up on how markedly different these two candidates actually are--or else watch the upcoming debates (starting on Sept. 30).

Re:Other candidates

[WhiplashII]

Actually, if you are not in a "swing state", your vote doesn't really matter so you CAN vote third party. A Democrat (or Republican, for that matter) in Utah can vote any way they want, it won't effect the outcome. And at least that way a message will be sent!

Re:Other candidates

[Archangel Michael]

I think Murder is okay. Quit tring to legislate your moral and religious beliefs into the law.

Re:Other candidates

[zardinuk]

Researching it involves taking embryos that weren't going to turn into humans, anyway.

Calling a human embry anything but a human would be calling your infantile self inhuman. What makes you any less human? What is intelligence? Is DNA splitting and duplicating a form of decision making? Does the cell make a choice to replicate? Is it morally right to kill animals because they are not higher thinkers?

Saying that it kills embryos is like saying that masturbation kills sperm.

Imagine if the product of you masturbating was that a human embryo is produced that would grow under the right conditions. You would flush it down the toilet and always wonder what that kid would be like. You might even be worried that the kid would actually grow into a sewer baby, so you drop your wad in a bucket of acid before sending it down the drain. Eventually a company springs up that will BUY your wads off of you! So you mail off a packet of crygenically preserved wads to the research factory. Later on you find out that those wads are in their mid-teens and researchers are trying to see if they can transplant a human brain, to no avail. One of your wads was combined with a bee by some ambitious scientist, but instead of having wings and a stinger, just ended up a slimy and disfigured. Another company springs up to put these "non-humans" to sleep.

Point is, with such a promising outlook for adult stem cells, do we really want to go down the embryonic stem cell path? Cloning these "non-humans"? Does a cloned embryo constitute a non-human? Obviously the human no longer has his indivuality. What if someone agreed that researchers were able to take their cloned self and perform inhumane experiments on them? This is a pretty complicated question, as are most matters of ethics. It's a can of worms, that's what it is. Sortof goes hand in hand with the abortion issue. I say lets preserve our individuality. Whats the harm in a natural death, by the way? Is it really such a bad thing to die of natural causes?

Re:Other candidates

[WhiplashII]

Your post sums up the question of stem cells (and it's relative, abortion) quite well. Neither side can be made to see the other position, because neither side can really PROVE what they believe. There simply are too many unknowns, what constitutes a human, what constitutes child, what constitues baby?

The question is, what do we do when there are two groups of people who believe fundamentally different things. In our society, we tend to say majority rules - except when the majority tries to circumvent the rights of the minority. This is the quandry - the majority of people seem to believe that stem cell research is wrong. But this is seen to take away the rights (to better health care, or whatever) of those who believe differently.

There is no perfect answer. However it is chosen, there is no "right" or "wrong". History says it will be decided by chance (as in something else like the war in Iraq getting Bush elected will decide this unrelated issue).

Re:Other candidates

[Bob Uhl]

Did you even bother reading the links I provided? A sperm is not human; an egg is not human. Among other reasons, they haven't the right number of chromosomes, and they do not develop. But there are very good reasons to consider an embryo human. Once the sperm and egg have united, there is a thing which will--provided the right energy and nutrient--will grow, and grow, and grow until it is an old man. There is no magic line separating an old man from a middle-aged one: they are the same person, but one has lived longer and has deteriorated. There is no magic line separating a middle-aged man from a young man: they are the same person, but one has lived longer and changed. There is no magic line separating a young man from a boy: he has changed a lot, but each change has been gradual and slow. There is no magic line separating a boy from an infant, no instant on one side of which there is a baby, and on the other side of which is a walking, talking, running-around-and-breaking-things boy.

Likewise, there is no magic line separating the embryo from the infant, no instant where there is radical change. Sure, an infant has been born: what mystical property is imparted by passing through the birth canal or being cut from the womb? Sure, an infant has fully-developed organs: but they didn't just appear fully-developed; it was a slow and gradual process.

There is one 'magic line': that of conception, when two expendable things join and become something quite a bit different, something which given the right conditions will someday be an old man with grandchildren on his knee--and every step from zygote to coffin is a slow and gradual building on what went before.

Now this is all from the scientific end--there are religious reasons to think that perhaps life doesn't begin at conception, but slightly later. Some religions might actually make a good case for life not beginning until birth, or one's first sentence. But law should never be based on religion, no?

Re:Other candidates

[Bob Uhl]

Unless they vastly improved their methods, in vitro fertilizations means artificial fertilization of a number of eggs. A part is then placed in the uterus (where most simply die off) the rest is frozen for some time to see if they are needed and end in the trash after that. Mass murder.

Yup--at least the bunch which end up in the trash. I wouldn't agree for the bunch which simply fail to implant: they're like the vast majority of naturally-created embryos which just don't make it.

Now if you're not one of the pro-life pet-scientists you should agree that consciousness before about week 20 is ridiculous.

I don't think anyone is arguing that consciousness exists that early. Why is consciousness the arbiter of life, though? Are you not alive when you sleep? Perhaps you argue that a sleeping man will wake up--but a man in a coma may not; is he not alive? Perhaps you argue that the man in the coma was once conscious--I don't see that there is any mystical life-endowing property to having once been awake.

For that matter, a mushroom is no less alive for not having a mind. It seems to me that immediately after conception there is a human being: one without a brain (or any other organs), but a human being nonetheless. He's certainly not a very useful one, but given enough time he will grow to be. This new thing is not his mother; he's not his father: he's genetically no different (modulo mutations) now then he will be in 70 years. There will never be some instant at which he changes: every change from that first cell division until his heart stops beating will be slow and gradual: a cell springs to life here; a cell dies there; nutrients are absorbed here; waste is excreted there. There is no magic point at which the brain starts functioning, as you admit; there is no magic point at which any of the organs function, or at which the limbs appear as normal.

Heck, the same applies to everyone. Is there some magic point where one hits puberty? Nope--it's a slow and gradual process. There's no dividing line, no single instant one side of which one is a physical adult and the other side of which one is a child. Likewise, there is no single instant one side of which one has a brain, or a heart, or legs--it all happens slowly.

The only single instant one side of which one is one thing (actually, two things) and the other of which one is something utterly different is conception. Everything else is slow and gradual, and no argument I know of which justifies treating an embryo as less alive than a foetus, or a foetus less alive than an infant, cannot also be used to justify treating an infant as less alive than a child, or a child as less alive than an adult.

Now, some people (e.g. Singer) are intellectually honest enough to admit that their arguments apply to infants and small children, as well as to adults. They may be despicable, but at least they are honest.

Re:Other candidates

[Bob Uhl]

nice web site by the way, I wasn't aware that some Libertarians were pro-life, I would have thought the woman's rights had some value to Libertarians

Ummm...they are concerned with the mother's rights. They are also concerned with the child's rights. That's the whole thing. Everyone agrees that a parent has to care for a child which has been born, even if that child is a drain on resources (well, everyone except folks like Singer, who is honest enough to admit that arguments in favour of abortion apply to infanticide and killing of anyone one must provide for); the disagreement is on whether that same duty applies before birth.

What do you see as so mystical about passing through the birth canal that on one side of being born one may be destroyed, while on the other one is protected?

We're all collections of cells, after all. What makes us human is our genes (not our limbs: the congenitally crippled lack those; not our abilities: mental defectives lack those)--and those genes are there from the moment of conception.

Re:Other candidates

[Bob Uhl]

If that's true, then there's an even stronger case to be made against in-vitro fertilization.

As it is currently practised, yes. Lots of things have been very common, but are now considered beyond the pale; why should a particular reproductive practise not be one of those?

Re:Other candidates

[jericho4.0]

Are you pissed of at strategic voters, or the fact that the system is broken? People who vote for the lesser of two evils are trying to get _some_ power out of their vote. True, if every one of these folks followed their heart, they could change the system, but they probably did that once or twice already, and have seen the results.

I'm glad you can find the moral backbone to vote for an 'alternative', but strategic voters are not your enemy, apathatic non-voters and the powers that feed them are. For myself, I think the system is fundementaly flawed, and probably unfixable from within. The revolution will be televised.

Re:Other candidates

[WhiplashII]

Just to nitpick, note that you are saying esentially new research is dumb because I can't think of a way to resolve problem X. For example, using a nuke to knock down missiles would be bad because of the EMP. But what if the research was to find a way to make the EMP directional (such as a smaller detonation surrounded by a reflector dish, dish is destroyed but only after directing the EMP)? It is hard to say what research will work and what won't, so that makes a lousy argument. It is possible to say what research is possible to have results in line with what society needs, and so that makes a better argument, at least to me.

Re:Other candidates

[AuMatar]

Except that you still really can't- every election there's one or two states that surprise everyone and vote the opposite way than expected. Do you really want to risk your state being almost one of them, and you screwing it up? For either side- either as the underdog who could have won, or as the lead dog having a chunk decide to vote 3rd and losing the state for them.

Re:Other candidates

[Minna Kirai]

why should a particular reproductive practise not be one of those?

I'm not going to address that question. But supposing you do believe that fertilized embryos deserve protection, as Bush claims to when justifying his opposition to new stem-cell lines. If so, then you should attack in-vitro fertilization first, since it's the much larger user of the technique.

To do otherwise is hypocrisy. The same kind of hypocrisy as animal rights activists who protest animal experimentation, but don't try to stop McDonalds or Walmart Supercenter. Scientists are an easy target to attack on "ethical" issues, because so few voters know scientists personally. They seem a disconnected elite.

Bush doesn't want to appear anti-family by going against in-vitro. After all, if he's anti-abortion, he should be pro-reproductive assistance, right?

Re:Other candidates

[mrfunnypants]

Blanket statements do not work. Give an example of these potential models, using stem cells.

Currently Murine models (or other animal models) are the standard:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cm d= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1505164 1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?c md= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1524017 9
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?c md= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1518435 4http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd =Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=151456 90

However some studies are coming out NOW using stem cells (note countries):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cm d= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1534521 8
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?c md= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1509328 2
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?c md= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1529356 2

However I have problems with some of your statements. It is silly and irresponsible to state that models derived from stem cells could lead to cures, or as you stated "we may well see cures or treatments advanced by years or decades when the restrictions are removed"

Stem cells will increase our understanding of single cell models and possible simple state models of organs. But they will not expand on knowledge on whole organs, yet. As you well know single cells do not make tissues or whole organs. Cells working together in a plethora of functions make tissues and organs. We are still years away from making such complex models and thus would not immediately benefit from such stem cell models.

Secondly, just because you and I disagree with why people are against stem cell research, it does not make their arguments any less valid. I respect those who are against said research due to their religious beliefs, or developmental biology views. Based upon this respect I believe we must understand both sides and compromise on said research, something which Bush has done actually rather well. Unlike other things, Patriot Act anyone?

Re:Other candidates

[dcmeserve]

...they are concerned with the mother's rights. They are also concerned with the child's rights. That's the whole thing.

Yes, that's the real crux of this issue, isn't it: we have a conflict between fundamental rights of the mother and the fundamental rights of the unborn child.

I have a suggestion:

1. Recognize that the human fetus has full rights to health and life.

2. Recognize further that the mother has an additional right -- let's call it a "veto" right, over the life of the fetus, up to the point where it could reasonably survive on its own. Up until that point, it is making demands on the mother's body, and if those demands are somehow unreasonable, the mother must be able to take action. And I don't think anyone can be considered qualified to decide if the demands are reasonable or not except the mother herself.

For example, no one would tell a woman she can't do anything about an ectopic pregnancy (where the fetus is growing in the fallopian tube). But it's far less defensible to "do something" if the baby is the "wrong" sex. Really, there's a whole continuum of problems (or percieved problems) that could happen, and who is to say where the cutoff point is between one that must be dealt with vs. one that must simply be left alone? Only the mother can have that right.

Of course, I guess this boils down to the status quo, but I think it's a useful way to think about it. It's not saying the fetus doesn't have rights, and it also renders the whole "when does life begin" debate moot. It just recognizes the reality of the situation and grants the mother an additional right in order to deal with that reality.

I think the pro-life movement is really wasting its energy. Trying to pass laws to cram a narrow viewpoint down everyone's throats is just about the least productive way to go about achieving their goal. They're trying to change culture, and you can't do that by fiat -- that's a really naive (and unintelligent) approach. Plus, when you push hard against people, they will tend to push back, even if somewhat irrationally. The movement should take a more embracing approach: accept the two points above as the reality, and simply work to convince women to decide not to abort. Not through antagonistic means (putting shocking pictures in public, protesting/blockading/bombing clinics, etc.), but by simply advising in an intelligent manner. People are reasonable if you talk to them reasonably.

Re:Other candidates

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that there are not infinite funds, would you spend money on less-hopeful research or more-hopeful research?

If that argument held up, then Bush's funding ban would be purposeless. Which techniques are most promising is a scientific question, and Bush is emphatically unqualified to answer them. Those questions should be delegated to, you know, government scientists. Instead of just picking respected scientists and letting them decide, Bush has micromanaged the choice away from them.

(Compare against his micromanagement of the Marine attack on Fallujah)

Re:Other candidates

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because getting shot by a .22 can't kill you...

Nice argument.

Re:Other candidates

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, also how would you keep the king of England out of your face?

There are a shitload of "law-abiding" citizens who became criminals. Having guns easily accessible is ridiculous. I strongly believe that is the reason the U.S. has the highest crime and homicide rates in the world.

Re:Other candidates

[CompSurfer]

"The United States is not a democracy. There isn't a democratic nation on the face of the earth. In a true democracy, citizens vote on everything and the majority rules. We have a representative republic. We vote for the representatives who write and vote on the enactment of laws and regulations. For a nation of this size to be a true democracy, the citizens would have to spend so much time voting on everything that there would be no time to get anything done. Additionally, the majority does not rule in the United States. If the majority ruled, Al Gore would be president, instead, we have the electoral college that actually elects the president."

Re:Other candidates

[MrResistor]

I see the damage Bush has done so far, and will continue to do as long as he is allowed, as damage that will take a long time to repair. How is it short-sighted to try and minimize long-term damage?

Then again, in case you missed it, I'm not aware of a third party candidate that I consider a better option than Kerry, so for me it's kind of a moot point.

Re:Other candidates

[MrResistor]

Allow me to enlighten you. Back in the 80's, Jimmy Carter cut a lot of defense funding, among other bad decisions. This resulted in thousands of people losing their jobs. I was living in southern california at the time. I remember property value plummeting and interest rates skyrocketing. Also, a lot of defense spending goes into jets, rocket engines, communications technologies like satellites, the GPS system, earth observing satellites (environment), I could go on and on. This is really quite a simple concept, I don't think many of your liberal buddies would argue with me.

I said NUCLEAR WEAPONS RESEARCH is pointless, not defense research in general. I'm well aware of the benifits we've reaped from other areas.

A 20 year record. That says a lot. During that 20 year record, he didn't sponsor a single bill. He just voted, and his votes were pretty bad.

Again: pure bullshit. Research it yourself. In fact, Kerry leads McCain on bills sponsored by a few hundred. Is McCain a do-nothing slacker? If you really want an example of a legislator who did practically nothing take a look at Chenney's record.

You should find the person who told you this and punch them in the face for lying to you.

See thats the thing. I believe Bush has a set of moral values, and I trust he wouldn't do that, and what would he possibly have to gain?

I have no idea what he has to gain from it, but he most definately did lie in order to get us into Iraq. The only reason he gave that still holds any water is "he tried to kill my daddy", and sorry, but I just don't think that's a legitimate reason to go to war. To be perfectly honest, the invasion of Iraq makes no sense to me. There was nothing to gain and a great deal to lose, and that was quite clear to me from the day it was proposed.

I'd rather have Clinton than Kerry.

So would I, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to defend the choices Clinton made in his personal life. Then again, those choices clearly had no bearing on his performance of his duties as president. Nobody died when Clinton lied.

Re:Other candidates

[MrResistor]

Let me know what issues you disagree with Kerry on and I'm quite sure I can find you a quote from him that supports it.

Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago. -- Bernard Berenson

If you really want something, though, let's try gay marriage for an example, though it has absolutely no bearing on my life (which is a large part of why I think it should be allowed, and yes, I am married. I find my marriage was, curiously, completely unaffected by the happenings in San Francisco.)

'Bush and company' have endured many hardships regarding the nation: Economic consequences of the Clinton years;

Ah yes, the Long Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity! How were we able to function without the huge deficit? The rampant expansion of government spending? The bleak employment prospects?

Thank God that's over!

Corporate scandals;

Which Bush aided and abetted, at least in Enron's case.

Hostages in China;

Can you name a president who hasn't had to deal with a hostage situation?

9/11.

Which led to the one thing Bush did right: invading Afghanistan. Of course, then he had to screw it up by invading Iraq, which as anyone who knows anything about the middle east knew from the moment it was proposed, had fuck-all to do with terrorism.

In spite of all this, they have created the opportunity for people to create the jobs (over 3 million new jobs and counting) to grow our economy.

Having the worst job creation record since Hoover is hardly something to crow about, especially since most of those are low-paying service jobs, hardly a replacement for the much better paying manufacturing and engineering jobs we continue to lose. Nice job of trying to put a positive spin on it though. I'm sure plenty of people would have been fooled.

Not to mention taking the necessary steps to protect our citizens against the ever-growing threat of TERRORISM...remember?

Indeed! Too bad it's "ever-growing" largely thanks to the incompetent, arrogant, and belligerant foreign policy of our current administration.

Here's a free tip for you: If you don't want to get stung by hornets, don't go stirring up their nest.

Re:Other candidates

[BorgCopyeditor]

You don't know of any Bush campaign operatives involved in setting up and running SBVT? Try reading outside your usual circle of news sites; simply everybody's talking about it. You still have n't answered what your claim about "forging documents" has to do with Kerry. The answer, as you well know, is nothing.

Re:Other candidates

[BorgCopyeditor]

However, we're not trying to conquer Iraq.

Really? It's true that we're not trying to annex it. But if you look at the orders (Orders 29 and 30?) that Bremer wrote into the constitution, you'll find that we've generously blessed the Iraqis with a constitution that allows foreign corporations (currently almost entirely U.S., and engaged in pillaging the substantial remains of Iraq's state-owned industries) to export all their profits from the country, while paying only a pittance in taxes, or nothing. Read Naomi Klein's article in Harper's: "Baghdad Year Zero."

Re:Other candidates

[StandardDeviant]

You're thinking of Tsar Bomba (The King of Bombs) that the Soviets detonated. It's theoretical yield was over 100MT, but as they only tested two of the three stages, actual yield was in the 50-60 range (estimates vary from 51 to 57). It is widely speculated for a number of reasons that the weapon was more of a political gesture than an actual weapon system intended for deployment.

more info here

Re:Other candidates

[zardinuk]

I asked you to mention names. I went and looked up two names that democrats are pointing fingers at, and neither one of them was directly involved with the Bush Campaign. Give me a link.

As for the forged documents, I do think there has been a surge in negative politics once the Clinton advisors came into the Kerry camp, but I never made the claim that the documents had anything to do with Kerry. I'm talking about the lack of integrity among democrats in general. Apparently the other broadcast news agencies are pointing the finger at some reporter in Texas.

But give me a link. I haven't seen any significant evidence that SBVT is linked with the Bush campaign, any moreso than Kerry is linked with moveon.org. He attended a few moveon.org fundraisers. What's that about?

And back to my original point, the swift boat vets aren't all telling the same lie. Kerry inflated his war stories to the point that they were lies.

Re:Other candidates

[zardinuk]

Defense spending is always beneficial to society, whether the weapons are actually used or not. This is the original argument that you refuted. Someone else already replied and said what I was going to say, that the goal isn't always to build a bigger bomb. We probably have quite a few classified programs to develop new uses for a nuclear bomb (I heard a nuclear bunker buster). The Fat Man bomb that was dropped over Nagasaki is the same sort of design that an intertial confinement nuclear reactor would use. I bet you don't even understand why we dropped a bomb on Nagasaki. If we hadn't used a nuclear bomb to defeat Japan, the war would have gone on for many years and a lot more of our people would have died in kamakazi attacks and ground wars.

4 Bills and 4 Resolutions in 20 years. That's less than one every session of congress. He certainly doesn't take the lead on issues. Let's take a long at his most important achievements.

S.J.RES.158 - 6-16-1989(Day Introduced) Title: A joint resolution designating October 22 through 28, 1989, as "World Population Awareness Week". Wow....his very first thing of anything passed.....

S.J.RES.160 - 6-13-1991 Title: A joint resolution designating the week beginning October 20, 1991, as "World Population Awareness Week". There's number 2......Same thing.

S.J.RES.318 - 6-18-92 Title: A joint resolution designating November 13, 1992, as "Vietnam Veterans Memorial 10th Anniversary Day". That's 3, and unfortunatly he did the honors there.

S.J.RES.337 - 9-15-1992 Title: A joint resolution designating September 18, 1992, as "National POW/MIA Recognition Day", and authorizing display of the National League of Families POW/MIA flag. That's resolution number 4.

S.1563 - 7-25-1991 Title: A bill to authorize appropriations to carry out the National Sea Grant College Program Act, and for other purposes. His first bill that was signed into law...7 years after he won his first election.

S.1206 - 7-1-1993 Title: A bill to redesignate the Federal building located at 380 Trapelo Road in Waltham, Massachusetts, as the "Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center". That's the 2nd bill that was passed.....

S.1636 - 11-8-93 Title: A bill to authorize appropriations for the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 and to improve the program to reduce the incidental taking of marine mammals during the course of commercial fishing operations, and for other purposes. Save the whales?

S791 - 4-14-1999 Title: A bill to amend the Small Business Act with respect to the women's business center program And that's the last bill he got signed into law.

I'm not going to look at Dick Cheney's record. He's not even running for president. What's the hangup with Dick Cheney? You want to pick on vice presidents, John Edwards made a fortune convincing juries about his junk science, raising insurance premiums. John Edwards can't get elected in his own state he's done such a bad job.

Ok, so you don't think war in Iraq is good for anything. So shaddup already, you're not the one fighting it. It has nothing to do with you. I'm done with this conversation.

Re:Other candidates

[blahfern]

Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago. -- Bernard Berenson

Nice quote...from an art critic. But when a person is running for a public office, it's usually a good idea to know where than stand on the issues. Here's an excerpt from cbsnews.com regarding his gay marriage issue-"Take gay marriage. In the past Kerry has tended to stake out relatively liberal terrain on the issue -- for example, he voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. This would seem to put him to the left of the average swing voter, a position that could be exploited by the Bush campaign. So how would Kerry insulate himself from this kind of attack? The only way that comes to mind is by moving rightward -- which Kerry did earlier this year when he hinted he might support an amendment to the Massachusetts constitution banning gay marriage. In one fell swoop Kerry transformed himself from a liberal on gay marriage to ... a flip-flopper on gay marriage." Not exactley a quote, but the best I could come up with for now:)

Ah yes, the Long Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity! How were we able to function without the huge deficit? The rampant expansion of government spending?...

Yes, 'Peace and Prosperity' are the two biggest factors involved in a presidential election. I'm sure it was a difficult desciosion not to retaliate against the first world trade center bombing, or the attack on the US Cole. As far as the deficit...I believe that that was initiated by the Republican controlled house that forced Clinton to sign 7 of the 10 issues in the 'Contract with America' which included 'welfare reform' and deficit spending. Furthermore, months after Bush took office, he reduced government spending from 8% to 4% (still too much for me), but better than 8% nonetheless.

Corporate scandals;

Which Bush aided and abetted, at least in Enron's case.

You'll have to explain that one to me.

9/11.

...Of course, then he had to screw it up by invading Iraq, which as anyone who knows anything about the middle east knew from the moment it was proposed, had fuck-all to do with terrorism.

There was the 9/11 commision report that, in spite of liberal media coverage, specifically states that Iraq had ties to Al-Quiada (not 9/11 specifically).

Having the worst job creation record since Hoover is hardly something to crow about...

Sorry...all I have is 'Berry Blast' and grape flavored Kool-Aid. Fact: There are two survey conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics-The household survey and the payroll survey. What the household survey generally reflects is the backbone of american capitalism...self-employment. And during and economic downturn, the household survey is regarded as more accurate. So, I stand by my original statement the 3 million jobs have been created (or better put, the administration has put in place policies that enable economic growth in spite of all that has happened).

Indeed! Too bad it's "ever-growing" largely thanks to the incompetent, arrogant, and belligerant foreign policy of our current administration.

Your right...maybe if we leave the terrorists all alone they won't bother us.

All issues aside, thanks for the reponse.

Re:Other candidates

[BorgCopyeditor]

Here are two: Benjamin Ginsberg and Ken Cordier.

Re:Other candidates

[thrash242]

I never said it can't, but it's less likely than getting killed by a .30-06, which is used to kill 500 pound animals with one shot. A 9mm (jacketed hollow point, if possible) is generally considered the smallest reliable self-defense caliber, and many would argue that it's even too small. A pencil can kill a person and so can a .22, but I'd rather have something that can stop someone *right now* before they attack me.

.22s are usually used for target practice and shooting vermin. It's not very effective for self-defense or hunting large game. .223s have a lot more powder behind them, but they still make a pretty small hole compared to larger calibers common to hunting rifles and the like.

Re:Other candidates

[zardinuk]

Yeah those were the two I found. This is a witch hunt if I've ever seen one. Someone appearing in a commercial as a veteran, volunteers for the Bush Cheney campaign. This guy is a low ranking nobody, which is why he was disposed of so quickly. He wanted to help Bush because he doesn't like Kerry, obviously. This is not coordination. They don't hire retired air force generals to run their campaign, although it sounds pretty nasty if you word it well.

Now, if you want to take a closer look at the ILLEGAL COORDINATION going on between the Kerry campaign and the 527s, read this.

I especially liked this photo that shows DNC Chief Operating Officer Josh Wachs, Senator Pat Leahy, and Zack Exley, the acting organizing director from Moveon.org. This was taken in November 2003, and in April 2004 Zach Exley jumped on with the Kerry campaign...

In April the Kerry for President Web site proudly announced: "Zach Exley joins the [Kerry] Internet team as Director of Online Communications and Online Organizing. He was previously the director of special projects for the MoveOn.org."

Exley claims he won't communicate with MoveOn until after the election, but when he teamed up with Kerry, MoveOn's executive director, Eli Pariser, acknowledged that Exley will be able to make use of "what he's got in his head."

And a statement issued by MoveOn when Exley signed on with team Kerry insisted that "federal election rules permit some forms of communication" between Exley and the liberal 527.

[http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/8/22/83 651.shtml]

How much is it gonna take for you guys to get a clue? Your news outlets don't say this stuff! Call the Fox News channel biased, they aren't even reporting this stuff! Mary Beth Cahill, swarms of lawyers and volunteers that the article doesn't even bother with. The sources are credible, the DNC website itself!!! That forged CBS document appeared in John Kerry for president commercials, and now there is a massive cover-up going on at CBS (ahem, failed cover-up). You want to go beyond illegal 527 coordination, lets talk about illegally coordinating forged "documents" between a somewhat trusted news outlet and a presidential campaign. Now we're getting into some serious charges. Do you think this is too much to believe?

The thing that really pisses me off is that SBVT has raised a pittance in comparison to moveon.org. It all comes from one guy, George Soros. If you guys are all so afraid of corporations, why don't you take a second look at George Soros? He's buying everybody out!

Stupid witch hunt. You know this does reflect the character of George Bush. The fact that his campaign will preserve its integrity by dismissing these guys after democrat finger pointing. It all plays out for the democrats and the biased broadcast news organizations who can say "Look! Look! Their ranks are breaking!" Mindless trolls.

I know why peole hate George bush so much. It's because he's a Christian with real Christian values, and there is a growing anti-Christian sentiment, a surge of religious intolerance brewing in this country. It's happened all through history, and people are blind to it. I'm not a Christian, but I'll side with them and fight against the mindless pawns of a so called "progressive" billionaire immigrant, George Soros.

Re:Other candidates

[geminidomino]

If he PERSONALLY thinks Abortion is Murder, then he SHOULD be against it professionally. Taking a moral stand is a GOOD thing, don't you think?

Maybe he DOESN'T think it's "murder" (talk about loaded speech...) just that he might think it's wrong PER HIS BELIEF system, but unlike his bible-humping simian opponent, he doesn't feel the necessity to FORCE HIS BELIEFS DOWN THE THROATS OF OTHERS.

That approach alone is what has pushed my vote away from Shrub to Badnarik.

Re:Other candidates

[geminidomino]

By voting Kerry, you might be able to push him up to winning the popular vote, even if he loses the electoral college. That will both reduce Bush's effectiness in office (because he'll be percieved to lack a mandate),

Bush's own incompetence limited his effectiveness. The fact that he lost popular vote last time didn't effect him in the slightest this time around. Why should it happening again mean anything different?

Re:Other candidates

[Bob Uhl]

But supposing you do believe that fertilized embryos deserve protection, as Bush claims to when justifying his opposition to new stem-cell lines. If so, then you should attack in-vitro fertilization first, since it's the much larger user of the technique.

It's a matter of fighting the battles one can win. Politics is the art of the possible, not the art of the ideal.

So we forestall the use of humans in research today; that's better than doing nothing.

Re:Other candidates

[Bob Uhl]

The Libertarians for Life site addresses that very kind of argument. It boils down to this: given that the zygote/embryo/foetus is a human being, why should the mother have the right to kill him? Yes, he depends on her for sustenance--but doesn't an infant depend on his mother for sustenance, and doesn't a child depend on his parents for food, shelter & clothing?

More importantly, how did he get there? Either he's the result of consensual sex, or of rape. In the first case, conception is a foreseeable consequence; one has the ability to not have sex, and one hardly has the right to murder the results of one's free choice. The second case is somewhat more difficult, until one recognises that the conception is a second crime committed upon the mother by the rapist. Recall the saying of your own mother, though: two wrongs don't make a right. How does it make things right for the mother to kill her misbegotten child? What has he done which merits death?

An ectopic pregnancy is a lifeboat situation: there's no good answer, only a least-bad answer (similar to the case of rape): either both mother and chile die, or the child dies. Simple utilitarian calculus says that the child must die. Morality says that the necessity is to be mourned, but no blame can be attached to either mother or physician (although I imagine both would feel rotten).

I cannot accept that a parent should have the power of life and death of his or her children; I thought that sort of thing had gone out of style with the Romans.

If the embryo is human, abortion is a grave wrong; if the embryo is not, abortion is a right. Since I'm convinced the embryo is, in fact, human and that the initiation of violence is something to be avoided, I must therefor oppose abortion.

Regarding the goals of the pro-life movement, no doubt you are correct that a change of culture is required. As a matter of fact, I happen to believe that we are in the midst of exactly such a change. Just as scientists and physicians began to turn against abortion in the nineteenth century as they began to understand the nature of natal development, so too the general culture is beginning to turn against it as we all begin to understand the same thing.

Remember, though: if the unborn are as human as you and I, then abortion is worse than Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot all put together. It's worse than the Moloch-worshipping Carthaginians. Some thirty-forty million or so in the US alone, not to mention Europe and Asia. Let's say seventy to one hundred million who never even got a chance. That's pretty awful.

Re:Other candidates

[DuncMan]

It seems to me that 'terrorists' is merely a label used by the media, politicians, et al to describe people fighting a war they don't understand, or acknowledge. Perhaps they arrogantly don't realise that they themselves can be perceived as an enemy.

True, 'terrorist' actions harm, murder, innocent people- but so do conventional army actions. I'd be curious if anyone can tally up the number of innocents who died in American military actions versus the number of innocent Americans who died in 'terrorist' actions over the last, say, ten years. I have no idea what the result would be; I'm genuinely interested.

As for whether the 'terrorist threat' is ever growing, or even exists... well... here in England we've recently had peaceful protesters scale Buckingham Palace and The London Eye, 'invade' the house of commons, and been shocked at the shambolic and fraudulent security procedures at Manchester Airport. If there are billions, millions, thousands, hundreds or even merely tens of terrorists waiting to pounce on us- why hadn't they taken advantage of those opportunities?

Eh?

Re:Other candidates

[DuncMan]

So... your electorate is duped into following this plan;

* Vote for the person most likely to get more votes than the person you don't want to see in power

Whereas they should be following this plan;

* Vote for the person you most want to see in power

That's... really broken. I mean, what's going on there? How can it work properly?

And no, neither the UK nor USA is a democracy. Increasingly I see them as dictatorships, where we merely get to elect the prettiest dictator every few years. Man, that sucks.

Re:Other candidates

[Dr. Manhattan]

From your links:

D. Gareth Jones... asks what neurological reasons there might be for concluding that an incapacity for consciousness becomes a capacity for consciousness once this point is passed... it has yet to be provided with a firm biological base.

Ummm... damage to the brain damages consciousness. Do a google search on hemisphere inattention("hemisphere neglect"). Or "Wernicke's aphasia". Or just go read an Oliver Sacks book like "The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat" or "An Anthropologist On Mars". Whatever consciousness is (in humans at least), it needs a brain to exist. If you can show me a conscious individual that does not possess a brain, then I'll change my tune.

Now, the brain doesn't even start to form in an embryo before about four weeks. I don't know when there's "enough" brain to be conscious, but I feel confident in saying that there's no consciousness when there's no brain. And if there's no consciousness, then there's no person. In the case of an embryo there's a potential person, but not an actual person.

I'd actually go farther in many cases; for example, I think it's perfectly justified to take an anencephalic baby and harvest its organs for transplantation. Tragic but perfectly justifiable. (I'd also understand if the parents chose not to do so.)

Re:Other candidates

[Dr. Manhattan]

I don't think anyone is arguing that consciousness exists that early. Why is consciousness the arbiter of life, though?

It's not the arbiter of life, it's the arbiter of personhood. A bacterium is alive, but is not a person and doesn't get the same rights (and responsibilities).

Are you not alive when you sleep? Perhaps you argue that a sleeping man will wake up--but a man in a coma may not; is he not alive? Perhaps you argue that the man in the coma was once conscious--I don't see that there is any mystical life-endowing property to having once been awake.

I'd say that someone in a permanent vegetative state is, indeed, a living organism, but not a person. I don't see any contradiction there.

Now, as to embryos and such - as I've posted before: no brain, no consciousness. I don't know how much brain is needed before one becomes a conscious person, and as you note I doubt a hard and fast rule can exist, but zero brain is definitely not enough to support consciousness. Hence I'm not terribly troubled by abortions before about the fourth week.

After that... I dunno. We don't know enough to say what the minimum amount of brain matter is to be conscious. (At a guess, I'd say probably not before the third month, but that's just a hunch.) I'd err on the side of caution there.

[N]o argument I know of which justifies treating an embryo as less alive than a foetus, or a foetus less alive than an infant, cannot also be used to justify treating an infant as less alive than a child, or a child as less alive than an adult.

I just gave you one. Infants and children (and fetuses, based on what I guess your definition is) have brains; embryos (again using probably-not-fully-medically-accurate definitions) don't.

Here's a test for you - let's say I replace all of your wife's body with a mechanical support system, but keep her brain alive and functioning. Is she still alive? What if I do the inverse - leave all her body intact, and just replace the brain with a hypothetical computer that can exactly mimic her behavior. Is she still alive? I think you can guess my answers to those questions...

Re:Other candidates

[Archangel Michael]

If it isn't murder, then why is it wrong? Could you explain THAT one to me? Thanks.

Re:Other candidates

[EvolutionKills]

Of course you're right regarding blanket statements, and perhaps I was a little sloppy in my terms. Being as this is a politically-charged issue, I wanted to make my previous post as readable as possible to non-biologists. I may have sacrificed some precision (especially in using 'tissue' when I really meant 'differentiated cell types').

However, to clarify: stem cell-based models are advantageous over current animal- or cancer cell-based models for some (not all) disease physiology studies. Advancing the accuracy of disease physiology understanding will, I maintain, significantly advance the potential for new drugs and treatments for those diseases. In so doing, we may "see cures or treatments advanced by years or decades" when the restrictions that have been hamstringing those studies are removed, as I said before. For a specific example, think of a non cancer cell-derived model for chromosomal structure studies. Telomere studies have been slowly advancing for nearly 20 years now. We can't learn enough about normal state telomeres in cancer cell models, because aberrant telomerase activation is a major passage point for cancer cells (90+% of cancer cells have telomerase aberrantly active, and the other 10% use the ALT (alternative lengthening of telomeres) pathway, which is just as problematic). We can't learn much from other animal models, such as mice or Drosophila, because telomere control mechanisms appear to be evolving rapidly (Mus musculus and Mus spretus telomere lenths differ by an order of magnitude or more and probably neither is an adequate model for human telomeres). Were a stem cell-based model for telomere metabolism and telomerase control available for researchers, it could push telomere biology forward rapidly. Since telomere metabolism is crucially linked to cancer and aging, suddenly telomere control mechanisms all become cancer drug targets. This is only one application from one small corner of molecular and cellular biology, but you wouldn't have to dig deep to find similar applications spread into niches all across biology.

Secondly, I ask that you re-read my original post. I suggested that individuals should ask experts, or read expert opinions, before deciding for themselves about the ethical and scientific merits and drawbacks surrounding stem cell research. I explicitly included spiritual/religious figures in that expert category (c.f. "priest, rabbi, whatever" in my original post). I agree that the issue, being multifaceted, needs the input of scientists and ethicists/religious types alike, and that ultimately a person's stance on the issue is their decision. However, I resent it when people will quote or paraphrase the president (or any other politically-motivated person) as the sum total of their opinion. This is a large, important, and wide-reaching issue, and it deserves more consideration than the regurgitation of a sound bite.

I also strongly disagree with your statement that president bush has understood or has been willing to compromise on this or virtually any other scientific issue. Bush has cast the issue in strictly moralist terms and has denied the value and potential benefits of the research. How is that balance? Bush has removed prominent experts from his bioethics advisory panel when their views conflicted with his own. How is that compromise or understanding? I'm a little peeved that you would call bush's statements and stances on the stem cell issue balanced, but would imply that my own suggestion that people learn more before deciding for themselves is one-sided.

Oh, and those links you included didn't have anything to do with mouse or stem cell models; perhaps the UIDs got messed up. Could you just cite the articles directly (i.e. standard journal citation), rather than linking to them?

Re:Other candidates

[Bob Uhl]

As I asked before--what is so magical about consciousness? Those in comas haven't any consciousness that we're aware of. You and I are unconscious for about a third of our lives. I don't see that a capacity for consciousness or for rational thought is what makes one human or not.

Re:Other candidates

[Minna Kirai]

Politics is the art of the possible, not the art of the ideal.

Funny that you're defending Bush using the language of appeasement, which he claims to despise as a sign of typically-liberal moral bankrupcy. He describes himself as Churchill, not Chamberlain!

Bush's position regarding in-vitro fertilization is not impotent opposition- it is hypocritical support.

Re:Other candidates

[Bob Uhl]

I'm not defending Bush's position; I'm defending my position. I'm no automaton, mindlessly accepting the Republican platform. I happen to disagree with the president regarding IVF, but that's not a battle I can win right now. His policies, though, will in time--if continued by his successors--lead to the ends I seek. His opponents' policies, OTOH, will lead in exactly the wrong direction from my point of view.

There is no perfect candidate: there are only those which are more or less acceptable.

Re:Other candidates

[gothzilla]

"It's amazing I won. I was running against peace, prosperity, and incumbency." -- George W. Bush, June 14, 2001. Speaking to Swedish Prime Minister Goran Perrson, unaware that a live television camera was still rolling.

Re:Other candidates

[Anonymous Coward]

Please point to a country you do consider a democracy.

Re:Other candidates

[Anonymous Coward]

"In reality hope is the greatest of all evils b/c it prolongs the torment of man"
-Nietzsche

Re:Other candidates

[Anonymous Coward]

Well that depends on the location of said human embyro, in a womb its a baby to be in a petri-dish its a cluster of rapidly dividing cells, no more human than a cancer biopsy. Yes it is right to kill animals b/c they aren't higher thinkers or is it okay to kill plants b/c they aren't higher thinkers? What about bacteria? As for the what if, what if the kid I killed turned into the cure that helped millions of people, needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few. As for sewer babies well the alligators have to eat too. Now you have lept from human asexual reproduction to the Island of Dr. Moreau. Why not do both adult and embryonic. Yes a clone of a non-human would still be a non-human. Since a clone would not have the same life experience as the orginal then the clone and original would be different enough so that individuality would still survive(see identical twins). As for "natural" causes do you brush your teeth or do you allow your teeth to rot due to natural causes?

Re:Other candidates

[DuncMan]

I can't, offhand, think of a country I'd consider a democracy. There are some which allow their citizens to have a limited influence on a limited number of issues, but I can't think of a democracy.

Does that have any relevance to my previous post?

The printable version...

[jbarr]

...in .pdf format is here if you don't want to hassle with the Flash presentation.

Re:The printable version...

[Zorilla]

Now we have a choice between two irritating formats (from the perspective of other users, not necessarily myself). Great, now we need a new Slashdot poll: "Which file format boils your blood the most?"

1) PDF
2) Flash
3) XML
4) RM
5) tar.baseCowboyNeal

Re:The printable version...

[Lextar]

Could you please warn us that there is a high resolution image of a presidential candidate on the first page of the pdf?

I didn't really want to know about all of his skin problems :)

Re:The printable version...

[Zocalo]

Or, if you prefer plain HTML and JPEGs, the BBC has a summary of the major and more contentious issues here.

Re:The printable version...

[stm2]

MS Word doc should be in the list.

Re:The printable version...

[gfxguy]

You should be modded up... a good summary, easier than reading the article originally posted, and accurate (as I've read both). A very unbiased and clear, if short, look at the candidates responses.

No thanks

[wombatmobile]

"Read the candidates' responses on topics such as stem cell research, greenhouse emissions, and manned spaceflight to Mars."

Part of me is loathe to RTA. From here outside of the USA, I imagine the dialog to be stupefying.

I hope I'm wrong. Meanwhile, I'll read other articles.

Re:No thanks

[REBloomfield]

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling." -- George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

Re:No thanks

[nativespeaker]

Aw, go ahead. Except where the party lines fall, it seems to be pretty much six of one, half-dozen of the other.

Re:No thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

It would have been easier to just ask canidate1 their position on a topic and just assume canidate2 opposes canidate1's answers.

One supports the other opposes. Duh.

I hear Bush is for unlimited breathing and eating, while Kerry (JFK II, this time it's non-commital), wants to place restrinctions on eating and better guidance for breathing.

Re:No thanks

[danzona]

Part of me is loathe to RTA. From here outside of the USA, I imagine the dialog to be stupefying.

I'm inside the USA, just read the article, and it is stupefying.

I wouldn't glorify the article by calling it a dialogue. It appears to be a set of questions sent to both candidates who sent back their answers. The answers were not challenged, and there were no follow up questions to clarify seemingly contradictory positions.

For example, you would never know from reading the article that the Bush administration is anything but pro stem cell research. He even brags that his administration has spent $216 million on stem cell research.

Re:No thanks

[joeljkp]

Looks to me like they're both saying the exact same thing, but in slightly different language.

Re:No thanks

[gfxguy]

For example, you would never know from reading the article that the Bush administration is anything but pro stem cell research. He even brags that his administration has spent $216 million on stem cell research.

And what's wrong with that? Are you going to claim the administration hasn't spent that much on stem cell research? In fact, I think the Bush administration is positively pro-stem cell research, just more realistic about the possibilities and more oriented towards adult stem cell research instead of fetus stem cell research.

I'm don't see any contradiction... in fact, both candidates were pretty consistent, IMO.

Re:No thanks

[danzona]

In fact, I think the Bush administration is positively pro-stem cell research, just more realistic about the possibilities and more oriented towards adult stem cell research instead of fetus stem cell research.

Then why didn't Bush say this when he was asked about funding stem cell research, rather than make it sound like his administration was completely behind the research, spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars?

What made the responses of the candidates stupefying was (1) that they gave uninformative answers to very clear questions that contradicted positions that they have taken in the past and (2) they were not asked to clairfy these contradictions.

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.gracenote.com/xm/pcd/progressmetal/4cd6 3db9d31ab2a8dc7a562a92fdc186.html

And you know you've provoked a bit of attention as a president when even a weird progressive metal band writes a song about Bush's stance on stem-cell research:

Gracenote link - it's track 4

It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[caitsith01]

...that Bush didn't write those answers himself. For one thing there are words of more than three syllables used throughout. For another it appears that the person who wrote them was actually familiar with Whitehouse briefing papers and current scientific issues. And the final clue is the use of the word 'nuclear' instead of GW's preferred 'nucular'.

I'm sure the same goes for Kerry, although he is actually able to spell and say most of the words used in his responses.

I really don't see the point of this kind of 'interview.' Basically, each candidate is asked a series of questions, each of which has a 'good' or 'bad' answer. The results will shock you.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[jeffkjo1]

...that Bush didn't write those answers himself. For one thing there are words of more than three syllables used throughout.

The Bush campaign hasn't suffered at all from this attack on Bush's intelligence. It didn't suffer in 2000 either. However, Al Gore's campaign did latch onto it in an attempt to put down Bush and gain more support for the Dem's. It didn't work, in fact, it played to Bush's advantage. Instead of focusing on real issues, Gore was busy telling us all what a moron W was. You'll notice Kerry hasn't taken that strategy. There's a reason.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[bo0ork]

Yeah, the disparity between how Bush will handle an interview on-screen (when he's not being given all the answers beforehand) and the text of those answers says it all. To be fair, I'm sure he was at least consulted about what his stance should be. All the Bush answers say "my adminstration" and use complex sentences like we've never heard him say. Kerry's answers are more like how he talks, and they're all "I think, I believe", making it sound like he actually took time to write the answers himself.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[caitsith01]

Well, you've outdone me by a good ten years with your unique take on sarcastic parody. Your brilliant feigning of ignorance and faux-praise have cut through me like a rapier. I was unprepared for this level of subtlety and satire on the Internet which to me has previously been the most unassuming and earnest of places. And from a ./ nerd of all people! Well I never.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[Coryoth]

I really don't see the point of this kind of 'interview.' Basically, each candidate is asked a series of questions, each of which has a 'good' or 'bad' answer. The results will shock you.

You mean the fact that, even on the fairly open questions, they bot do their best to hedge their bets and say as little as is possible with as many words as possible? Yes, that's what happens when you interview professional politicians, and I have begun to wonder about the point as well.

Why do we put up with interviews that simply give these politicians a platform to speak, rather than interviews that actually question them in depth? How about trying to actually fish a position and some definitive words out of them, instead of letting them answer with the usual nice sounding but empty rhetoric.

Okay, to be fair to Nature this was a written interview, so they didn't really have much choice, but this style of political interview is pretty much all you see in the US.

1. Politician is asked a question.
2. Politician gives a stirring mostly pre-prepared speech that may even have some vague relevance to the question asked.
3. Interviewer moves on to the next question.

What's with that?! Watch some BBC interviewers - I'd love to see nice half hour or hour interview of Kerry or Bush conducted by some of the BBC political interviewers. I think I would learn far more in that half hour than I have in all the election coverage so far.

Jedidiah.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[Angry Toad]

Gore very nearly won 2000, and that was after 8 years of utterly relentless, ultrapartisan attacks by the Republicans on everything that had anything to do with the Democratic administration (even criticizing it as "wagging the dog" when Clinton went after Bin Laden). More than anything else Gore failed due to his own personality - he was never the most connected and sympathetic of people.

Failing to attack where the Republicans are weakest may be the undoing of Kerry - the right-wing spin is always on the old canard that Democrats are somehow weaker on national defence (the Republican platform being "America Made Safer By Being Despised By All Civilized Nations"). Their current strategy plays into this spin by appearing weak in the face of Republican attacks. People respect honesty, and Kerry could probably pick up a 5 point lead just by opening his mouth and telling the truth. I fear he's too much the politician for that.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[kavau]

I really don't see the point of this kind of 'interview.' Basically, each candidate is asked a series of questions, each of which has a 'good' or 'bad' answer. The results will shock you.

Well, there are a few questions that do tell you where the candidate is coming from. For example, when asked about the threat of global warming, Bush's ghostwriter basically replies: "Naw. Nothing is proven, so there's nothing to worry about", while Kerry's says "The threat is real and we'll deal with it." Other points where they differ is research into new kinds of nukes, rushed deployment of a missile defense system, and manned missions to Moon and Mars.

Of course, we didn't really have to read the answers to know the candidates' stance on these issues. They are basically only reaffirming what we already know.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[Anonymous Coward]

Best. Reply. Ever.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[Xeo 024]

And the final clue is the use of the word 'nuclear' instead of GW's preferred 'nucular'.

I know you're trying to be funny and all, but I just wanted to point out that pronouncing it as 'nucular' isn't exactly incorrect, it's just not as widely used as pronouncing it 'nuclear' (like particular).

from m-w.com:

usage Though disapproved of by many, pronunciations ending in \-ky&-l&r\ have been found in widespread use among educated speakers including scientists, lawyers, professors, congressmen, U.S. cabinet members, and at least one U.S. president and one vice president. While most common in the U.S., these pronunciations have also been heard from British and Canadian speakers.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[Epistax]

Dan Rather personally forged them? He's more popular than Bush or Kerry, I'm sure he has a team that can do it for him.

Rather Jennings '08!

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[RWerp]

This has precisely nothing to do with Bush's qualities as a leader. One of the greatest European political leaders of XXth century, Lech Walesa, finished vocational school only (Bush at least graduated from the university), had troubles with pronounciation for which he was constantly ridiculed. It didn't prevent him from being a great opposition leader in the eighties and a dynamic, albeit controversial, president in the nineties.

You shouldn't put down Bush for this. He's responsible for his decisions, not for his spelling. There's enough material for criticism (I support Kerry) in the decisions.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[TykeClone]

he Republican platform being "America Made Safer By Being Despised By All Civilized Nations"

You'll note, however, that the civilized nations are not the ones flying aircraft into skyscrapers or killing great numbers of children at school.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, in Kerry's answer to question number 6, there is the word "programme". Obviously not written by an American.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[Pfhreakaz0id]

... because anti-intellectualism is alive and well in the U.S., that's why. It's not a bonus to be a smart politician (particularly one who "talks smart" -- uses big words) it is a negative. A big one.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[DarkSarin]

stop that--you're giving me nightmares.

On the flip side, it makes the concept of Hillary for prez almost palatable.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[gfxguy]

Clinton never went after Bin Laden, that was the problem. While a lot of conservatives took the opportunity to blast Clinton about his missile attacks during the Lewinskly scandle, I personally did not...

In fact, I can stand up and say that while I'm voting for Bush this year (and I haven't voted for either mainstream party in any of the past 3 elections), that there were many things Clinton did that I supported.

Why? Things like this: question number 5: Bush supports research/development and deployment of a missile defense system. Seeing as how he started this shortly after getting into office it seems that he was very inciteful now that we know North Korea has nuclear weapons and probably warheads that are capable of reaching U.S. soil.

Kerry says he supports continued research... and slams the President for trying to deploy these systems rapidly.

Hello? North Korea HAS nuclear weapons NOW, and they're not being very cooperative.

This is why people think Democrats are soft on defense. The truth is that center and moderate democracts are not, but Kerry is... and it's why you'll find a surprising number of democrats voting republican this year... just read democraticunderground.org and read the complaints of campaigners canvasing what they thought would be Kerry friendly neighborhoods...

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[DarkSarin]

Wow, an intelligent take on Bush's speaking ability. From a democrat, no less.

I agree with you on every point in that post (save that of Lech Walesa, of whom I know nothing, and therefore decline to from an opinion in the time I have at this moment).

Let me say this: As a supporter of Bush, I think that he SHOULD try to be more articulate. I think it would help win over some individuals that despise him for his lack of linguistic dexterity. That said, I think its a poor person who can't overlook poor grammar and try to understand what he is actually trying to say. If you do that and still disagree, then you have that right--but failing to attempt understanding is not a very smart way to choose your side.

On a related issue--I see people mock Bush for grammar and diction, and I frequently wonder how they would do in that situation without notes, without prepared statements and without direct coaching. I think MOST, not all, but most, of us would do as poorly as Bush has ever done, if that well.

Thank you.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[Disevidence]

Well, it looks like you got clearly owned.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[gotan]

I'm sorry to rob you of your illusions, but there's some nations out there with less schoolyard killing-sprees than the US sees and without terrorists (let's not elaborate on USAs "shock and awe" war that killed a good number of iraqui civilians), and those nations are getting fed up with the USAs unilateral policies.

Yeah, i know France is not too popular in the USA now since they had the guts to stand up against Bushs private war on Iraq (for which still no legitimation exists: there were no WMDs, Bin Laden has better connections to Saudi-Arabia and the Bush Family than to Iraq, and had this really been about evil dictators with WMDs the war should have taken place in Vietnam). Neither is Germany, or the Chinese, those evil commies (the hysterical american reaction to anything that reeks of communism is really funny).

The USA are pushing through their foreign policy without any scruples, even by war if they think it'll get them to their goals. There's lots of nations perceiving the US in that way and not all of them are radicals and terrorists.

Do go on and mod me down if you can't stand criticism, i don't care.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[kcbrown]

Okay, to be fair to Nature this was a written interview, so they didn't really have much choice, but this style of political interview is pretty much all you see in the US.

1. Politician is asked a question.
2. Politician gives a stirring mostly pre-prepared speech that may even have some vague relevance to the question asked.
3. Interviewer moves on to the next question.

What's with that?!

Any interviewer organization that attempted to ask real questions instead of doing the above would quickly find itself unable to gain "access" to said politician anymore, and would thus become "irrelevant" in the political news world, which means less money for the organization. Unless, of course, said organization is one of the big corporate networks, in which case, the organization will treat the politician with kid gloves because the corporation has a vested interest in making sure that candidate doesn't come off looking bad against the other minor candidates that are also running (you'll note that the way these organizations treat third-party candidates and others that aren't in favor with the corporations is much different than how they treat the primary candidates).

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[SuiteSisterMary]

It happened. And Bush and co. were pissed.

Unlike American reporters, who lob softball questions Bush can field with prepared, rehearsed answers, Coleman performed as most European broadcast interviewers normally do -- in a naturally engaging, intellectually rigorous, conversational manner. However, Bush bristled at Coleman's questions and interviewing style, about which the White House (which posted a transcript of the session on its Web site) later "lodged an official complaint with the Irish embassy in Washington."

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[derubergeek]

this style of political interview is pretty much all you see in the US. 1. Politician is asked a question. 2. Politician gives a stirring mostly pre-prepared speech that may even have some vague relevance to the question asked. 3. Interviewer moves on to the next question. What's with that?! Watch some BBC interviewers - I'd love to see nice half hour or hour interview of Kerry or Bush conducted by some of the BBC political interviewers.

I'll probably be attacked with a thousand flaming arrows for this, but you should try Fox News. Really the only US home of hard interviews. Only on cable unfortunately, but it sure beats the hell out of CNN/ACB/CBS/NBC. Unless the aforementioned happen to be interviewing a conservative. Or turncoat liberals.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[Coryoth]

Wow. Thank you. Worth pointing out that there's even a link to the video. Worth watching really, especially because they don't edit Bush into soundbites - they let him ramble (until he fails to answer the question). Bush really didn't like being interrupted whenever he ran off track - he wanted to use it as a platform to give speeches.

For those who can't see the video, there's the transcript.

Jedidiah.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[gfxguy]

That's such crap... you only think that because you consider yourself to be an intellectual and you are finding a lot of people disagree with you about things. Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they aren't intelligent, thoughful people.

Just because someone can't speak well also doesn't mean they aren't intelligent, and just because someone may or may not read the bible doesn't mean they are or aren't an "intellectual."

On the other hand, just because someone speaks well and argues better than someone else doesn't make them right.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[Politburo]

it seems that he was very inciteful

Yes, Bush is very inciteful, that's for sure.

Bush supports research/development and deployment of a missile defense system. Seeing as how he started this shortly after getting into office it seems that he was very [insightful] now that we know North Korea has nuclear weapons and probably warheads that are capable of reaching U.S. soil.

A serious missile defense is 10 years off. Have you read about any of the tests? The thing DOESN'T WORK and Bush wants to deploy it. That is why Kerry is against it. Spending 10 billion to deploy a defense with the effectiveness of a paper towel is a waste.

Hello? North Korea HAS nuclear weapons NOW, and they're not being very cooperative.

Cooperative about what? And why should they be cooperative? Bush has made it clear that the word of the USA is worth nothing. John Kerry is the only candidate that can change that.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[gfxguy]

But... but... that can't be true. All my friends tell me how right wing and conservative Fox is, they can't actually give decent interviews!

But, yes, Virginia, they even ask, gasp! conservatives hard questions!

It is no wonder that Fox beats CNN so handily.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[DinZy]

But whoever wrote it clearly isn't a scientist for they think that fusion produces electricity and "Hydrogen." (Answer#6) Perhaps he was referring to them finding sources for Deuterium and Tritium to be used in the fusion reaction, but I bet he is just completely uninformed.

I think that Bush's responses were translated into English by the editors, but not into science because they don't want to make such a lackwit appear to actually know what he is talking about.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[stinkyfingers]

The Bush campaign hasn't suffered at all from this attack on Bush's intelligence. It didn't suffer in 2000 either. However, Al Gore's campaign did latch onto it in an attempt to put down Bush and gain more support for the Dem's. It didn't work, in fact, it played to Bush's advantage. Instead of focusing on real issues, Gore was busy telling us all what a moron W was. You'll notice Kerry hasn't taken that strategy. There's a reason.

It doesn't change the fact that he's a moron.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[gfxguy]

Interesting... I didn't see the video, but I read the transcript, and it sounded like good questions and good answers. There was some interrupting, which happens in every good interview, but Bush did seem to get around to the points he was trying to make, and Bushes responses to the interruptions could have been better.

Maybe the video shows him bumbling and stumbling a bit more than the text of the interview shows?

Still, I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't think this was a bad interview for Bush. After all, why would the Whitehouse website put it up if it was?

I think you are looking at it through Kerry-colored glasses and seeing the messenger bumble, perhaps, without actually seeing the message... he gave good responses, IMO.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[Himring]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=122006&cid=102 64796

consitutionally

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[Himring]

And Gore's attacks on Bush's intelligence were contrasted against the video clip where Gore asks the tour guide of the White House, "and who is this?" ...pointing to a bust of George Washington....

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[Uberbah]

But, yes, Virginia, they even ask, gasp! conservatives hard questions!

No, they don't. Unless its some neocon position that's against traditional conservative dogma, like Bush giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. Fox's idea of a balanced debate is a right wing position put up against a so-far-to-the-right-they've-fallen-off-the-deep-en d position.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[linzeal]

Name a person who solely with their intellectual prowesss has won the heart of the American people AND the guy on Jeopardy does not count.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[Himring]

Steve Jobs was questioned, lightly, regarding his pronunciation of "Jaguar" as "Jagwire." Of course, he isn't a republican president, so such things do not make him an instant idiot....

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[Pfhreakaz0id]

I never said anything about me being intellectual and people disagreeing with me.

What I said was it is NOT a bonus to a politician as coming off as intellectual in the U.S. Do you disagree with this statement. I can assure you, it was a big downfall of Dukakis in my home state.

Note, I didn't necessarily say someone like Bush isn't intelligent. But Bush using homespun language and not coming off as real intellectual is a PLUS not a negative, at least in many, many parts of the country.

One of Clinton's strengths (love him or hate him), was his "folksy" southern way of speaking. And there was no doubt Clinton was an intellectual.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[gfxguy]

One of Clinton's strengths (love him or hate him), was his "folksy" southern way of speaking. And there was no doubt Clinton was an intellectual.

If there was no doubt then you have already contradicted your assertion...

You are right, though, that many so-called intellectuals are simply condescending, and THAT is what turns people off.

If you think it was a liability for Dukakis, I think you will find it equally true for Kerry.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[Pfhreakaz0id]

If there was no doubt then you have already contradicted your assertion...

Nope. There was no doubt to someone who bothered to research/read about his life and record, but that is a minority of people who vote.

If you think it was a liability for Dukakis, I think you will find it equally true for Kerry.


do you want a cookie? I guess you are determined to turn this into a bush v. kerry flame war.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm no Kerry lover -- I'm a registered Republican, in fact, -- but I find Bush to be an embarassing (to my party and country), shallow, simple-minded bully, who somehow failed to develop rudimentary critical thinking skills. I'm constantly amazed at the number of "geeks" who seem to support him.

Being "decisive" is only a useful quality if your decisions are well-reasoned, and have some liklihood of being effective at achieving your stated goals.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[gfxguy]

No, I'm not... you think candidates that come off as intellectual will have a difficult time getting elected... that is exactly how John Kerry comes off.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[Coryoth]

Maybe the video shows him bumbling and stumbling a bit more than the text of the interview shows?

No. No bumbling (I don't recall saying he did). It did show the clash of styles though - Coleman looked very frustrated when Bush refused to actually enter into a conversation, and Bush looked decidedly annoyed by her interjections. What came across to me (being mostly familiar with European style poltical interviews) was that Coleman wanted to conduct a conversational interview, responding to points as they came up, and digging down into issues. In contrast Bush seemed more inclined to simply give speeches. He seemed to have a variety of pre-canned anecdotes and short speeches, and tended to use the question to springboard into those (which then potentially drifted off into making a different point).

Still, I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't think this was a bad interview for Bush. After all, why would the Whitehouse website put it up if it was?

Interesting question. It was the Whitehouse who sent a formal complaint to the Irish embassy and cancelled Coleman's next scheduled interview. Presmably you don't do that if you think it went swimmingly well.

I don't think it was a bad interview for Bush - it may have been in the hands of a more forceful interviewer (Coleman mostly let Bush run over top of her the few times she tried to interject a question), but as it was, it simply showed the difference in style. US politicians are mostly used to givign pre-canned speeches, and not actually being probed on an issue.

I think you are looking at it through Kerry-colored glasses and seeing the messenger bumble, perhaps, without actually seeing the message...

I don't think so. I'm no fan of Kerry, and I would expect him to perform pretty much the same - mostly canned speeches that he extemporises around to fit it to the question. That's generally how US politicians work, because the people who rise in US politics are the people who are very good at doing just that.

Jedidiah.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[Pfhreakaz0id]

Ah. Now I see. I guess you think I give a crap.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[mforbes]

I was involved with Wes Clark's campaign during the primaries, up until Dean's Iowa Implosion.

Because South Carolina, my home for the last year and a half, has an early primary, all of the major candidates stopped through multiple times. I got to be the driver of one of the cars for Clark's entourage, and spent a few minutes talking with him as well as getting to see him on stage numerous times, and his wife Gert once too. I also got to chat with her for around thirty minutes one day while the general was shaking hands, babies, and anything else within reach. She's a very charming woman incidentally, and a credit to the name Clark.

The format at one of the events where Gert was speaking-- I don't remember exactly where except that it was around Charleston somewhere-- was a short speech followed by a q&a session.

Knowing that the general was previously a high muckety-muck in a firm in Northern Virginia that specialized in engineering alternative-fuel and low-fuel-consumption engines for motor vehicles, I threw a softball question about his motivations for work such as that.

I was gladdened to see how much she warmed up to the subject in the few minutes she could spend to reply. Apparently he's been a sci-fi fan his entire life (actually she'd told me that privately during a previous visit, the one during which I'd cornered her for that 30-or-so minutes), and is still very much a science buff, too.

I still wish Iowa had worked out differently. For those who don't know or don't remember, General Clark didn't participate in the Iowa caucuses, figuring that Dean would carry Iowa in a walk anyway, but that Clark could face him in New Hampshire and South Carolina. When Kerry took Iowa & Dean made his (in)famous scream, Clark's position suddenly crumbled. To be honest, I doubt he would've won SC & NH anyway-- he was always the underdog candidate-- but I'm still glad to have worked on his campaign, and wish him well in everything he does in the future.

It's a shame, in my opinion: we could've had an actively pro-science president. Instead, we now have a choice between someone who apparently has no passion regarding science (Kerry) and one who gladly politicizes scientific reasoning to benefit himself & his corporate cronies (he who must not be named). Ok, for the fringe, I guess Nader's out there, along with whoever the Greens & the Libertarians are backing. Heck, I'm sure LaRouche is running again too, and that some people are stupid enough to vote for him. If you're one of them, sorry for offending you.

Not really. I enjoyed it

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[Angry Toad]

Clinton never went after bin Laden

Yes he did.

Unless the facts are now "too partisan"?

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[danudwary]

Speaking as an avid Bush-hater, I can say for most people I know he's not hated because he speaks poorly. In fact, I can agree on many of the things he says in his stump speeches, and the sentiment of his words. The problem is his actions. Everything the guy has done has been to favor either corporate power-grabs, or his own re-election. So when you listen to his speeches, realize he's lying to you, and on top of that mispronouncing words and using poor grammar, it's just like a knife to the skull.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[jc42]

I really don't see the point of this kind of 'interview.'

Well, one thing I found interesting was a few things they gave away in their bland, scripted answers.

For example, in Kerry's answer to questuion 3, we read "... how to deal with these weapons and the often dual-use technology that underpins them." This tells us that at least one person on Kerry's staff understands the concept of a "two-edged sword", and that scientific results often have both good and bad applications.

If you read the Bush answer, you find nothing like this. Rather, you read of "preventing those seeking these weapons from gaining access to their most significant and technicaly challenging components." The implication is that these components are unique to the weapons and void of beneficial applications.

There are a number of other cases like this, where the Bush answer shows a simplistic good-vs-evil view of the world, while the Kerry answer shows a more sophisticated understanding that many things in this world are neither pure good nor pure evil.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[RWerp]

From a democrat, no less.

I'm not a democrat, I'm not a US citizen and don't live in the US. I support Kerry because I think his presidency will be better, for the USA and rest of the world.

I see people mock Bush for grammar and diction

As I pointed out, this is stupid. But when I hear that Bush meant in one of his speaches, that World War II started in 1941 with the attack on Pearl Harbour, this is insulting for me, as an European and a Pole. He shows his mental limitations in such slips, not when he says 'Grecians' instead of 'Greeks'. Were he a great leader, he'd get even more respect for being fallible in some areas.

BTW, I heard that he does such mistakes on purpose, to make people feel he's one of them.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[gfxguy]

Well, I won't disagree with you on those points. I will say that, while I trust Bush more than Kerry, and while I believe Bush believes what he is saying, that he is not as quick as I'd like him to be... he does stumble a lot, and Kerry, on that level, makes him look pretty bad. On the other hand, when I see that happen, my thoughts are that Bush is more genuine.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[Depris]

Their is a fine line between being rude and unprofessional and 'asking questions rigorously'. I'm still unsure as to who I support. I can say that I've heard from both sides and seen much of the material released from Michael Moore & supporters and find most of it to be highly inaccurate to the point of being outright lies. I don't see how Bush was lead to ramble. He was constantly interrupted and given another question before he even had time to ramble. Sure you can point out a mistake and emphasize that but frankly I think any individual, experianced politician or not, will have trouble keeping an accruate line of thought when they are interrupted with additional questions during their response. Also I do watch the BBC regularly and agree that European news is better than American sources in pretty much everyway. However I don't see the same interviewing style on the BBC that I did in that Irish interview.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[Minna Kirai]

Clinton never went after Bin Laden, that was the problem.

Then why did he publish rules like this? Clinton at least had Al Quaida and the Taliban listed firmly as enemies, a policy Bush reversed.

Bush supports research/development and deployment of a missile defense system. Seeing as how he started this shortly after getting into office it seems

False. The national missile defense project was actually started by Congress during the Clinton administration. Oh my, if people can be this ignorant about topics they supposedly care about... there's not much hope for them, really.

It's guys like you who make me think the USA deserves another Bush administration.

and slams the President for trying to deploy these systems rapidly.

Which is correct, because anyone with a smidgen of aerospace or military knowledge can tell that they just won't work. Kerry allows for ongoing research on the possibility that someday we might come up with a way to make them work, but deploying them today is just throwing away dollars that could be used for REAL defense. (Like some of the new soldiers Kerry wants to hire, to go around and shoot terrorists)

North Korea HAS nuclear weapons NOW,

Yeah, and knowing that North Korea has nuclear weapons, Bush decided to go and invade... Iraq? Who we KNEW had none. Brilliant!

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[Minna Kirai]

He's responsible for his decisions, not for his spelling.

Bush has no spelling mistakes on record- he has people to spell for him. USA politicians have been careful not to spell anything in public since the Quayle potato fisasco.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[Minna Kirai]

Everything the guy has done has been to favor either corporate power-grabs, or his own re-election.

Not everything. He rushed into invading Iraq without waiting for a UN ultimatum, and that actually hurt his re-election.

If he'd allowed the UN time for one more go-around, then the war would've started in April 2004, and would just be winding down now. People are really unlikely to vote against the standing president while heavy military actions are still ongoing.

The first Pres Bush lost re-election because he invaded Iraq too early in his term. His son made the same mistake, although it looks like he'll still squeak by to 4 more years.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[Minna Kirai]

But whoever wrote it clearly isn't a scientist for they think that fusion produces electricity and "Hydrogen."

Fusion produces heat, which can be converted into electricity. Run some electric wires into a bottle of water and you get hydrogen. If you had cars that ran on hydrogen, they could therefore be powered by fusion plants, without needing Iraqi oil.

The details might not work out, but it's a plausible idea.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[DarkSarin]

Sorry for the assumptions.

As far as his logical errors, I don't disagree--like with grammar, he should try to make his statements true.

As far as WWII starting in 1941, he should know better--and he may well.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right, this doesn't look like it was written by an American, much less Senator Kerry or President Bush. This thing is totally unobjective. No American spells the way things were spelled there. Who says "Programme"? And did anyone pick up the biased undertones in the introduction?

I wish somebody could get the answers out of these two guys for real, instead of feeding us this biased junk and touting it as fact. Based upon the fact the the spelling is inconsistant with the geographical location that the responderants (President Bush + Senator Kerry) are from, there is no way this is real.

We should go ahead and file this whole story under "Memogate".

JKO

P.S. I haven't signed up for a /. name, I guess "Anonymous Coward" will have to do.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[jamesmrankinjr]

Wow. I loved the way the President handled this interview, based on the transcript.

Your concern about the President not answering questions amuses me, as most of the reporter's utterances are pronouncements more than questions. Bush's "let me finish" thing is very much a part of American media sparring.

I especially loved the part about "shouldn't we solve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict before...". That Europeans believe that the greater Arab world gives a whit about the Palestinians would be laughable if it were not so sad. Arab nations do very little for the Palestinian refugees in their midst, when they're not outright discriminating against them. At least Saddam paid them for dying. That's something I guess.

Peace be with you,
-jimbo

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you think that Kerry is the master of saying (and doing) nothing? How do you spend almost 20 years as a Senator and rarely show up to vote? Or, how do you NOT author legislation during that period of time? How would you feel if your neighbors became rich working for the government, and never had to do any work?

Pres. Bush has done something. Whether it's right or wrong, he's told us what he wants to do, and then done it. And everyone was behind him. Kerry has been a senator for 20 years and done almost nothing. Wellstone was a senator for 2 terms, and did 200 times the amount of work compared to Kerry. Wellstone would have made a much better president than Kerry. It's a sad thing that so many people think Kerry can do better in office.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[DarkSarin]

Which is one of the biggest arguments that he is sincere--he does things that any politician (or their staff) should know would hurt his chances at election. Thus there are only a few alternatives:
1. He is lunatic (which I am not discounting, since he is a politician)

2. He has done all of this as part of a bigger plot to make untold amounts of money and power

3. He really believes that what he is doing is the right thing, in that it is what is best for America (like he says).

#2 would require that he be really smart--something that most Americans would not readily believe, even though he did go to Yale, an institution that would be pretty upset about charges of giving grades that were completely undeserved.

#1 is mostly a "yes its a possibility" plea

#3 is the one I choose to believe, given that I don't think he's all that brilliant. That's my personal view, and yours is likely different.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[Anonymous Coward]

That would one of the corporate power grabs. . .

It is reasonable to ask why we were in such a rush to go into Iraq. It seems likely that the government knew there was not immediate threat. And we appear to have had no real plan about what to do when we got there.

The only reasonable idea I can come up with is the no-bid contracts. If we did not rush in, if we had built an international coalition, we would have had time for a more open bidding process. These contracts would have been subject to competition. But in the rush to war, they were basically able to hand billions straight to their friends and family.

Why are we more or less giving up large sections of Iraq to insurgents? Well remember, every time a pipeline gets blown up, we have to pay Halliburton to build it again.

Cheney made a lot of money off of the first gulf war. As Secretary of Defence under Bush I, he wrote new regulations regarding no-bid contracts. As CEO of Halliburtion, he took advantage of the regulations he wrote to get lots of contracts from the government without competition. Now as VP, he uses the same regulations to hand large sums of money over to his friends, no small amount of which they "lose".

Perhaps I'm a bit too cynical. But following the money tends to offer some fairly realistic answers.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[Minna Kirai]

Thus there are only a few alternatives:

There's also the possibility of reverse psychology (admittedly, such a concept seems beyond Bush's unintelligent facade, but he has clever staff).

For example, some pro-Bush commentators say: "The WMD claim wasn't a lie, Bush actually believed them. After all, he knew after an invasion the truth would come out, so he wouldn't have lied if it would be eventually revealed before the election".

But throw in the possibility of reverse psychology- that the administration was anticipating exactly that kind of exsculpatory response- and you can't judge sincerity at all.

Re:It doesn't take a scientist to figure out...

[DarkSarin]

As a psychologist (in training, mind you) I find this laughable. "Reverse Psychology" is extremely risky--you have to take the chance that no one will discover what you are trying to do. If they do, the game is up.

Now, Bush may or may not be terribly bright, but I doubt that his staff would stupid enough to pull a stunt like that. Remember, such a stunt requires ignorance. If even ONE reporter had an inkling that such was the case, the news pundits would have a field day with the remains of Bush's staff. Granted, you have a point, but it requires that no one find out what you are trying to pull.

Even more, Bush knows that there are a lot of people who don't want him back--lying becomes extremely risky under those circumstances.

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

Any religious scholar who reads Nature for help making decisions regarding their faith, cannot be pro-politics.

Easier to read version

[Xeo 024]

The flash player isn't exactly the most legible thing to read, so here is the more coherent printable version (PDF).

Re:Easier to read version

[Captain_Chaos]

The flash player isn't exactly the most legible thing to read, ...

Is it legible to listen to, though?

for lazy slashdoters

[Anonymous Coward]

Climate change

Throughout his time in office, President George Bush has been slammed by environmentalists for avoiding steps to reduce global warming. Climate experts recommend cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions - and John Kerry pledges to take a greener stance.

Yucca Mountain

Twenty years ago an act of Congress put forward Yucca Mountain as a possible repository for the nation's nuclear waste - but fierce disputes over whether the site might leak radioactive material have held up its construction ever since. Now the mountain, in the political swing state of Nevada, has emerged as a hot campaign issue in the US presidential race, and both candidates claim that sound science is on their side

Stem cells

Before President George W. Bush arrived in the Oval Office, most Americans had never heard of a stem cell - a microscopic biological entity that can transform into hair, muscle or other human cell types. But four years on, the issue has escalated into a divisive one in US politics, and looks set to attract continued attention in the forthcoming election.

Manipulation of science

George Bush's presidency has suffered a rash of accusations that he is either ignoring or manipulating science. Democratic rival John Kerry, meanwhile, pledges to follow impartial scientific advice - but observers say that they are yet to be persuaded.

Nuclear weapons research

Late in 2002, the Bush administration proposed controversial plans to begin work on new designs for nuclear weapons. The idea has prompted fierce scientific and political opposition ever since.

Re:for lazy slashdoters

[Coryoth]

Throughout his time in office, President George Bush has been slammed by environmentalists for avoiding steps to reduce global warming. Climate experts recommend cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions - and John Kerry pledges to take a greener stance.

Kerry is also very careful to not actually commit to anything. He'll consider options, but potentially he could continue right along with Bush's current policy, and it would not actually contradict what he said.

Jedidiah

Re:for lazy slashdoters

[Anonymous Coward]

There are two sources of stem cells, embryos and adults. Unfortunately an embryo is all stem cell and it is all used in the 'harvest'. Adult stem cells are just as good and have no moral complications. Using embryo stem cells == human sacrifice.

Re:for lazy slashdoters

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish the Bush administration could have done exactly that with the Iraq issue two years ago.

Re:for lazy slashdoters

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, except this story is about the questions and answers posed to and answered by the candidates on another part of that page. Not about the blurbs on the top of the page you just wasted your time summarizing.

Re:for lazy slashdoters

[Creepy]

Paraphasing issues they differ on, and ones they agree on (15 questions, not the 5 analyzed):

Yucca Mt:
Bush: for Yucca mountain. Claims safe, but only touting safe for 10000 years, where at least 100000 would be needed for radioactive decay to safe level.
Kerry: against Yucca mountain.

Nuclear Weapons Research:
Bush: more Nuke spending
Kerry: less Nuke spending

Emissions/Environment.
Bush: voluntary emissions changes
Kerry: greener stance - stronger base emissions guidelines.

Stem Cell research:
Bush: keep current - policy leans towards funding by private sector so taxpayers not responsible for paying for "further destruction of human embryos"
Kerry: loosen restrictions, as long as still morally acceptable.

NASA/Moon/Mars:
Bush: 15 years to manned moon mission (and base?) and use that as a launching point for future missions.
Kerry: NASA needs more funding (no real answer on manned mission to moon or Mars)

Mad Cow:
Bush: USDA leading taking measures such as banning eating of 'downer cattle' (fyi, animals that can't walk at time of slaughter), prohibiting specific material from older cattle (+30 mos), and expanded surveillence.
Kerry: Bush mishandling - need to ensure 1997 ban on bone-meal in feed (fyi, this is usually the ground bones of sheep, where the prions that cause mad cow come from).

Drugs:
Bush: US is gold standard for speeding new therapies and drugs to patients.
Kerry: Make sure FDA has funding to make sure drugs are safe. Current approval rate may be too fast to be safe.

Things they both agree with, to an extent: missile defense system (continue it), scientist movement (allow, as long as security isn't compromised), WMD (get global community involved), ITER fusion (keep research), biomed (both claim committed to it), endangered species (make changes that best protect the species), and transgenic crops (important to agriculture).

Re:for lazy slashdoters

[Anonymous Coward]

just to remind everybody: greenhouse gasses contributed by humans have never, ever been linked to global warming. the fact is that humans have increased the co2 in the atmosphere (this is clear due to measurement), but nobody has shown that it affects the climate at all.

during the summer, people buy more ice cream at beaches than any other time of the year. also, there are more shark attacks during this time. therefore, buying ice cream increases the number of shark attacks ... right?

Re:for lazy slashdoters

[igny]

Looks like Kerry and Bush disagreed on whether the current administration manipulated science.

Re:for lazy slashdoters

[Anonymous Coward]

As usual, only if you consider an embryo a living human. Many of us do not. That's not to say adult stem cells are not a better place to find them, but to claim that embryonic stem cell research equates to murder is a totally different kettle or morality.

Re:for lazy slashdoters

[Tackhead]

> Kerry is also very careful to not actually commit to anything. He'll consider options, but potentially he could continue right along with Bush's current policy, and it would not actually contradict what he said.

That was last week. In his latest stump speech, Kerry outlined a position in which he was going to be very careless and make firm commitments to everything. He said he'll continue right along Bush's current policy, but potentially he could consider other options.

Re:for lazy slashdoters

[gfxguy]

I think your summaries are a bit unfair.

Emissions/Environment.
Bush: voluntary emissions changes Bush claims he has commited the nation to a goal of reducing "greenhouse-gas intensity" by 18% over the next ten years... that sounds like a pretty firm statement to me.
Kerry: greener stance - stronger base emissions guidelines.

Stem Cell research:
Bush: keep current - policy leans towards funding by private sector so taxpayers not responsible for paying for "further destruction of human embryos" Bush administration has spent hundreds of millions on stem cell research, but pushes the use of adult stem cells.
Kerry: loosen restrictions, as long as still morally acceptable.

If you want a good summary, take a look at the BBC summary

Re:for lazy slashdoters

[Eccles]

a goal of reducing "greenhouse-gas intensity" by 18% over the next ten years... that sounds like a pretty firm statement to me.

That would be at least six years after he's out of the office. What actual policies has he pushed that would move us towards that goal? Are any of them not voluntary?

Re:for lazy slashdoters

[Anonymous Coward]

George Bush's presidency has suffered a rash of accusations that he is either ignoring or manipulating science. Democratic rival John Kerry, meanwhile, pledges to follow impartial scientific advice - but observers say that they are yet to be persuaded

What? Which observers? I've never heard anyone say they think Kerry will ignore or manipulate science. And the reason is that the Bush administration is the first to ever do that. Tied with the evidence that they are so much more secretive and vindictive than any other administration, including Nixon's (see John Dean's book). To Bush/Rove/Cheney, all policy decisions must be made on the politics, not on the facts. See the books and comments of all the Bush appointees who left or were forced out because they wanted to do policy and Bush/Rove/Cheney wanted only to do politics. They are the Mayberry Machiavellis.

Kerry shows no signs of continuing this inanity. A Kerry administration will return to normal, professional public administration principles that administrations followed up until January, 2001.

Re:for lazy slashdoters

[goodydot]

What you say is true, but consider this. Bush's chances of continuing his current policies: x% Kerry's chances of continuing Bush's current policies: x% Which is greater? I'd rather take the chance with Kerry than Bush.

Re:for lazy slashdoters

[Coryoth]

What you say is true, but consider this. Bush's chances of continuing his current policies: x% Kerry's chances of continuing Bush's current policies: x% Which is greater? I'd rather take the chance with Kerry than Bush.

For comparison however: Cobb's chances of continuing Bush's policies (if he were atually elected) 0%. I'll take Cobb over Bush and Kerry on environmental issues any day.

Jedidiah.

Re:for lazy slashdoters

[Creepy]

that's basically what I was saying - he set a goal, but includes no measures (basically, he expects it to happen by voluntary). I was paraphrasing in the shortest amount of info possible, so the stem cell stuff might have been a bit short.

Actually, a good percentage of the questions were avoided rather than answered. Both Bush and Kerry give numbers and promises without any information on how they would implement the things. I don't like either of the slimy weasels, but that's my opinion - damn politicians :)

Re:Religeon

[gowen]

1st Corollary : Any slashdotter who cannot spell Religion is unlikely to have informed, intelligen opinions on the subject.

How about interviews?

[two-tail]

Hopefully only partially offtopic

I want more.

I wonder how hard it would be to do a /. interview with each candidate, similar to the interview with R. Glaser. I kindof doubt that it would happen, but you never know!

Re:How about interviews?

[antifoidulus]

I wonder how hard it would be to do a /. interview with each candidate, similar to the interview with R. Glaser. I kindof doubt that it would happen, but you never know!
I can see it now:
Commander Taco interviews President George W. Bush
CT:Greetings Mr. Bush, my name is Comander Taco, AKA Rob Malda and I run a technology enthusiast site called Slashdot. The technology community has a lot of issues including...
Gets interrupted
GW:You are a commnader like I am a commander on the war on terror, we both have to do our parts to defeat evil, you commanding geeks, I commanding people warring on terror.
CT: Anyway....as I was saying....the technology enthusiast community has a lot of diverse viewpoints and we want to know where you stand on.....
Interrupted again
GW: Thats an interesting name, taco. I can speak Spanish! George W. Bush es el presidente de americainos!
CT: I give up! I'm going to interview John Kerry!

CT:Greetings Mr. Kerry, my name is Comander Taco, AKA Rob Malda and I run a technology enthusiast site called Slashdot. The technology community has a lot of issues including...
Gets interrupted
JK:I was a swift boat commander in Vietnam, where we didn't have tacos, we had rice, because it was Vietnam. And my opponent decided to stay in Alabama and eat tacos, not rice, because, he, unlike I, decided not to go to Vietnam!
CT: Anyway....as I was saying....the technology enthusiast community has a lot of diverse viewpoints and we want to know where you stand on.....
Interrupted again
JK: My opponent would rather Americans be forced to eat rice instead of tacos, because he doesn't care that 1.1 million less jobs exist now than 4 years ago, and tacos are a lot less healthy than rice, and since millions of Americans can no longer afford health care, they have to eat rice instead of tacos, just like I did in Vietnam.
CT: Yeah, forget it, I wonder if Ralph Nader is home.

Re:How about interviews?

[Anonymous Coward]

Kerry maybe (he went on John Stewart), Bush no..

Bush doesn't seem interested in speaking to the intelligent, informed people who don't have 6 figure incomes.

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

Any scientist who reads political papers for help making decisions regarding their science, cannot be sane.

Neither party truly supports science

[Anita Coney]

Each political party has agendas. Each party will use science to support their agendas. However, when there is no real science to support their agenda, or when real science contradicts the agendas, bad science will be created or the importance of science will be lessened.

Both political parties are guilty of the above. Merely because the right believes in invisible beings who control our destiny, doesn't make it worse than the left, who believes that creating a permanent welfare culture will end poverty.

Re:Neither party truly supports science

[justsomebody]

Wrong, both do, just pay one or make the other happy

Except that all the answers Bush gave were somehow sounding like they were paid well from current industry, which wants to cut costs with cheaper dumping of waste and not enrich technological development (status quo still means the lowest costs possible) the answer for nuclear weapons - Bush is taking term "Rocket scientist" too literal. Considering inteligence that Bush showed so far, one sould only wish that "WAR" word would be some harder word (at least 24 letters, hard to pronounce and difficult to spell) and Bush couldn't say or spell it so many times.

Kerry on the other side looks like he is interested in more nature friendly approach (on the other hand he might be just sucking in), so step would be nature friendly science which is more or less completely different than most of current technology. This approach would just mean too many changes and costs.

Re:Neither party truly supports science

[Anita Coney]

You're absolutely right that both parties are willing to pay for science that supports their agendas, but that's exactly what I said. But science where the result is determined before the research begins is NOT science.

It's a simple truth that neither party will ever change an agenda based on valid scientific research.

Re:Neither party truly supports science

[Kphrak]

This has to be the most insightful post on this article I've seen, and it's a shame people appear to be modding it down.

You may prefer Bush or Kerry as President, but their knowledge of science begins and ends at the poll stand. If enough people believe something, even if it's crackpot, one of these candidates will choose that position to gain a few more votes.

Re:Neither party truly supports science

[Anonymous Coward]

"Merely because the right believes in invisible beings who control our destiny, doesn't make it worse than the left, who believes that creating a permanent welfare culture will end poverty."

Perhaps not. However, a "permanent welfare culture" does at least have tangible benefits; if not for me, for one of my fellow countrymen. On the other hand, I see no evidence that these destiny controlling super beings even exist. So, if no-one objects, I'll vote for the leftie.

Re:Neither party truly supports science

[Anita Coney]

I deal with those in the welfare culture everyday. I have yet to see ANY benefit from it for them or for me. After three generations of being on welfare, the children see working and education as something to avoid. While I have to work extra to support a culture that refuses to work. Can you point out the benefit to that?

But I'm not here to debate welfare. Let's face facts, you are NOT voting left because science tells you to. There is absolutely NO scientific evidence that welfare will eliminate poverty. You are solely voting left because you happen to agree with the left's agenda. And that's my point exactly.

Re:Neither party truly supports science

[Anonymous Coward]

Strawman. Nobody says that welfare will end poverty.

Re:Neither party truly supports science

[poot_rootbeer]

Neither candidate may truly support science, but it could be argued that science truly supports Kerry over Bush.

Fifty-eight Nobel Laureates have publicly pledged their support for Kerry. I'm not aware of any that have backed Bush. Is there a conclusion that can be drawn from that?

Re:Neither party truly supports science

[jdbo]

While this is true in the absolute sense, in any sort of practical sense the Bush administration has a horrible record for distorting science.

I don't recall anything a severe as this condemnation happening under any prior administrations.

I would say that the record is bad enough that they shoud be kicked out.

Re:Neither party truly supports science

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose one could draw the conclusion that people who've spent much of their adult lives in a laboratory have soft hearts and little to no understanding of economics? ;-)

Re:Neither party truly supports science

[justsomebody]

I agree, but will they agree with you too??? ...that both parties are willing to pay for science that supports their agendas

More like "that both parties are willing to GET payED for science that AT LEAST IN SOME SENSE supports their agenda

In any case, it is NOT science in your or my opinion. But I think this will be excersized in form of man before judge and left the remains for blattering in next campaign.

Man: Didn't do it...
Judge: Sentence is....
Man: But...
Judge: Next one please!

Re:Neither party truly supports science

[Moofie]

Hmm....cloistered academics tend to be more liberal? Crazy thought, that.

Re:Neither party truly supports science

[Morosoph]

Those who believe in these invisible beings, or else in the perfection of the state are sure to mod it down as flamebait: it's either disrespectful to believers, or to the superior subtlety and cunning of our (human) masters.

I expect the down-modders are religious, rather than political, ironically.

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

Says who? Religion and science are not mutually exclusive, although most slashdotters' simplistic attitudes fail to reflect this. That's like saying that someone who enjoys music couldn't possibly be any good at nuclear physics.

I'm studying biology and chemistry in high school; I also happen to be a Christian. Science and religion simply cover different aspects of the world. As elegant as science is, and as helpful as it has been to the world around us, it has no room for things like morality.

Re:Religeon

[ChzMstrX]

That's simply ridiculous to say. I'm not W lover, but c'mon. The Catholic church is doing some spectacular astronomy research; and last I checked they read the Bible for guidance in decisions. Religion and science don't have to be at odds.

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

2nd Corollary : Any post criticising the spelling of another poster will contain at least one spelling error. (OK, mine is technically a typo).

Re:Religion

[richie2000]

intelligen

The defense rests, your Honorificness.

From a brief glance...

[Anonymous Coward]

the one thing that sticks out a mile is you can belive that Kerry could actually have written those answers, although I doubt he actually did.

Nothing about Mars there

[Onceat]

In my version I got there is nothing on space flight to Mars in the article, what you talking about Willis ?

Next up ...

[The Mgt]

... Dracula vs. Wolfman on childcare.

Re:Next up ...

[Frank of Earth]

hehe. Godzilla vs Mothra

Re:Next up ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dan Rather vs. Connie Chung?
Or maybe Michael Savage vs. Ace and Gary...
Or Bob Saget vs. Charlemagne...

Re:Next up ...

[glsunder]

I was thinking more along the lines of Jacko vs Andrea Yates on child care.

Re:Next up ...

[Lord_Breetai]

... Dracula vs. Wolfman on childcare.

No way! Flying Shark vs. Flying Crocodile is way cooler! Questions will be asked and destroyed! By answers!!

Re:Next up ...

[PetoskeyGuy]

I've always thought of them as Kerry / Bush as Frankenstein vs Egor

Re:Religeon

[user32.ExitWindowsEx]

Second Corollary: Anyone who leaves the 't' off intelligent needs to be careful.

p.s. I have 6 gmail invites and only need 3 people to complete an offer.

Re:Religeon

[sgant]

Mod parent up before he's modded down as a troll or flamebait.

I couldn't agree more. Plus I doubt very much that George W. actually reads the bible...it's handy to say that when you're campaining in the "bible belt"...but come on.

His views on science are so medieval you'd think he'd come lumbering out of the White House and throw rocks at the Sun saying "my god, what is that ball of fire! It will destroy us! God must be angry!".

No, I won't list specifics...that's why we have Google...do your own research.

Re:Religeon

[nuclear305]

While I will ignore the lack of proof in your comment to back it up (Even if it is in TFA) I must point out that looking to the bible for help does not necessarily indicate a person is not pro-science.

Being agnostic myself, I obviously don't do this...however, it is my opinion that religion as a whole is designed to instill hope, etc in a person. So what's wrong with reading a book while looking for a little help/inspiration/whatever?

Flash?

[MobyDisk]

Why are the answers in tiny-little barely-readable Flash movie? That must be the worst abuse of bad web design principles I've seen all year -- and on a reputable journal!

Re:Flash?

[pocopoco]

Several people have linked the pdf version, also you can get the flash to fill your screen if you access it directly. I agree it's a horrible design, though. On the page it's set all the way down at 440x400 and most of the text isn't even on a clean background. Oo I had to go enable flash just to see it as well, since I usually have it off to avoid annoying ads.

Re:Flash?

[spitzak]

Both Bush and Kerry refused to clearly state whether they think Flash is good or bad.

Re:Religeon

[Zorilla]

Anybody who trusts John Travolta for help making decisions regarding their conversion to Scientology, cannot be pro-sanity.

Gah...flash.

[LarsWestergren]

Why the hell did they need to make this into Flash? There are no animations, no images, just hyperlinked text which is rendered too small... or not at all at first actually, as I normally use Firefox with adblocker.

With regards to the questions, wouldn't it have been more fun if they had asked B and K unprepared questions on science directly in person, without any speechwriters to hide behind?

"The HIV virus is a retrovirus. Can either of you tell us what that means?"

"Give us the strongest arguments pro and con for the existance of man-made global warming."

Re:Gah...flash.

[Nodatadj]

And what would either of those questions have proved? That neither Bush nor Kerry are scientists?

Bush and Kerry do not make policy, they are just the public faces presenting the policies of their respective parties.

Whether the creation of personality politics where you vote for the most attractive public face ("Oh, I don't like him, he has a parking ticket, I'll vote against him") rather than on parties and their policies is a good or bad thing I'll leave for you to decide.

Re:Gah...flash.

[LarsWestergren]

And what would either of those questions have proved?

I didn't say it would prove anything, I said it would be funnier. :-)

Though as the other answer to my post pointed out, it would perhaps be more illuminating to see if they could answer questions on general knowledge, stuff you would expect a person with 9 or 12 years of school to know. Guess why I would like to see that in this particular election.

Re:Gah...flash.

[Nodatadj]

Though as the other answer to my post pointed out, it would perhaps be more illuminating to see if they could answer questions on general knowledge, stuff you would expect a person with 9 or 12 years of school to know. Guess why I would like to see that in this particular election.

Because you're playing on personality politics?
It doesn't really matter that Bush is a dumbass and has difficulty pronouncing words like nuclear and working out what size of food fits in his mouth. Whether there's a genius in office or a dumbass makes very little difference to the policies, just the way they're presented.

And unless you're a standup comedian who likes to point out the flaws in people in public office, I don't think it matters much.

Re:Gah...flash.

[div_2n]

That would have essentially been a debate unless they were asked in seperate rooms or something.

No, the President doesn't specifically make policy, but he can influence by urging lawmakers to take action and get a bill on his desk, vowing to veto a bill and things like that. This serves to dissuade lawmakers from pursuing bills with marginal support. So in essence, the true power of the President is:

-He listens to the will of the people and promises to do what is best for them
-Urges lawmakers to act on issues that are vital
-Signs into law these bills

Listening to the will and doing what is best for them can mean changing positions based on changing world situations. This has been called flip-flopping by Republicans and given as a bad thing. Would flip-flopping be a bad thing if stem cell researchers discovered that they could cure cancer with more embryonic stem lines for study requiring a change of Bush's policy? Of course not.

Re:Gah...flash.

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, considering that the US effectively has a two-party system, presidential candidates merely representing their parties seems like a very scary idea.

From what I've seen, both parties seem diverse enough that this is not the case (this is not to say that the situation is any better for it). It seems that Bush represents the interests of specific groups and individuals he considers friends, not necessarily mainstream ideas of the Republican party. It remains to be seen what interests Kerry represents (based on his answers in this particular questionnaire, he seems somewhat humbler than Bush, he often refers to John Edwards - which I consider a good thing, as Edwards seems more intelligent than either Kerry or Bush, both of which I think are not particularly intelligent and must rely on their close allies, and Bush's allies I've learned to be extremely suspicious of...).

Re:Gah...flash.

[danila]

Opera can zoom in on the page, including Flash animations. So by setting the zoom to 250% I saw large very readable, smooth, but sharp antialiased font. That doesn't mean that Flash is good, though, only that Opera is a great browser. They don't call it "The best Internet experience" for nothing. :)

Re:Gah...flash.

[danila]

So what you are saying is that a president plays essentially no role in politics. While one may agree with that, it just shows that the United States is a corrupt oligarchy, ruled by the shadow government, comprised of some old WASP farts, that dream about hoarding all the money in the world, scaring everyone into submission and are religious nuts to top it off. Not a very comforting view...

Re:Gah...flash.

[goodydot]

You know, I wouldn't mind having a non-scientist for a president. I WOULD like to know that he will appoint and listen to a reputable science advisor. You aren't just voting for the President, you are voting for his staff as well, and they may end up having a greater influence than the Man himself. Also, even though a religious view CAN be set aside in the face of science, Bush has obviously not done so with regard to stem-cell research.

Re:Gah...flash.

[multimed]

-He listens to the will of the people and promises to do what is best for them

You cannot lead by following. You cannot be a successful President by letting the polls dictate policy.

Personally I have no problem if a policitian changes changes positions based on something that happens. For example if you don't want to get the country involved in military actions around the world, it is understandable to change that after terrorists kill thousands of people on US soil. I do have a problem with some one who will not tell me what his policy on something. Kerry is trying to be as ambiguous as possible to get votes. While it's normal for some movement to the middle, at some point, a candidate must tell us what he or she plans to do. A lot was made of Bush governing without a mandate from the people as a result of th election. If Kerry is elected, even by a huge majority, I submit he will have even less of a mandate because nobody really knew what his policies would be.

Not that I agree with a lot of what Bush says. Therein lies the difficulty for me--(Ignoring other candidates for the moment) Bush I agree with maybe 70% of the time. Kerry I honestly have no idea how much I agree with. While there are a few issues I'm absolutely pissed at Bush about (excessive spending, Constitutional Ammendment banning gay marriage), right now I'm leaning towards "Better the devil you know."

Re:Gah...flash.

[jc42]

You cannot lead by following. You cannot be a successful President by letting the polls dictate policy.

Lots of politicians throughout history would disagree with you. One of my favorite quotes from several of them (including Chairman Mao) is "To be a leader, figure out which way the People are going, and walk in front of them."

Looking at the historic record, one could easily infer that several American presidents have followed this advice.

Readers are invited to append quotes from other politicians that are variants of this ...

Re:Gah...flash.

[div_2n]

"Let them eat cake."

Wait a minute, didn't she get beheaded for not listening?

Re:Gah...flash.

[jc42]

Heh, heh. Actually, she was probably beheaded mostly for being a rich twit.

But I don't think that her remark is in the same class as "To lead, walk in front". It's more like the advice a few years back that if lettuce wasn't profitable, farmers should grow endive. I.e., she was clueless about how the lower classes lived.

But there are lots of stupid politicians' saying in the record, too.

One good book of quotes, though it's not entirely about politicians' sayings, is "The Experts Speak", by Cerf and Navasky. It belongs on the bookshelf of every cynic.

Re:Gah...flash.

[multimed]

Lots of politicians throughout history would disagree with you.

Maybe so, but lots of historians would agree with me

Looking at the historic record, one could easily infer that several American presidents have followed this advice.

Generally, the US presidents that have been too reliant on the polls and public opinion or were concerned with balance at all costs are looked upon as history's worst. Fillmore and Buchanan which are typically at the very bottom of historians rankings, were so concerned with appeasing both the north and the south in regard to slavery that they were generally responsible for the Civil War.

But I can't help but take you up on the quotes offer...

• "I have no trouble with my enemies, but my damn friends, they're the ones that keep me walking the floor nights."

--Warren Harding, generally considered the worst President by historians. Perhaps given the fiasco with the forged National Guard documents, this may be something Kerry should take to heart.

And if you want to take leadership tips from Mao quotes, how about these wonderful insights:

• "We shall support whatever our enemies oppose; and oppose whatever our enemies support"
• "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

Re:Religeon

[jbarr]

I'll bet that if President Bush instead claimed that he got his inspiration from "LOTR" you'd be drumming a different beat... ;-)

Unfortunatly

[Lifix]

Bush's supporters have been shown to vote for him soely on moral ground. The poorest county in america voted more then 80% for Bush. Why you ask? Because Bush has the Christian Right, a sizeable population. Bush can screw the enviroment, tax people into the ground, reinstate the draft, declare war on canada and mexico and still have the christian right's vote.

If people will wake up and realize that voting for Bush without understanding the issues is killing our country, then perhapse they will change... but until then bush can look forward to having all the bible thumpers under his belt, and abusing his power more and more. Ah well, personally, I think you should have to have a slashdot account to vote this year.

Re:Unfortunatly

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, Not that I'm a huge supporter or anything, but I think you meant to say "Spend us into the ground". Unless W has done something new recently he is continuing to pledge to reduce taxes further while increasing spending more. While I'm pretty sure his understanding of science is bad, I'm even more sure that his understanding of economics is very poor. You can't keep buying more while making less indefinitely - there are no credit counselors for governments to negotiate reduced payments.

Re:Unfortunatly

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah well, personally, I think you should have to have a slashdot account to vote this year

Yes, having our political candidates chosen by 15 year old l33t h4x0rs is exactly what we need. Let's hope their parents can give them rides to the booths.

Re:Unfortunatly

[vena]

actually, according to Rasmussen, both parties' members seem to follow their leader without the need for idiological agreement.

(and yes, considering Rasmussen has been accused of late for having a left-leaning bias [i disagree], the big W Ketchup [which you'd think is intended to be ironic, but they really are a right-wing group] is amusing to say the least)

Re:Unfortunatly

[Plaeroma]

What is most unfortunate is that these people are tarnishing the already shot reputation of Christianity. Going from what it seen on the media, being Christian means hating gays, supporting war, turning America into a theocracy, and opressing anyone who disagrees. This is a far cry from love your enemies, forgive those who wrong you, and peace loving message I garnered from reading the Bible. Not saying that approach is the best either, but these Right wingers certainly have no place in calling themselves Christian.

Re:Unfortunatly

[ceeam]

Well, one cowboy or another... what's the difference?

Re:Unfortunatly

[Anonymous Coward]

Being what some might call the Christian Right, and knowing many of them as well, I have to say your characterization is very wrong. There are specific principles that are voted on. Chief for many are concern for the life of the weakess and most defenseless of people that are being killed by the millions through abortion. If Nader, for exmaple, became pro-life I would certainly consider not only voting for him but campaigning for him as well. I doubt I am alone.

Re:Unfortunatly

[Gigs]

...he is continuing to pledge to reduce taxes further while increasing spending more...his understanding of economics is very poor.

Perhaps his is not as bad as your's? You see that he has not pledged to reduce taxes, he's pledged to reduce the tax rate! The tax rate is a government surcharge on transfering capital. When you lower the tax rate its allows money to be transfered from one entity to another more cheaply. And as such more money does move! As that money is moved it is taxed. And even though the tax rate is lower the exponential increase in the amount of capital moved more than makes up for the reducion in the tax rate. And as such the income of the government increases. If money did not move the counrty would grind to a halt.

Re:Unfortunatly

[Remlik]

Let me rephrase your post in simpler terms.

"Its bad that people with morals vote for bush, but I won't say why. Random stat I found somewhere to make my point. No we didn't ask. Huge generalizaion about what christians might do. Lies, exagerations and impossible scenarios.

I think that anyone voting for Bush is an idiot, even though I don't really know why. Insult to those who follow a stong belief in God, and more lies. Finally a tip of the hat to geeks to get modded up."

This is a troll, is not funny, and not even close to a real cohiesive thought. So you hate Bush, and you hate people who believe in God...bad news friend, they out number you.

Bush isn't screwing the environment. Any reduction in CO2 output in this country is fruitless against the output of most of Asia, and African countries. Oh and one volcano erruption and its all over, you people are idiots to believe any of this mumbo jumbo.

Bush cut taxes, perhaps you forgot. Draft, good luck, the christian right would probably be the first ones against it. I never really did like canada or mexico anyway.

Re:Unfortunatly

[kabocox]

Ah well, personally, I think you should have to have a slashdot account to vote this year.

That's got to be the funniest thing that I've read today!

Re:Unfortunatly

[Warpedcow]

Bush isn't screwing the environment. Any reduction in CO2 output in this country is fruitless against the output of most of Asia, and African countries. Oh and one volcano erruption and its all over, you people are idiots to believe any of this mumbo jumbo.

Also, lets not forget that plant-life and the oceans release about 97% of all CO2 into the atmosphere. ALL HUMAN ACTIVITY COMBINED only accounts for about 3%. Anyone else here read "The Skeptical Environmentalist"?

Re:Unfortunatly

[Alsee]

So obviously the way to balance the budget is to reduce the tax rate to zero, thereby maximizing capial movement and government income.

-

Re:Unfortunatly

[pommiekiwifruit]

Which is why the USA is moving to electronic voting; to give hackers a better chance!

Re:Unfortunatly

[mrchaotica]

15 year old l33t h4x0rs would choose better than the "Religious" right!

Re:Unfortunatly

[AbbyNormal]

Rather ironically, I was reading this quote when I received the following link in an email: http://www.bushflash.com/nuke.html

Nuclear science anyone? But like you just said, people will just vote for his morals.

Re:Unfortunatly

[mirio]

If people will wake up and realize that voting for Bush without understanding the issues is killing our country, then perhapse they will change... but until then bush can look forward to having all the bible thumpers under his belt, and abusing his power more and more. Ah well, personally, I think you should have to have a slashdot account to vote this year.

It seems as though the parent poster is a little biased against Christians, but that seems to be just fine with today's rules of political correctness.

The reason many poor people support Bush is not because they are Christians, it is because they don't want handouts from the Dems. I know...I grew up poor and I understand the pride of poor families.

Many Christians don't support Bush because of his religious beliefs, they support him because they have similar points of view on various issues.

They agree with him on abortion because they believe (on ethical grounds) that abortion is murder. Many non-christians also share this belief.

They agree with him on stem cell research because they feel that using human empryos for science is unethical.

These are two hot-button issues with many conservatives today, but that's not the issue.

I am a Christian and a card-carrying member of the libertarian party. I disagree with Bush on many issues including going to Iraq, the PATRIOT act, etc. I think that you Christian-bashers should seriously consider thinking of some more derogatory terms for us...the bible-thumper thing is really starting to get old.

Re:Unfortunatly

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that you Christian-bashers should seriously consider thinking of some more derogatory terms for us...the bible-thumper thing is really starting to get old.

how 'bout "bible-humper" ??? Better?

Re:Unfortunatly

[Politburo]

The reason many poor people support Bush is not because they are Christians, it is because they don't want handouts from the Dems.

That's fucking stupid. Government assistance programs are optional. So these people may have some illogical stigma against receiving a helping hand, but no one's going to force money down their throats.

Re:Unfortunatly

[NonSequor]

You make the flaw of assuming that all forms of supply and demand affected by taxes are highly elastic. The fact of the matter is, people cannot live without transferring capital. Expecting an exponential increase in the transfer of capital is exceptionally naive.

I believe that this country would benefit greatly from massive tax reform. However, I also believe that tax policy is too crude of a tool to reliably control the economy. The effects of policies this broad are too subtle to predict and even after the fact, attributing changes in the economy to specific policies is an intellectual fraud.

Re:Unfortunatly

[mirio]

That's fucking stupid. Government assistance programs are optional. So these people may have some illogical stigma against receiving a helping hand, but no one's going to force money down their throats.

Hmm...no...it's not. They don't believe in these programs at all! They don't believe the masses should sit with their collective hands held out while the members of the working class are working themselves so hard to try to make it from day to day. Government assistance programs are optional on the receiving end, but the IRS certainly does not regard them as optional.

Many people who would call themselves poor are not really poor. If you have a cell phone and two cars, you're not poor.

Re:Unfortunatly

[akp]

And even though the tax rate is lower the exponential increase in the amount of capital moved more than makes up for the reducion in the tax rate. And as such the income of the government increases.

And thus the increases in federal income tax revenue that happened in the 80's under Reagan and the 00's under Bush. Except that neither happened--tax rates were lowered, and tax revenues--surprise!--lowered also. Read about it at Wikipedia.

There are some arguments for supply-side economics, but no (or incredibly few) serious economists believe that reducing marginal tax rates increases tax revenue. It might reduce tax revenue less than one would expect, but it doesn't increase revenue.

Re:Unfortunatly

[Politburo]

The GP presented this mentality:

Poor Person: "I'm poor, but I don't want handouts from the government, so I'll vote Republican."

To which I said, that is fucking stupid. If you don't want the handouts, don't take them. However, if you're against handouts in the general case (not just their personal case), that's fine.

FYI, your post didn't make much sense at all.

Re:Unfortunatly

[YrWrstNtmr]

Your key phrase is "Going from what it seen on the media..."

Does the media's view accurately reflect the view of most Christians? Doubtful. The media is in it for $$$.
The 'truth' is merely a happy accident if and when it happens.

Re:Unfortunatly

[maxpublic]

This works only so long as the government doesn't continue to engage in deficit spending. Right now the deficit is the single biggest threat to long-term economic prosperity, and further increasing that debt is a recipe for disaster.

Max

Re:Unfortunatly

[Nopal]

If people will wake up and realize that voting for Bush without understanding the issues is killing our country, then perhapse they will change... but until then bush can look forward to having all the bible thumpers under his belt...

Right. What do poor, bible-thumpers have anything to do with the issues? Everyone knows that they are dolts that can be broadly stereotyped as brainless sheep. But you, by contrast, understand the issues so well. Bush raising taxes? Destroying the environment? Draft? War against Candada and Mexico? Yep, you've got the issues down, alright.

Nothing to see here folks, just the typical Slashdot snobbery modded up as insightful.

Re:Unfortunatly

[Nopal]

Please google-up "Fiscal Policy" and read a little bit. What the original poster refers to is a well-understood Keynesian Macroeconomics phenomenon, and a widely-accepted method of stimulating economic growth via lower tax rates (both Reagan and JFK used it). Most of the people that oppose it seem to be politicians or other people with no economic training.

Re:Unfortunatly

[llansamlet]

Yes, and that most capatilist of notions: "I am my brother's keeper"

Re:Unfortunatly

[greeneggs2000]

Why is this moderated insightful? We are well below the break-even point on the Laffer curve. Duh.

Re:Unfortunatly

[Just Some Guy]

Bush's supporters have been shown to vote for him soely on moral ground.

No I don't. I share some moral beliefs with him (would anyone vote for anybody with completely different morals than their own?), but that's not the main reason I think he's the best candidate in this election.

If people will wake up and realize that voting for Bush without understanding the issues is killing our country, then perhapse they will change...

If people will wake up and realize that [hating] Bush without understanding the issues is [hopelessly dividing] our country, then perhapse they will change...

I understand the Democratic position on many of the differences I have with them, but I disagree with them for various reasons. You clearly have no understanding of the Republican position on those issues and have resorted to attacking with "Bush is teh suck and his followers too".

Re:Unfortunatly

[Jardine]

Because Bush has the Christian Right, a sizeable population. Bush can screw the enviroment, tax people into the ground, reinstate the draft, declare war on canada and mexico and still have the christian right's vote.

Hey, don't give him any ideas.

Re:Unfortunatly

[Gigs]

...and tax revenues--surprise!--lowered also

Bzzz wrong answer, but thanks for playing the "lets make up data game"... I like to rely on more useful data like say the IRS Internal Revenue Gross Collections, by Type of Tax, Fiscal Years 1973-2003 which clearly shows that tax revenue doubled from 1980 to 1989!

...but no (or incredibly few) serious economists believe that reducing marginal tax rates increases tax revenue.

Believe as they might the data shows otherwise.

Re:Unfortunatly

[upsidedown_duck]

Bush can screw the enviroment, tax people into the ground, reinstate the draft, declare war on canada and mexico and still have the christian right's vote.

One thing that is disturbing about the proposed Marriage Amendment, for example, is that Bush, by supporting it, shows how little he understands the foundations for freedom in the USA. Any amendments designed to side-step the First Amendment are just wrong by any measure, regardless of how popular the amendment would or would not be. The amendment system is for adding new legal rights not for taking them away, and it is saddening that so many elected officials seem to not understand this.

Re:Unfortunatly

[Alsee]

well-understood Keynesian Macroeconomics

Yes, I am familiar with the concept. I pointed out the fact that the ultimate endpoint of cutting taxes is inevitably zero government revenue. Unstated, but implict is that a 100% tax rare also results in zero revenue. The theory that cutting taxes will result in increased government revenue is only valid if you presume that taxes were already somehow raised into the range of negative returns. It is fantacy to think that is true, as demonstrated by the balloning debt.

Taxes are currently 50% higher than they should be! It if weren't for the $7.4 trillion dollar debt tying up 1/3 of the federal budget on interest payments, we could give everyone an instant 33% tax cut! I defy you to claim the economy wouldn't be better off if taxes were 33% lower.

Furthermore look at the money flow that debt is creating. The interest payments must be collected from the general public. And where do those payment go? To those people holding Treasury bills, to the wealthiest few percent and to foriegners. So the effect of those interest payments is to drain money from the lower and middle classes and pump it out of the country or to the rich.

How do you stimulate economic growth? By having people invest money in the economy. There is currently $7.4 trillion dollars of investment capital tied up in the freaking debt. If we paid off the freaking debt those investors would move their money into other investments, into real and productive investments. It would free up capial to move into new startups and into capital improvements and into research and development.

I find it absolutely appalling that politicians and reporters and pretty much everyone has fallen into the delusion of talking about reducing deficit. All reference to the debt has vanished. So long as there is any deficit at all we are digging the debt hole deeper. The intrest is 1/3 of the national budget and increasing. Social Security alone is about to shatter the budget. Every politician wantas to be popular and cut taxes, and every polititian wants to be popular and fund all sorts of neat programs. Sorry, but you can't do both. Every dollar you spend has to come from somehere. Sooner or later you max out your creditcard and the bank forecloses and you lose your home.

Carrying such a huge interest load (one third of the budget) is dangerous. God forbid interest rates spike, it would swallow almost the entire budget.

-

Re:Unfortunatly

[Nopal]

There is currently $7.4 trillion dollars of investment capital tied up in the freaking debt.

I thought that you said you understood economics? Government borrowing is not captial investment until the government spends what it borrows, which it has done. Isn't that also a Government investment in the economy? Please read the second part of the Fiscal Policy theory, the part that explains how government expenditures can also pump-up the economy.

Though I'd also prefer that we didn't have a deficit, governments naturally tend to spend more in order to revitalize a lagging economy, such as during a recession. Debts can be managed much more easily than a sluggish economy, especially since debts tend to devaluate over time due to factors such as inflation.

In reality, there aren't $7.4 trillion out of circulation. The issue can be seen instead as $7.4 trillion MORE than there would normally be in the economy, plus a multiplier factor (because of banks tendency to "create" money as borrowing and spending takes place, another keynesian concept). So those $7.5 trillion may mean $22.2 trillion available for investment to the general economy, assuming a conservative multiplier of 3.

But of course, there is never such a thing as a free lunch. The whole process can be understood in terms of spending money to make money. In this case, the government spends money in interest payments and runs up a debt while cutting taxes (the Federal Reserve also does its part through Monetary Policy), to avoid a deepening recession, and it actually seems to be working. During next economic boom cycle, if properly managed, we could get rid of many deficit problems, such as Clinton did during the 90's. If the boom grows too fast, another way to put the brakes and avoid runaway inflation is through increased taxes and/or higher interest rates.

There are times to cut taxes, times to increase them, times to run a deficit, and times to run a surplus. These just happen to be deficit/cut-taxes/low-interest/low-reserve-rate times.

Re:Unfortunatly

[Minna Kirai]

Does the media's view accurately reflect the view of most Christians?

That's irrelevant. The question is, "does the media accurately present the Republicans' views?"

And at least in limited (but important) cases, they do. For example, Republicans are pro-war (and have attacked Kerry for calling himself "anti-war"). But no Christian, ever, should claim to be pro-war.

WWJB?

Re:Unfortunatly

[YrWrstNtmr]

But no Christian, ever, should claim to be pro-war.

Correct that to:
"But no human, ever, should claim to be pro-war."

Not claiming that the current situation in Iraq applies, but there are some things worse than war.

Bigotry is ugly....

[Anonymous Coward]

...in any form.

Answers mostly content-free and evasive

[Compact Dick]

Bush comes across as the major offender here, but Kerry isn't too far behind.

BTW, judging by the frequency of "John Edwards and I" being repeated, I'm left wondering -- is Kerry gay?

Re:Answers mostly content-free and evasive

[Digz]

who knows ;)

Re:Answers mostly content-free and evasive

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps Kerry realizes that his VP would be much more intelligent than him and actually relies in him for something?

Bush's VP is also more intelligent than him, but Bush's VP is also pretty damn frighteningly ruthless and partisan...

Re:Answers mostly content-free and evasive

[Guy Harris]

who knows ;)

Yeah, there's a lot of that going around.

Non-Americans

[caitsith01]

I suspect more non-Americans than Americans are taking a really keen interest in this election. Considering that only, what, 40-odd percent of eligible voters actually bother to turn out on election day in the states, you could hardly say interest there is raging, despite the fanatical partisans we see all the time on the news. Given the disproportionate effect that US policies have on my country (Australia), I would kill to be able to vote in this election.

Of course, if non-US citizens could vote, it's pretty clear what the result would be. Although maybe we shouldn't publicise this, it might provoke a nationalistic wave of support for you know who...

Re:Non-Americans

[Yorrike]

I can't vote in the US elections either, yet the term "leader of the free world" is still used. Guess I'm not important enough to elect my "leader".

The aforementioned term springs from the same mindset from which the term "World Series" is applied to a US-only baseball league.

Re:Non-Americans

[caitsith01]

My favourite US-ism from recent times is that some of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are charged with "attempting to kill Americans." Apparently it would have been ok if their intended victims were Canadian. Cue lame anti-Canada jokes...

Re:Non-Americans

[amightywind]

Although maybe we shouldn't publicise this, it might provoke a nationalistic wave of support for you know who...

It already has. One of the most effective slurs against Kerry has been "he looks French."

Re:Non-Americans

[evslin]

Can you really blame those who don't show up? There are folks out there who don't like Bush, but won't vote for Kerry because all he's done so far is talk about Vietnam. And there's people who don't like Kerry but won't vote for Bush because they don't like the way he handled Iraq. And then there's your oddball few that like Ralph Nader but don't want to vote for him because he's not going to win anyway.

Re:Non-Americans

[gathas]

Although maybe we shouldn't publicise this, it might provoke a nationalistic wave of support for you know who...

Voldemort? I didn't realize he was running

Re:Non-Americans

[Eslyjah]

I believe the exact charge is that he's a haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat who, by the way, served in Vietnam.

God bless James Taranto.

Re:Non-Americans

[Yorrike]

If those people did vote, however, you'd bring an end to this stupid two party system the US has and bring a wider spectrum of political opinion to the US.

Political diversity can only be good for a country like the US.

Re:Non-Americans

[Coryoth]

Voldemort? I didn't realize he was running

He's not. Cthulhu/Yog-Sothoth '04 is the "Greater Evil" ticket this year, having beaten Voldemort out in the primaries in May.

"Why Choose the Lesser Evil: Cthulhu/Yog-Sothoth '04"

Jedidiah.

Re:Non-Americans

[armb]

> Voldemort? I didn't realize he was running

You think Bush is smart enough to decide what he's going to do himself?

Re:Non-Americans

[thelaw]

It's possible to lead someone without having authority over them. In fact, that's the way leadership usually works. Anyone can command somebody who has to obey them. But true leaders encourage, inspire, and persuade people who don't *have* to follow them.

That's how captains of athletic teams are usually picked, and why middle linebackers are so important to the performance of a football team's defensive backs. The US military picks its combat leaders based on their performance *before* they have authority, not after.

The leader of the free world, if the US President abandoned that role, could just as well be French President Jacques Chirac or Nigerian President President Obasanjo.

Jon

Re:Non-Americans

[freqres]

I'll let you have my presidential vote this November if you pay my federal taxes for this year. Maybe I should sell my vote on E-Bay.
Or maybe not.

Re:Non-Americans

[pjt33]

You haven't come across Republicans for Voldemort?

Re:Non-Americans

[InsaneGeek]

For it to be effective doesn't it have to be well known. I can say I've never ran across that statement.

Re:Non-Americans

[3terrabyte]

That's a bunch of crap. If the non-voting populance went out and voted... just by themselves they could vote in a 3rd party. That's a lot of numbers. Yorikke is correct.

Re:Non-Americans

[Eslyjah]

Not even close. I'm an American (actually I have dual-citizenship, but that's neither here nor there) and I think that many non-Americans are very poorly informed about the issues involved in this election. I read the foreign papers (I speak French and Portuguese), and the analyses I have found therein are extremely cursory and often irrelevant. I had a discussion on Iraq with my cousin who is not an American and he spouted off this nonsense about war for oil. My brother is currently living in France and is inundated with idiots who think Bush is Hitler (and who apparently have no understanding of their own history).

Whatever side you come down on in this election, Americans believe that this is an extremely important one. And not just for foreign policy reasons. The country is making a choice between a candidate with strong socialist leanings (wanting to nationalize healthcare) and one with more capitalist ones (Medicare expansion notwithstanding). Quite frankly, the American issues you care about are only a small fraction of the ones I care about. Taxes, school vouchers, Social Security reform, healthcare, tort reform, and judicial appointments matter to me. There is no way that these issues matter to you in the same way.

If non-US citizens could vote, they would select the candidate that emasculates American military and cultural influence the most in order to shift the worldwide balance of power in their favor. Based on America's interests both domestically and abroad, I am confident that Americans will not vote in the same way.

Re:Non-Americans

[rotor]

Um yeah.... If they were attempting to kill non-US citizens on non-US territory, the US would have no right to hold them. That doesn't mean it would be "ok", but it would be Canada's job to arrest and hold them. And don't think that they wouldn't.

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

it's pretty clear what the result would be. [cbsnews]

Hmmm, that might be a tidbit from CBSNews that is actually the truth.

Re:Non-Americans

[mindriot]

I suspect more non-Americans than Americans are taking a really keen interest in this election.

Maybe we should have a poll that looks somewhat like this:

Where are you from, and do you care about the US presidential election?

• USA. I care.
• USA. I don't care.
• Non-USA. I care.
• Non-USA. I don't care.
• What election?
• Is CowboyNeal running?

"Do you care" might be the wrong question though... feel free to refine the question, I'll GPL it :)

Re:Non-Americans

[JaJ_D]

I would kill to be able to vote in this election

Why kill? Buy a vote on ebay.

Jaj

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the most effective slurs against Kerry has been "he looks French."

If that's been "one of the most effective", I wonder how much more effective it has been to criticize his senate record, vietnam storytelling -err- recounting -err-, flip flopping, endless Kerryisms etc. Those must have been incredibly! effective.

Re:Non-Americans

[Riktov]

And I would vote to be able to kill!

Re:Non-Americans

[ViolentGreen]

I agree completely. As it stands though, the two parties have too much of a hold on the political system. In order to be elected, you almost have to run as one.

This could happen, but it will almost have to come very gradually. That or a possible major issue that splits both parties down the middle. I don't see that happening though. I was kind of hoping the Iraq war might. It seems that it created a slight temporary rift but it's back to the same-old-same-old politics again.

Re:Non-Americans

[evslin]

http://www.fairvote.org/turnout/preturn.htm
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
http://www.fec.gov/pages/htmlto5.htm
http://www.multied.com/elections/

Look at some of the figures on that last link. The last time the turnout went above even 70% was 1900 - and that was a 2 party election. Hell the turnout 1896 was almost 80%, and that was a 2 party election too. So I'm legitimately curious about this, guys - if what I'm saying is a bunch of crap then why in the last century have voter turnouts held around the 50%-60% range? Are we waiting for something? The right issue, or set of issues? The right guy? The right scandal? I'd honestly like to know.

Re:Non-Americans

[Joe Tie.]

Or, while we're dreaming of things that would be great but which will never happen short of revolution, an end or severe modification to the electoral college.

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

Strictly speaking, there are some non-american teams elligible to playin the world series, they just don't usually get there :)

http://bluejays.mlb.com/

http://expos.mlb.com/

Re:Non-Americans

[llansamlet]

Fair point, but we do see that voter turnout in the US is horribly low, and that most of the arguments seem to be taking place about what someone did or didn't do 30 years ago. That's why I get the impression that many either don't care, care about trivial things, or are just totally disenfranchised by both 'choices'.

That's why it looks like a bit like the vote is sort of wasted on just the US voters.

What media source would you suggest for a genuinely interested non-US, so that they can become more informed about the real issues and not see a crazy texan and the dullest man in the world slag each other off?

I watched much of the Newsnight (BBC) coverage from both party congresses, and really enjoyed reports from genuine republican, democrat heartlands which seemed to address real history, background and issues. Also candid interviews with delegates, to see how their beliefs differ from the 'party line'. I feel,hope I understand some of the republican cause slightly more now as a result of this and some in depth articles in the papers.

Re:Non-Americans

[HalfFlat]

You have to forgive people for thinking that the motivation for the invasion of Iraq had something to do with oil.

Because as it has become apparent, it certainly had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, nor with 'liberating' the Iraqi people. Or if it did, it was executed so incompetently that claiming an ulterior motive is almost charitable.

None of the evidence that has come to light so far paints the actions of the current US administration in a positive light, inasmuch as it relates to the wars it has started. As regards other international affairs, it has actively fought any steps that would impinge upon the short-term benefit of large US corporations, for example in the arms industry, drug manufacture, agriculture. And of course there is the blatant disregard for the US' contribution to global warming.

Policies based in religious thought, not science, shape the US' position when looking at international family planning and poverty issues; the US has thrown its political weight around in trying to stymie UN policies on education and family planning which touch on contraception.

In international policy the US has been consistently belligerent; even now it is unilaterally trying to bully Iran on nuclear issues. It has strained relations with major allies, and amazingly has made itself even more disliked in the middle East.

So there are very good reasons why people outside the US have a very low opinion of Bush. Calling him a modern Hitler is hyperbole, but such low opinion of him is not unfounded.

Re:Non-Americans

[Your_Mom]

or Nigerian President President Obasanjo.

Didn't you hear? He died.

His son just sent me an e-mail talking about a lucrative business deal. Sadly, I really can't discuss it here.

Re:Non-Americans

[Dixie_Flatline]

That's a tiger rock.

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
[Lisa refuses at first, then takes the exchange]

Just because you haven't suffered another attack doesn't mean that your country is safer, or Bush has done his job. I'm not saying he hasn't, but you're attributing to causality what you can only attribute to correlation. It's like me BLAMING Bush for the attacks because there weren't any attacks on the U.S. before he came along.

Re:Non-Americans

[dpilot]

I believe others have said this, but it bears repeating.

In order to diversify from the current two-party system, we'd need a different method of counting votes. With the current simple method, voting for a third-party is usually the same as discarding your vote. Alternative voting schemes would allow for things like second-choice, etc. Schemes like this would permit the emergence of third parties, by allowing you to vote FOR someone while still effectively voting AGAINST someone else. The Liberal could vote FOR the Greens without it effectively becoming a vote for the Republicans. Likewise the Conservative could vote FOR the Libertarian without it effectively becoming a vote for the Democrats.

Interestingly enough, a change like this does not have to happen at a national level. The Constitution confers rights for running elections to the States. Voting changes could happen on a state-by-state basis. But even at a State level, Republicans and Democrats probably wouldn't like the idea.

Re:Non-Americans

[circusboy]

hey! hey! HEY!

we let the cadanians play in that one! (at least for the moment)

Re:Non-Americans

[Warpedcow]

The aforementioned term springs from the same mindset from which the term "World Series" is applied to a US-only baseball league.

Does this mean you consider the Toronto Blue Jays and Montreal Expos to be "United States" teams?

Re:Non-Americans

[Boiling_point_]

I haven't seen US territory get hit with another major attack in the last three years.

Is that progress to you? It's chilling and sad to think that such a statement can be considered a "strong point" of any 1st world governmental regime. Five years ago it would have been dystopian in the extreme to suggest it.

To me, that's reason enough to steer well clear of the guys who have been sailing everyone into this shitstorm... on both (all?) sides.

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

You may be right about your understanding of internal american affairs, but let me tell you, you're wrong about your assumptions on non-US citizens.

You're talking of a world where countries "emasculate" each other, where there's a "shift of power", "military influence". It's your right, and Bush's too, to see international relations as a perpetual conflict, with a winner wielding power.

In this case, I can understand that you'd like to be in the winner's team.

There are also people who think that you can see things otherwise. Equilibrium. Mutual understanding. Trying not to get infuriated when contradiction comes. That's called adult behaviour, when you don't forcibly want to show others that you got the longest dick.

Oh, by the way : the issue at stake is the same in both private and international relationships.

Re:Non-Americans

[rotor]

The difference is that there has been evidence of planned attacks which have been thwarted. Would Kerry's administration do a worse job? I don't know (though I believe they would), but the Bush administration has done a decent job in my eyes of dealing with these threats.

Re:Non-Americans

[mark2003]

Which recession was this that he turned around? The one that started after he entered office?

Interesting that you can make that claim when he is the only recent pres. (I believe) that has ended his term with more people out of work than when he started it.

Your view on terrorism is also interesting, how many times did the US get hit by foreign terrorists whilst Clinton was in office?

It is amazing how you can delude yourself enough to use two examples that were, in reality, screw ups by Bush...

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

the how I've had actual americans describe the last election is...

***you have bush over here, and gore over here... neither is good but you gotta choose either one.***

which is pretty much the thing that is fucked - there is no choice(well, of course there is choice but thats chosen inside the party in a small group.. but that's like saying that communist china is free).

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one that finds it funny that people in other places of the world are bitching about voter turnout? If my memory serves me correctly (and it does), the last EU election had historically low number of people show up for their election.

Re:Non-Americans

[rotor]

Let's see if I follow your argument.

We get hit with one terrorist attack, and because we tighten our defenses so no others get through you're against the President. Conversely, if we'd let our defenses slack and been attacked over and over you wouldn't have this reason to vote against him?

Makes perfect sense to me!

Re:Non-Americans

[Johnny Mnemonic]

I haven't seen US territory get hit with another major attack in the last three years.

This is not meant as a troll--although this is the hardest topic to avoid starting one in--but if we were hit, would you change your vote?

I ask because I firmly believe that we will be hit if Uncle Al thinks it'll help his goals, and I don't think that we can prevent it if Uncle Al cares to execute it. But then the question becomes: a) does Uncle Al prefer to see Bush or Kerry in control? I believe that there are arguments for either, which I'll probably have to elaborate on in the thread below; and b) would an attack make Bush more or less re-electable? Americans would surely feel the same wave of patriotism that they did the first time, and rally behind the commander-in-chief; otoh, Bush has credited himself with making the world and the US in particular much safer since he's the guy in charge. If Uncle Al puts a lie to that, are Americans likely to hold him accountable?

It's hard to me to guess, since I'll be voting for Kerry regardless of what happens. So I'm interested to hear from a "leaning-to-Bush" kinda guy to know if your vote could be flipped by an attack. I'm guessing that it couldn't be--but it seems like you've predicated your decision on his ability to make us safer, and if it's demonstrated that he really hasn't, I wonder if your opinion will change.

(Just to make sure this gets modded as a troll--I can't believe Cheney's latest statements, to the effect of: vote for Kerry and we'll be attacked; we've made the world safer, as we haven't been attacked since 9/11 due to our response. Either they know a lot more about Uncle Al's capability than I do--entirely possible--or they're doing a lot of wishful thinking and whistling past the graveyard. Uncle Al has already shown a willingness to influence the democratic process, so to challenge them to do it again seems like a stupid stupid stupid thing to do. I think it would have been much smarter to say "re-elect Bush as he's the only guy with the gumption to complete the job that's been started but to say that the job is over when it clearly isn't is just boggling. Didn't they learn from the Bring It On and the Mission Accomplished tough talk?)

Re:Non-Americans

[Surlyboi]

You're joking, right?

The Bush administration has been a litany of failures. He hasn't turned the recession around. Now of course, my personal experience is no scientific study, but I know a lot more unemployed people than I did before Bush took office. I also know a lot more employed people with higher degrees who have had to take jobs in retail because they needed to pay the rent and couldn't rely on their savings anymore.

The war in Iraq is a joke and we're on our way to the bloodiest month ever in that country. We are NOT safer here in the US than we were before this ill-advised adventure, we've turned world opinion against us and pissed of a lot of people we didn't have to. The next major attack on American soil has gone from possible to inevitable because of Bush and his cabal of armchair generals.

And I am an American. A New Yorker that lost a hell of a lot more on 9/11 than a false sense of security.

Re:Non-Americans

[thelaw]

Quite obviously, someone attempting to kill Americans is acting in a way that the American government finds particularly interesting. There are all sorts of fun jurisdiction questions raised by this, but it's standard practice here in the US.

Jon

Re:Non-Americans

[dema]

"World Series" is applied to a US-only baseball league.

Also happens with the NFL. The team that wins the Super Bowl are the "World Champions." I've always hated that.

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

"executed so incompetently "

The lack of perfection does not imply incompetence.

Re:Non-Americans

[Tyler Durden]

...vietnam storytelling -err- recounting -err-, flip flopping...

Yeah, no kidding. It's so much better to support someone who dodged the experience altogether by using his daddy's power. Or with several deferments, maybe. Especially in a conflict they supported at the time.

Bush/Cheney for 2004! Because true patriots choose hypocritical, cowardly chicken-hawks to decide foreign policy.

Re:Non-Americans

[fizban]

Actually, voting for Bush will definitely knock the U.S. down futher in world power. His blind devotion to military conflict as a means for peace just creates more enemies and less respect. If that's not loss of power, I don't know what is.

Kerry on the other hand, is closer to Colin Powell, in that he understands the power of respect and the opportunities it provides for the spread of American ideals.

Put it this way: Would you rather follow a country that stood up for human rights, sought for peaceful resolutions to conflict, listened to all sides of the conversation (not necessarily following any of them, but *actively* listening to them) and fought against the roots of terrorism (poverty, hunger, disease, raping of the environment, overpopulation, lack of focus on secular education) as well as the terrorists themselves, or a country that rejects human rights, uses military means to end conflict, doesn't care what others' ideas are and focuses only on fighting the terrorists rather than the things that made them terrorists? Democracy and peace will spread far faster in the first case than in the second and that's what a vote for the Democratic ticket will provide.

BTW, Bush didn't turn the recession around (nor was Clinton responsible for the boom of the 90's). Those things are far beyond the control of most government actions. Market forces are the mostly the cause for recessions and turnarounds. The effort by the Federal Reserve in its management of interest rates has also affected things (You mean a government regulatory body can do good things? Fancy that? I thought all government meddling in market affairs was socialist crap.)

Nor is he the cause for a lack of terrorist attacks. There actually have been numerous attempts at carrying out attacks on US soil, but they have been thwarted either by the immediate actions of vigilant people (the shoe-bomber, for instance) or by law-enforcement agencies that have finally taken their heads out of the asses due to the realization of their incompetence pre-9/11. None of these things have had anything to do with Bush.

Re:Non-Americans

[rotor]

I can't believe Cheney's latest statements, to the effect of: vote for Kerry and we'll be attacked; we've made the world safer, as we haven't been attacked since 9/11 due to our response.

Yeah - that was probably the stupidest thing I've heard out of either camp in this campaign to date...

if we were hit, would you change your vote?

That would depend on the evidence we knew about before an attack and the response to the attack. My previous comment was based on the fact that the US has turned away some attacks since 9/11, and none have gotten through yet. If a terrorist attack occurred this afternoon and it came out that the Bush administration had plenty of evidence and did nothing, it sure as shit would change my vote (though to Badnarik, not Kerry, though Badnarik does stand for a few things that I disagree with too). However if the evidence wasn't there, and a quick and effective response was made, I would still vote for Bush.

Re:Non-Americans

[Fredge]

The team that wins the Super Bowl are the "World Champions." I've always hated that.

Move to the U.S. or get U.S. citizenship. If it still bothers you after that you're just being pedantic. :)

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

If non-US citizens could vote, they would select the candidate that emasculates American military and cultural influence the most in order to shift the worldwide balance of power in their favor. Based on America's interests both domestically and abroad, I am confident that Americans will not vote in the same way.

That is right. I am French and I would vote for Bush. He wants a strong america and proved to be incompetent. From an european point of view, it is clearly "4 more years!" that should do unanimity.
I don't think that my fellows believe their best interest is in a weak america. Our economies are too strongly tied. We just fear international terrorism, economical crisis and backward diplomacy (realpolitik as say some). On these issues Bush clearly showed his incompetence.

Re:Non-Americans

[Eslyjah]

A good starting point, in my opinion, is to read the opinion mags. The New Republic is a leading left-of-center opinion magazine. National Review is indispensible for those of us on the right. The Wall Street Journal provides the most insightful coverage of the major papers that I have seen, although they are obviously pro-capitalism and are therefore accused of being right-of-center. They require a subscription to read online, but I enjoy reading their editorial pages, which are free, and love their Best of the Web Today feature.

Obviously, I'm right-of-center politically, and what I find insightful, you may find unconvincing.

Re:Non-Americans

[Chemical Boy]

Which recession was this that he turned around? The one that started after he entered office?

I think you are missing the point. See the article here: http://slate.msn.com/id/2076134/

An excerpt: Did the economy go into recession because President Bush came into office? Of course not. Had Al Gore become president, would the economy have entered a recession in March 2001? Certainly. In hindsight, it's clear we were heading for a recession in late 2000. President Bush caught the wrong end of the business cycle.

Re:Non-Americans

[eaolson]

It already has. One of the most effective slurs against Kerry has been "he looks French."

I think it was a NY Times editorial that remarked the Republicans' use of the term "French" is code for "faggy."

Re:Non-Americans

[rotor]

No, the one that started in October of 2000 (OK - december we had slight growth, so January 2001 was technically the first of the three months of decline that mark a recession). He took office in late January.

The US got hit, I believe, three times during Clinton's years. The 1993 WTC bombing, an Embassy bombing, and the USS Cole.

Re:Non-Americans

[gfxguy]

Amen. I marked you as a "friend" because of your Taranto comment, but this post is extremely clear and well written...

I realize the article centered around science and nature, but it would be nice to have a similar format with the topics you discuss... vouchers are an extremely important topic for me, as I have two young children now and I'm already a bit dissappointed with public school kindergarten.

But more important were the questions in the article about nuclear weapons and missile defense... it's quite clear who is more dedicated to staying ahead of the curve and defending militarily this country, and from all the foreign responses it's also quite clear that in order for foreigner's to "like us" again, we need to be weak. As Bush Sr. might say "not gonna happen."

Re:Non-Americans

[mirio]

The aforementioned term springs from the same mindset from which the term "World Series" is applied to a US-only baseball league.

Watch out, the Canadians are gonna getcha! It's a North America-only league (Expos, Blue Jays are Canadian).

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

"Policies based in religious thought, not science, shape the US' position when looking at international family planning and poverty issues; the US has thrown its political weight around in trying to stymie UN policies on education and family planning which touch on contraception."

Because the United States pays a disproportional cost for UN activities I would expect the United States to have a disproportional influence over its policies. If you do not like that fact perhaps your country should pay more towards the UN.

And as for more hated in the Middle East... an Egyptian poll showed that the United States was hated by 70% of the population and after the war that number went to 90%. Personally I see no difference between 70% and 90%. It's like swatting at a bee right before it was going to sting you anyway. "Oh no, the bee was REALLY mad at you before it stung you."

Re:Non-Americans

[ahbi]

I agree with your assessment of how poorly (or should I say oddly) informed Non-Americans are.

I remember being in NZ and having an old man tell me "we're all Democrats here." My wife (Dem) & I (Rep) just laughed at him. Because, the demographics of who is or isn't Dem/Rep just didn't jive with that comment. This guy was a heterosexual, white male (68% of US hetro, white males are Rep). But add that he was a rural farmer, not just Christian but church going Christian in his 60s. If he had grown up in the US there is no doubt he would be a solid Republican, demographically speaking.
Considering how poor NZ international news is, I wonder how he formed his views. Of course, politeness beat curiosity and I didn't quiz or argue with him. I was staying at his hostel and you really shouldn't get in political arguments with your host. Plus he was a really nice guy.

A German Physics Grad student also told be he was a Democrat. Then he proceeded to tell me how he believed in the Rep domestic policy. Oh, he didn't call it the Rep's domestic policy. He just told me how he believed in lowering taxes, being tough on crime, and that the Green house effect was a myth. (BTW, saying you're Dem and not believing in the Global Warming is like claiming you're Christian but you don't believe in God). When I laughed at him, and say he'd make a good Rep, he refused to believe it.

In short, non-Americans only see the foreign policy of the 2 parties. What they see of that is like looking at it through a funhouse mirror. What is distorted , enlarged or minimized is odd.
They also bring their own preconceived notions when they are told Party X is Right, Party Y is Left. They also don't get what type of people support each party. Which since politics is essentially a popularity contest (like high school prom King & Queens) it matters not just what lies the candidates says about the issues, but who your friends and enemies support.

Re:Non-Americans

[NekSnappa]

While I agree with your first sentance. You're a bit off with the second.

The term "World Series" is so named because it was first sponsored by a newspaper whose name included the word "World".

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

I would kill to be able to vote in this election.

All you gotta do is sneak across the border and sign up. Come on in! Everybody else is.

Re:Non-Americans

[TrentL]

The country is making a choice between a candidate with strong socialist leanings (wanting to nationalize healthcare) and one with more capitalist ones (Medicare expansion notwithstanding).

Bush's position on health care is hardly capitalistic; it's protectionist. One of the reasons drugs cost so much is because people can't import them from foreign countries such as Canada.

Re:Non-Americans

[Zangief]

The aforementioned term springs from the same mindset from which the term "World Series" is applied to a US-only baseball league.

Nobody else in the world bothers with beisbol. Too boring. (Yeah cubans also care. And some wacko Japanese)

It's just like the Miss Universe Contest. You can be sure there are not other girl in the Universe as pretty as ours.

Re:Non-Americans

[thrillseeker]

there are very good reasons why people outside the US have a very low opinion of Bush

So it's fair to say that there are also very good reasons that people inside the US have a very low opinion that people outside the US have only the best intentions for people inside the US?

... or is it only fair and informed if it supports your anti-US opinion?

Re:Non-Americans

[mark2003]

Very true - I was about as correct as the person I responded to when referring to terrorism, unless you count embassy bombings in Africa as attacks on American territory but not attacks on Americans and American interests in the Middle East.

Re:Non-Americans

[magefile]

Aren't there a few Japanese teams in the World Series? And baseball is pretty much only a fanatic's sport in the US and Japan. Stupid sport, though. Non-US football (which my fellow USians call soccer) is much better.

Re:Non-Americans

[narsiman]

The war in iraq was an attempt to distract the american public from the reeling recession.

A pure diversion tactic. If Karl Rove had knew that the ecomomy would have turned around this quickly, he would have advised Bush against this war. The rest is all fluff.

I am not negating the parent's statement but the reason for 'OK' was not purely 'lets steal that guys oil'.

Re:Non-Americans

[gstoddart]

Um yeah.... If they were attempting to kill non-US citizens on non-US territory, the US would have no right to hold them.

Ummm .... yeah.

It's not as if the only people who have been detained were provably in the act of actually trying to kill US citizens on or off US territory.

A lot of the detainees in Guantanamo were actually non-US citizens found in a non-US territory who have yet to have been proven to have any intention of killing US (or otherwise) citizens. The government has refused to provide any evidence outside of closed military tribunals to back this up. They've just said 'unlawful combatants' and said the Geneva convention doesn't apply.

The person who you were responding to was pointing out this very same thing.

So, er, what right to hold these people is this actually acting on again? Certainly not for having actually found them in the act or demonstrated what they're accused of.

Re:Non-Americans

[mark2003]

Because the US pays a disproportional cost for UN activities?

Is this the same US that refused to pay any UN dues recently? The same US that gives less per head through government aid than almost any other western nation?

Even if what you had claimed bore any relation to the truth, twisting foreign aid so it furthers your religious views rather than actually being focussed on delivery the most aid is morally reprehensible whether you pay the most or not.

Oh, and I would disagree that there is no diference between 70% and 90%, it's probably 100 million people and most of those that would have changed their opinion would be the most educated and influential of those populations, in fact the ones most likely to support the west.

Re:Non-Americans

[mindlar]

And of course there is the blatant disregard for the US' contribution to global warming.

This of course assumes 2 things:

1. Global warming is a bad thing considering that the earth is relatively cool right now compared to most of it's history.
2. That "if" global warming is happening that it is the result of human action rather than natural climactic shift.

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, if non-US citizens could vote, it's pretty clear what the result would be.

Hmmm... I wonder why.... maybe it isn't so hard to figure out... Outside interests want a president that has a hard time taking a stance on anything important and has already pledged to give ground on national interests to let other interests lead, all for the sake of winning their friendship. What outside interest *wouldn't* want this kind of President?

Re:Non-Americans

[Eslyjah]

Bush's position on health care is hardly capitalistic; it's protectionist. One of the reasons drugs cost so much is because people can't import them from foreign countries such as Canada.

I oppose many of his protectionist policies. I was outraged by the steel tariffs. The regime of agricultural support is stupid. However, I must side with him on drugs. The US has less than 5% of the world's population, but creates the vast majority of the world's drugs. Other countries then put price controls on them. This is unfair, but of course we don't do anything about it. If Americans start buying price-controlled drugs overseas and importing them, the bottom will fall out of drug research. It is true that drugs would cost less in the US if we could import them. But future development of drugs would suffer. A much better solution to the problem would be for foreign countries not to interfere in the market for drugs. However, we can't (or rather won't) make them.

Re:Non-Americans

[NSash]

Calling him a modern Hitler is hyperbole, but such low opinion of him is not unfounded.

His raging militarism alone would justify such a comparison. Expansion of government power at the expense of civil liberties; secret extra-judicial detentions; and the sanction of inhuman treatment of prisoners from the highest levels of government (only a fool could ignore the evidence that this was premeditated) only make it more apt.

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

..I haven't seen US territory get hit with another major attack in the last three years.

Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.

Re:Non-Americans

[c0p0n]

I wonder who the fuck is John Edwards. Starting with Kerry's answer to question #6, the phrase "John Edwards and I [will do Something Good]" appears on every one of them. It feels like a bondage slave...

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

> Because the United States pays a disproportional cost for UN activities I would expect the United States to have a disproportional influence over its policies. If you do not like that fact perhaps your country should pay more towards the UN.

Us pays disproportionate cost for UN ? Are you kidding ? http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/10/15/ budget.un/

Furthermore, it is probably the UN that will have to clear the billion $ mess that US made to irak.

Re:Non-Americans

[jdragan]

"Considering that only, what, 40-odd percent of eligible voters actually bother to turn out on election day in the states..."
--

Wow, then how did the democrats get the Philidelphia area in Pennsylvania a 100% turnout in the last election when PA went to Al Gore??

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot about "Miss World" for the whole world and "Miss Univerisum" for the US.

Re:Non-Americans

[maxpublic]

If those people did vote, however, you'd bring an end to this stupid two party system the US has and bring a wider spectrum of political opinion to the US.

I guess you don't know your history. There've been voter turnouts considerably higher than what's common today, and those people still voted for candidates that belonged to one of two major parties.

Higher voter turn out isn't the same as electing a third-party candidate. That isn't how the system works in the U.S.

And frankly, I'm only interested in "political diversity" if it's actually diverse and across the spectrum. If by "political diversity" you mean "a bunch of pseudo-socialist morons" then I'll take a pass, thanks.

Max

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it sounds odd because people being charged with murder of a USian aren't usually charged with "attempting to murder a US citizen". It just sounds weird.

Re:Non-Americans

[nanoakron]

Yet another arrogant american prick demonstrating exactly why the outside world wants Bush out of power.

The only reason the US needs to retain a strong military is for reasons entirely of their own creation. Try not invading other countries for a short while (militarily, idealogically, politically and economically) and you'll soon stop being hated across the world.

-Nano.

Come on misguided US nationalists, burn my karma!

Re:Non-Americans

[thelaw]

Nah, it's really not. Kerry doesn't really look homosexual, as if it were possible to "look homosexual." It's mostly that he looks "un-American", which would imply that he's a Continental or an Easter Island mask. It's a stupid way to think about Presidents anyway.

How is it even possible to look "un-American"?

Jon

Re:Non-Americans

[ak3ldama]

ok ... nevermind, just fuck off

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, this is one of the examples of Cheney saying A, but being quoted as saying B. Whether it was deliberate or just poor wording is an exercise for the reader, as is determining if various media outlets realize that the trailing ellipsis is important. A google search on the phrase is interesting for just how many sites leave out the ellipsis entirely.

Spinsanity
has more.

Re:Non-Americans

[amightywind]

"French" is code for "faggy.

We Republicans prefer the term "girly man".

Re:Non-Americans

[danharan]

If non-US citizens could vote, they would select the candidate that emasculates American military

The choice of word is particularly interesting since the rest of the world thinks the US is a macho, violent country.

I'd also like to point out that you'll find complete idiots in the US, so you would have to compare educated people on both sides. Similarly, contrast US foreign reporting to what you find in French papers and it's fair to say that they have you beat- or for that matter, Canadian or British media.

You are right that most of the world would not vote for Bush. This is not to emasculate your country so much as the fact that on almost any issue mentionned in the article, Bush seems to be against the world majority.

Re:Non-Americans

[jtshaw]

I completely agree. Bush sure makes it easy to say there were no reasons other then economic gain for invading Iraq because he continues to lie about the reasonings for the war in the first place.

The facts are pretty simple. We had been saying for years that any WMD programs Saddam did have were moved out of country. There army was completely crippled from the early 90's. They had no proven links with the terrorists. Yet we are suppose to be stupid enough to believe they were a threat to the well being of us in the US?

Truth is Iran and Saudi Arabia are the two countries most involved with the terrorism. Iran admits to having a WMD program. We have proven they funded people like Bin Ladin. We have discovered that all of the major terrorist leaders either live in Saudi or Iran. Course you don't see us lined up to fight them do you? Saudi leaders are Bush family friends and we would want to jeopardize the military bases we have there (there are more US military bases in Saudi Arabia then any other country other then the US). Iran is actually organized well enough to fight a war if we showed up, and the economic gain from fighting a war with them wouldn't be nearly as high.

We would have been far better off spending the billions we have spent in Iraq to fix problems on our own soil, or to cut down on some of our debt. Instead we spend get to spend billions on Iraq and Bush wants to cut taxes. It doesn't take a smart person to realize that is a terrible idea. Which is of course why we have never ever had a tax cut during a war.

Kerry probably isn't the best person to lead the US. But Bush has proven he is a terrible person to do the job.

I don't typically vote Democrat, but I sure as hell will in this election.

Re:Non-Americans

[bitfoam]

The aforementioned term springs from the same mindset from which the term "World Series" is applied to a US-only baseball league.

The term "The World Series", if memory serves me correctly, was named after the now defunct New York newspaper called "The World", which was a major (only?) sponsor of the games at the time.

Re:Non-Americans

[dema]

I am in the U.S.

Maybe I just hate the Patriots, they always make my Colts look like shit ):

Re:Non-Americans

[mark2003]

The first assumption has no value - whether the Earth is cool or not compared to most of it's history doesn't matter. It suits us and our civilisation.

On the second assumption - almost all scientists involved in any kind of climate research would maintain that human action is very likely to be responsible for this. It's only in the US (out of the developed world) where there is any political disagreement on this...

Re:Non-Americans

[nanoakron]

Hey, I got a funny idea....maybe, just maybe (and hear me out here)...people in other countried have different names for parties that represent different views.

Jeez, how odd is that? The idea that what you might call 'gas' in the US may be called 'benzene' or 'petrol' in another nation?

What? You mean that there are other countries out there, with different people with different views of the world and different names for political parties that represent the same things?

The utter arrogance and disregard you show for members of the outside world is shocking.

-Nano.

Re:Non-Americans

[maxpublic]

Regardless, there isn't anything a non-American can do about it. No nation in the world has the power to *force* this country to do anything; so your only hope of changing U.S. policy is by influencing Americans themselves, the voters, to elect Kerry (although as an American I see so little difference between Democrats and Republicans that I doubt it'll matter much who occupies the Oval Office).

Insulting Americans, their president, or their political processes is going to do nothing but piss those Americans off. And pissed-off Americans are going to vote for the President who specifically doesn't give a shit what foreigners think. I guess if you want Bush in office then insulting Americans is the way to go; but if you don't want Bush in office then insulting Americans is just a good way to show the rest of the world just how fucking clueless you are.

Max

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

That's spacious reasoning, Dad.

I don't wanna be to anal, but it's specious reasoning, not spacious.

And that's one to grow on.

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to forget: completely ignoring WTO agreements and imposing import tax on steel, which was lifted only after WTO intervened and not knowning jack squat about economy and causing chaos.

So, yeah, non-US people are mostly for Kerry.

Re:Non-Americans

[untaken_name]

Yes, it would be so very interesting to watch baseball teams from other nations compete with baseball teams here. eheheh. You know, back in 1903 (when the first 'world series' was held) every professional baseball team in the world was eligible. If there are now professional baseball teams outside north america (because it isn't just US teams, you dipshits, don't forget the Canadians like you people who trot out the tired old 'world series' blast always do) that want to compete, maybe they should...I dunno...get popular and good enough to do so. Then, perhaps, they'd be invited to attend. However, much like basketball, any player from outside the US (which many, many US ballplayers are, something which is almost always left out of the same old anti-US bullshit you're spewing here) who has real talent has already moved to the US to play. Ichiro comes to mind. Hey, but once someone moves to the US, they're immediately US-centric jerks just like the rest of us apparently are. If the world series were opened to the rest of the world, it would still be two American teams facing each other in the finals, unless that was expressly prohibited, in which case the one American team would win each game by 15 runs or so. Nice try, though, it sure sounded good when you typed it out, I bet. Perhaps you should have realized that people have been throwing variations on your comment out since 1903. Find a new (and, if it isn't too much to ask, relevant) aspect of American society to ride, dillhole.

Re:Non-Americans

[mwlewis]

Of course, if non-US citizens could vote, it's pretty clear what the result would be...

Yes, but I think you should also take into account this other poll which found that, "58 per cent of Europeans hold that strong US leadership is undesirable." So apparently they agree with Republicans who say that Kerry wouldn't be a strong leader.

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

So clueless. I don't know where to start....

"The same US that gives less per head .... "

The US gives more. Period. It doesn't matter what the cost per head is. The US gives more, this the US will have more influence. Your burbling about not paying our dues is naive. Threatening to not pay or delaying a payment is the only way the US can exert influence over the corrupt and uncaring socialist that run the UN. It is insanity to give money to the criminals at the UN without beating them up over how they piss it away every so often to remind them it isn't their money. It is American charity.

Delivery of aid vs morals, etc: see above about criminals. The US is easily the most moral western country on the planet and likely the most moral country on the planet, ever, bar none. I understand that being from a tiny country somewhere with near zero influence now that was once a colonial super power you're upset that you don't count for much now but put away your finger and read your own history in context.

I like your egyptian population math. You claim a 20% increase in hatred of Egypitans for Americans is 100 million people. That means 1/5th of the Egyptian population would be 500 mullion people.

Egypt does not have 500 million people, friend.

Your assertion that those 20% were somehow magically the ones that are most educated and western friendly prior to 9/11 is just that, an assertion. You have absolutely no standing to make that claim. I can not and do not claim the opposite. No one knows but at least I'm honest about it and not here spewing self created random "facts" to support a purely emotion based anti-US argument like you are.

Have a nice day, buy a history book on your own country, *Read It*, and go look up Egypt's population figures.

Re:Non-Americans

[mattboy99]

Ummm... my father works for one of the major pharmaceutical companies and let me tell you they are loving Bush's policy. For one, most of their research money comes from federal grants, and anything else comes from private investment. The reason your drugs cost so much is strictly due to the cost of marketing and demand. If you don't believe me, look at the cost of generics which is substantially less and made by the same process (and same quality of chemicals). When we export our medications to other countries we actually ship them at cost so that the other countries can afford them. Bush puts Spin on everything that comes out of his mouth to make it seem like such a simple black & white issue.

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time I checked the MONTREAL EXPOS we NOT an *american* team playing in a *US only* baseball league. Your comment seems a little too much like flame bait to be modded +4 INSIGHTFUL. How can a comment that is patently WRONG be considered insightful?

Then again maybe everything i learned in geography class is just a big sham...

Cue the Canada is just another part of America by proximity, etc etc etc comments.

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

the analyses I have found therein are extremely cursory and often irrelevant

Perhaps irrelevant to you as a (half?) American. But unlikely irrelevant to their readership. American policy has resounding effects outside the US borders (see above comment from down under).

I had a discussion on Iraq with my cousin who is not an American and he spouted off this nonsense about war for oil

It's not nonsense. Oil was a factor in this war. Not the only factor, but when you consider this adminstration's energy policy before 9/11, it's hard not to see the second biggest oil reserve as an issue in the current war.

inundated with idiots who think Bush is Hitler

Again, there are parallels.
1. Questionable results (getting the Supreme Court involved or rigging the Bundesrat) that lead to the leadership position.
2. Insisting that people of a certain ethnic origin (Germany) or nationality (US) must register with the authorities.
3. Pre-emptive wars expanding US/German military influence.
4. Legislation that revokes previously guaranteed rights (ok, let's blame Congress for the PATRIOT act).
5. Legislation favoring companies as entities so that the companies can further the military-industrial complex.

a candidate with strong socialist leanings (wanting to nationalize healthcare)

Nationalized healthcare does not mean "strong socialist", necessarily. I mean, the birthplace of modern capitalism, the UK, has nationalized healthcare, as does most Europe. Even Taiwan, which is the capitalist's capitalist, has a form of nationalized health.

they would select the candidate that emasculates American military and cultural influence the most in order to shift the worldwide balance of power in their favor

Yes, but the American military has bases in Germany, Japan, Britain, Poland, Hungary.... places that clearly are not a part of the United States. While American military influence has done some good in the world, it probably has done as much or more harm.

As for cultural influence, Rupert Murdoch is Australian. We can buy jeans that aren't Levi's. McDonald's produces horrible food when compared to any local cuisine. We can produce our own products, medicines, and services locally. We can run our businesses in a fashion we see fit.

Yes, of course other countries would want shift the worldwide balance so that it favors them. But, there are around 200 countries that share this planet, and the worldwide balance of power should favor no one in particular, but it does.

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

Those cowboy antics are reserved for Old Glory. Don't think we're you (and thank heaven for that. One's enough.)

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

yup, that's why we invaded iraq, because saddam was gassing our citizens on our territory.

oh, wait.

Re:Non-Americans

[untaken_name]

Why? Is there some other professional American-football league in the world? If not, then what is incorrect about that statement? I mean, sure, there's NFL Europe, but considering that that is the NFL's minor-league system, I doubt they would compete with the real NFL. It's not like American-style football attracts huge crowds outside the USA anyhow. Why push for other countries to be included when the interest level clearly isn't there? Bad analogy: Were I to hold a professional watermelon-seed spitting league, and have a championship, the winner would be the world champion of watermelon-seed spitting. If some other country started holding professional watermelon-seed spitting leagues, then there would be an argument against my winner being the world champion. However, as no one else in the world cares enough to host a professional American-style football league (forcing us to host our own minor league overseas) then they shouldn't complain about not getting a chance at the 'world championship'.

Re:Non-Americans

[Eccles]

If you're going to count the Cole, shouldn't some of those 1000 soldiers dead in Iraq count?

Really, though, the original assertion was US territory getting hit. An embassy would count technically, perhaps, but it's quite a stretch.

Re:Non-Americans

[SkippyTPE]

because there weren't any attacks on the U.S. before he came along.

Oh really? You mean the world trade center bombing by a man with ties to Iraq in 1993 that killed 6 people was just a figment of our national imagination?

or maybe you just didn't care because it didn't affect your nations bottom line...

Re:Non-Americans

[alessio]

this nonsense about war for oil

That's crazy, obviously oil had nothing to do with it!

Re:Non-Americans

[nomadic]

Soccer is as boring as baseball. But at least baseball has some strategy to it, though it would be a much better game if it were only like 5 innings.

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to the intelligent attacks on bush by Kerry supporters, who have complained that bush "looks like a chimp."

Re:Non-Americans

[Bob Uhl]

I loathe most sports, but I rather like baseball. Why? Because one needn't actually watch the game: you go to the stadium with a bunch of friends, drink beer, eat hot dogs and have great conversations. Every once in a while something cool happens on the field, and you can cheer, then get back to your conversation.

Other sports are too noisy to enjoy--they're just as boring, but with less chance to talk.

Re:Non-Americans

[untaken_name]

The notion that the United States went to war for oil is ridiculous. If we truly wanted to go to war for oil, there are much closer targets than Iraq. We could take South America much more easily than Iraq. Also, we don't have the oil. If we went to war for oil, why don't we have it? We control the regions around the oil fields, but Iraq controls the fields and their output.
However, opposition to the war, especially from France and Russia, was centered around oil. France overtly circumvented the UN Oil for Food program, dealing directly with the Saddam government to purchase oil. What I don't understand is why the same people who shout 'no war for oil' also hold France up as a role model. You know, just because things aren't perfect in the US does not automatically make them so everywhere else.

Re:Non-Americans

[Canthros]

We have a wide range of political opinion. Do you know how many political parties the US has, even on the national level?

Here's a hint: it's more than two.
Here's another hint: it's also more than four.

There's a bunch of them, and the spectrum includes socialists, Communists, pacifists, libertarians, conservatives, hard-right and hard-left groups. Even the two major parties are more politically diverse than you seem to give them credit for.

Re:Non-Americans

[BlizzyMadden]

I big part of poor voter turn out is the electoral college. For example, I am supporting Kerry, but I am in Oklahoma. In case you don't know, OK is a hard-core Bible thumper state that ALWAYS falls Republican. I'll vote for Kerry, but I know that it will make no difference because OK will go to Bush. Other Dems in OK know this and don't bother voting--same for Republicans who know that Bush will win the state anyway.

There are only like a dozen swing states where a persons vote really can make a difference.

Yes, a lot of people don't vote because they are lazy or whatever, but the stupid electoral college is part of the problem to. It causes some many potential voters to become disenfranchised.

Bliz

Re:Non-Americans

[admiralh]

The moniker "World Series" was used long before the league expanded to Canada. I believe "World Series" was actually used in the late 1800's. However, it was certainly used in the early 20th century. The expansion into Montreal didn't happen until the late 60's, and it was the mid 70's before Toronto joined.

Re:Non-Americans

[nutshell42]

Obviously, I'm right-of-center politically, and what I find insightful, you may find unconvincing.

I believe I speak for many of us when I say that we like to read stuff that doesn't agree with our political viewpoint as long as it is well reasoned and doesn't claim to be the absolute truth but acknowledges that it's only an opinion.

Re:Non-Americans

[rosie_bhjp]

Same here, I voted for Bush Sr in 1992, Dole in 96, and *would have* for Bush in 2000 if work hadn't held me up. I will be voting democratic in this election.

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

If you actually think there is anything moral about the US as a country, then I pray for you. The US is the most immoral country in the west, by far. Ask your ass shagging priests, or your adulterous husbands/wives, your lying/cheating politicians at every level of government, your corrupt business culture, your win at all costs attitudes, your olympic track team and their magical chemists, your dubious legal system, the list goes on and on. The only difference between the US and some other acknowledged moral shitholes on earth, is that the US actually BELIEVES they are a moral nation, at least the other scumholes admit they are moraly bankrupt.

So, go home, have a nice day, and hope that your wife wasn't blowing the pool boy today, that your daughter isn't the football teams fucktoy this weekend, that your son hasn't had his ass reamed by the family priest lately, that you haven't been caught cheating on your taxes this year, that you weren't caught stealing from work this week, that anything you get caught doing can be blamed on someone else in court, and mostly that a celebrity doesn't commit a heinous crime against you, because you know that no matter the evidence, their fame will get them a free walk in your laughable justice system. And most of all, keep chanting "we are moral, we are moral, we are moral"

Re:Non-Americans

[Dixie_Flatline]

BTW, sorry about the misspelling of 'specious'. That's what I get for copying and pasting the text without spellchecking it first.

Re:Non-Americans

[Thurn und Taxis]

If you honestly believe that either major-party candidate will (or even has the power to) "emasculate American military and cultural influence", then you'll be deciding your vote for entirely the wrong reasons.

Re:Non-Americans

[Martin Blank]

Why was it bad to talk about candidates' experiences (or lack thereof) serving in the military in 1992 and 1996, and somewhat taboo in 2000, but suddenly it's the only thing that anyone talks about? This is ridiculous.

From both candidates, I want to get solid answers to the following questions, among others:

• Will you, or will you not, push the re-implementation of the budget rules that required that all spending increases be balanced by tax increases, and tax cuts by spending cuts? Why or why not?
  
• What specific cuts will you push to balance the budget?
  
• What is the strategy to exit Iraq in a reasonable time period? What things could accelerate or delay this strategy?
  
• Why, if you're in favor of securing the nation, is the southern US border among the most weakly patrolled in the western world? What plans do you have to decrease the number of illegals getting into the country via land borders to as close to zero as possible?
  
• How will you change enforcement of laws against hiring illegal immigrants?

Re:Non-Americans

[cygnus]

The aforementioned term springs from the same mindset from which the term "World Series" is applied to a US-only baseball league.

while i agree with the sentiment of your post, it should not be overlooked that Canada fields several teams that vie for a spot in the World Series. and sometimes they even win...

Re:Non-Americans

[jpetts]

I can't vote in the US elections either, yet the term "leader of the free world" is still used. Guess I'm not important enough to elect my "leader".

The aforementioned term springs from the same mindset from which the term "World Series" is applied to a US-only baseball league.

Now, I may be wrong, but my understanding is that the series is called the World Series because it was originally sponsored by the US magazine World Report. Can anybody confirm this for me?

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a fucking idiot.

Re:Non-Americans

[Archangel Michael]

It's like me BLAMING Bush for the attacks because there weren't any attacks on the U.S. before he came along.

You could, but you would be wrong. The problem was the US was attacked before Bush, but Clinton gets a pass.

USS Cole
First World Trade Center Bombing
Bombs at US embassies
Kobar Towers

Re:Non-Americans

[Trifthen]

Didn't you know? America is the only free country in the world. Hence, the leader of America is supposedly the leader of [what's left of] the free world.

Got it now?

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

Hitler was modern you fucking dolt.

Why don't you go look up the word modern.

Re:Non-Americans

[akp]

Dude, The New Republic is full of neo-conservatives and hardly qualifies as liberal. You want left/center-left, read The Nation or Dissent, or go to the Center for American Progress.

Re:Non-Americans

[jdbo]

> the candidate that emasculates American military and
> cultural influence the most

Ah, are you implying then that they'd vote for the candidate who tied up the U.S. military in an unnecessary war (Iraq), leaving us vulnerable to a resurgent Al Quaeda (going into Iraq forced us to give less attention attention to re-building Afghanistan), an increasingly aggressive N. Korea, not to mention other "Axis of Evil" members?

Or are you implying that they'd vote for the candidate who would squander the world-wide goodwill expressed towards the U.S. post 9-11 via ham-fisted diplomacy and the above military action?

Or maybe they'd vote for the candidate whose fiscal irresponsibility has driven the nation into an unprecedented degree of debt, all the while without a net creation of jobs (the latter of which no president has accomplished since Hoover, who presided over the Great Depression).

BTW, nice slur against Kerry - implying that a willingess to acknowledge and work with other nations towards mutual benefit is "emasculation", as opposed to intelligent foreign policy!

I hope that you're proud of your talking points!

Re:Non-Americans

[3terrabyte]

Ok, Ok, I see your point. I was commenting on the comment often set forth: my vote doesn't count. And I look at it as the non-voters make up the biggest consituent! Think of how it could swing ANY election.

But your point is: why vote when both sides suck ass. I have admit that I did not vote in 2000 for exactly this reason. I certainly didn't like the idea of George Bush being in office, but I found no redeaming qualities in Gore, and cringe at the thought of Tipper pushing her so called Christian Morals on me. It was enough to freeze me into apathy.

Re:Non-Americans

[Nopal]

Because as it has become apparent, it certainly had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, nor with 'liberating' the Iraqi people. Or if it did, it was executed so incompetently that claiming an ulterior motive is almost charitable.

So, tell me, what ever happened with Iraq's weapons of mass destruction that the entire world knew Saddam once had? We haven't found any, but as far as I know we haven't found any evidence as to their fate either way. Were they destroyed, and if so, where's the evidence? This is a legitimate question.

As far as liberating the Iraqi people, what evidence do you have that it wasn't the case? Iraq is scheduled to have elections, and an interim government is in power and it's calling the shots. Doesn't that count even a little as liberation?

You claim that Iraq's liberation was conducted incompetently, but as far as I remember the war of liberation was extremely effective, and the few "hot spots" that remain are in isolated areas of the country. If you were a general liberating a country, would you allow your entire army to get mired in one hot spot instead of skipping it and continuing on to your main objective? Clearly, you understand far more about strategic planning than those military-experienced dolts that are inadequately in charge of the US forces.

Maybe I'm hoping for too much, but It'd be nice to see a comment modded up that contained actual substance for a change, instead of regurgitated talking points. Here's your chance to provide that substance.

Re:Non-Americans

[thelaw]

Me too. I'm voting for myself.

Bush signed McCain-Feingold, a bill which restricts the ability of some institutions to mention a candidate by name within 60 days of a general election, and 30 days of a primary. How is this *not* a violation of the 1st Amendment? Last I checked, the intention of the 1st Amendment was to protect political speech in particular. I should be able to criticize elected officials and the rest of the government any time, any place, any medium I want to. Surely it is important to allow labor unions, which represent 13.5% of working people in the US, to talk about issues that they find important (jobs, wages, health care, etc.)!

The 1st Amendment applies, in second-order implications, to things like smearing my nude body with fudge and feces while singing Mozart's Requiem on the street corner. It bothers me, though, that people think these are the first-order implications of the 1st Amendment.

Jon

Re:Non-Americans

[dan14807]

Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad.

This is the second time I have seen someone (was it you both times?) paste that into a slashdot article and get +5. The word you are seeking is specious, not spacious. I wouldn't normally correct spelling/grammar, but I thought that the next time you post that into a political discussion, you might want to get it right.

Re:Non-Americans

[tunabomber]

..."he looks French."

That's a pretty polite way of paraphrasing "Saddam-loving waffle boy might as well be a cheese-eating surrender monkey!"

Re:Non-Americans

[madhippy]

I thought the World in 'World Series' referred to the fact it was originally sponsored by a newspaper which was called 'World' something or other rather than the 'World' as in the planet ....could be an urban myth ... can't be bothered to check

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

By the definitions that you provide above, FDR was Hitler. He did all of those things in spades, including attempting to abolish the Supreme Court, internment, etc. How did we ever survive with our own Hitler over 60 years ago? Ah thats right, because we continue to have a vigorous free press and a court system clearly not aligned with the executive branch.

Re:Non-Americans

[Dixie_Flatline]

Yeah, the problem is that I got it from snpp.com and they've got it spelled wrong. (At least twice, actually.) You'll see that I posted a correction myself. I'm going to contact them and get that changed. 'Spacious' reasoning makes no sense. :P

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, more than 40% of us show up...its just that our votes get "lost" or counted for Nader/Buchanan or some guy from the Natural Law party.

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

-- One of the most effective slurs against Kerry has been "he looks French."

If that's been "one of the most effective", I wonder how much more effective it has been to criticize his senate record, vietnam storytelling -err- recounting -err-, flip flopping, endless Kerryisms etc. Those must have been incredibly! effective.

In other words, if you are stupid enough to go for the "he looks French" line, you'll probably buy into the other Republican campaign lines, and not be able to recognized the dissonance between Bush's speeches on domestic policy and what his actions actually are, or will accept without thinking the current excuse for the ware in Iraq.

Re:Non-Americans

[Patrick]

I think that many non-Americans are very poorly informed about the issues involved in this election.

Many Americans are single-issue voters, too. Issues like gun control, globalization, or abortion can be enough to decide someone's vote. What's wrong with foreigners latching onto "starts preemptive wars with phony intelligence and no exit strategy" as their single issue? European history is full of preemptive wars; who can blame them for disapproving?

If you're looking for good domestic reasons to want Bush gone, consider: record budget and trade deficits; significant abridgement of First, Fourth, and Fifth (and Eighth?) amendment rights; meager environmental record; and a lack of any meaningful progress on national security.

Taxes, school vouchers, Social Security reform, healthcare, tort reform, and judicial appointments matter to me.

Me, too. That's why I won't be voting Republican.

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm...FOX News not aligned with the right....

Hmmm...Sandra Day O'Connor saying that she would never quit under a Democratic president right before the Supreme court voted (on party lines no less) to "elect" GWB...

But no, there is no alignment with the Executive branch....

Besides, FDR was acting with world support against a common foe, while Bush eschewed world support against a 3rd world country that harbored no ties to Al Qaida or had any chance of launching a missile outside of their own back yard. But it's the same thing.

Re:Non-Americans

[reidbold]

Except Montreal has unofficially moved to Puerto Rico, and Toronto is losing money hand over fist due to having no fan support.

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

I second that. I'm interested in politics, too. Just not the eternally-rolling-in-the-mud-and-excrement kind, regardless of who it was flung at in the first place. WHAT ABOUT THE POLICY ISSUES? Why don't we just admit that policy isn't going to hold the attention span of the majority (not even the majority of intelligent people), democracy is broken, and go home and cry?

Re:Non-Americans

[admiralh]

Not just a chimp, but a smirking chimp.

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, so the reason was what? Ah yes...Weapons of mass destruction. Oops that stuff was made up...Err...Bin-Laden is Saddams best friend...err no damn...Freedom for Iraq that's what it was riiight!

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

It is OK to kill Canadians. At least for US Americans. When they're pumped up on speed and drop 300 lb bombs against direct orders into a Canadian live fire exercise. Acquittal was waiting for them.

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

By proximity? I'm confused.. Isn't Canada *in* America? Like e.g. Mexico, Argentina and Chile?

Re:Non-Americans

[ArsonSmith]

Soccer is about as much fun to watch as a marathon, except in soccer they just don't run in a stright line.

Re:Non-Americans

[argStyopa]

Well, aside from the fact that you really can't depend on non-US citizens to vote to better the condition of the US, can you? Oh yeah, we do know who foreigners would vote for, that's indisputable. And even jingoism aside, it's a good reason not to elect Kerry. Do you think the Australians, Germans, Russians, Iraqis, or Chinese have the BEST INTERESTS of the USA in mind....riiight. I also can guess who would be the preferred candidate of Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Wahabi islamists, etc...funny, it's the same guy. Coincidence?

No, frankly, we don't really give a crap what you guys think, except in a negative sense. 40% of Americans vote because despite all the Chicken-littling in the media, America's stable, relatively secure, and economically prospering again. People vote when they are pissed off. And frankly, aside from the frothing Left, most people aren't that pissed off.

Tell you what, you surrender your sovereignty, send us your tax dollars, and then we'll consider givnig you the vote. Right after Puerto Rico, Saipan, and the USVI.

Oh yeah, and your quote "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" sounds great, but just shows how little you've actually CONSIDERED the issue. You are CONSTANTLY trading libery for security. You may not drive as fast as you want (although you may be able to handle it physiologically) in exchange for the security that others may not do so either. You may not cross that street in the middle, only at the crosswalks in exchange for the security that drivers are especially careful around crosswalks (or at least you have legal recourse if you're hit within the lines). You're not able to ravage that hot chick walking down the street, in exchange for society's similar protection of your sister, mother, or daughter. It's called civilization. And the empty-headed who continually parrot that little homily simply illustrate their naivete.

Re:Non-Americans

[Experiment 626]

Your own analogy is flawed as well. In the tiger rock situation, the presence of tigers has not been established, so keeping them away is of questionable value. This comparison would work if, say, claimed his defense policies were keeping the U.S. from being invaded by space aliens.

The desire of terrorists to attack the U.S. however, has been well demonstrated. Under the administration preceeding Bush, they made attacks, such as the earlier one on the WTC. While you might postulate that after 9/11, they got bored and decided to take up needlepoint instead, a more plausable explanation would be that the disbanding of the Taliban and arrests of many Al-Qaeda leaders had something to do with the lack of an encore.

So, to correct the tiger rock analogy: a tiger attacks you and mauls your arm. You hit it on the head with a big rock, and it staggers off. The wounded tiger doesn't attack you again, although later on you see it trying to sneak up on you and branish the rock, at which point it retreats. Is the tiger rock still a placebo?

Re:Non-Americans

[ArsonSmith]

Funny I'm going to my second base ball game in 31 years of life today. The last one I felt like it was way to slow. I would get distracted from the game by talking to others and drinking beer. When something good actually happened I would completely miss it. I would then pay attention to the game for a little while until I got bored and get back to conversing.

The game was more of a distraction than anything and I would miss anything that was "exciting" anyway. But it is a free outing form work as part of our "team building exercises"

Re:Non-Americans

[ArsonSmith]

Yea, those other countries wouldn't think us USians were such ego driven megalomaniacs with superiority complexes if they weren't so damn inferior.

Re:Non-Americans

[toiletmonster]

actually those same poll results also show that the vast majority of europeans don't want a strong american president. so i guess that means a vote for Kerry is a vote for weaker leadership.

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a difference between not being weak and being a bully and throwing your weight around.
"Walk softly and carry a big stick" is the former.
Bush is doing the latter, which is why he's unpopular outside the US.

Re:Non-Americans

[tsg]

If any third party candidate could get that many votes, he'd be running as one of the two majors.

Re:Non-Americans

[ArsonSmith]

I'm an American (actually I have dual-citizenship, but that's neither here nor there)

Not to nit-pik but isn't that both here and there?

Re:Non-Americans

[Bull999999]

Will you, or will you not, push the re-implementation of the budget rules that required that all spending increases be balanced by tax increases, and tax cuts by spending cuts? Why or why not?

Actually, the Money magazine has an article that shows that while Bush's current tax policy (actually the Congress writes tax laws but that's another story) will drive the country further into debt, Kerry's proposed programs will cost 2 to 3 times as much as the increase revenue from repealing Bush's tax cuts. This means that both of them at counting on the growth to balance the budget.

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

Policies based in religious thought, not science, shape the US' position when looking at international family planning and poverty issues; the US has thrown its political weight around in trying to stymie UN policies on education and family planning which touch on contraception.

Sorry but the UN position is NOT science either. It's a fallacy to simply declare your way is science and their way is not. There is a lot of unethical eugenics being played in the name of family planning. Also, the rest of the world is NOT one big happy "family planning" family... for example, there are a poor countries that have begged for medical help and they are sent condoms instead. Seems to me like the 1920s era Magret Sanger family planning-- "let's just get rid of those pesky people (they're not really like us you know)". Makes me ill.

Re:Non-Americans

[_am99_]

It is about oil! Even Kerry acknowledges that. Even Bush Sr. acknowledged that the first part of this war in 1992 was at least partially about oil in a television interview often shown on CNN.

Just because the Bush 43 Whitehouse repeats over and over that it is about bringing "terrorists to justice" or "liberating the Iraqi people" doesn't make it so.

While there may many factors playing into Iraq, one of them is no doubt oil.

Re:Non-Americans

[mark2003]

Clueless?

Interesting that you call me clueless when you just trot out the same crap you see on Fox news.

It is not an American charity, if it was to be described that way then it would be more accurate to describe it as a European charity. The European nations contribute more per head of population and have a larger total population than the US. It is not an uncaring and socialist (why socialist is used as an insult I will never understand) organisation, it has problems and is often hamstrung by some of it's members particularly the US. Being a bit more secular and liberal we tend to look more at the benefit to the recipients rather than see it as an opportunity to enforce our religious views on others.

With respect to the survey results - Egypt does not have 500 million inhabitants but I was applying this across the entire middle east. My assertion that the 20% that swapped were pro-west originally is simple logic and onviously beyond you. If they hadn't been pro-west then both survey results would have been 90% hating the US. And generally in the middle east it is the educated and wealthy that support the West.

Re:Non-Americans

[mcmonkey]

Oh yeah, and your quote "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" sounds great, but just shows how little you've actually CONSIDERED the issue.

Yeah! That Ben Franklin, always spouting off without thinking about the issues. What a dumb ass. [/sarcasm]

You sir, are an idiot. Do you really consider being able "to ravage that hot chick walking down the street," is an essential liberty?

As a US citizen, when I go into the voting booth, I'll be thinking of essential liberties such as going to see my president speak without having to sign a loyalty oath, wearing a t-shirt with a slogan supporting a currently-out-of-power political party without being hassled by the secret service, reporters recording a speech given by a supreme court justice without getting bullied by US marshals

Speed limits don't make me think I'm seeing an empire in the decline. I get that from an administration that feels free to go around the world putting people into secret prisons, torturing prisoners, killing prisoners, calling the Geneva convention "quaint."

The people who aren't pissed off (whether on the right or the left) just aren't paying attention.

Re:Non-Americans

[untaken_name]

Look, I am for the handing over of Iraq to the Iraqis. I am an anachronism: an isolationist. However, just because I don't think we should be in Iraq does not mean that I think we're there for oil. Just because I also do not agree with our reasons for being there does not mean that I will encourage the spread of fallacies. Sorry.

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

At that time, all the professional baseball teams in existence were in the U.S. and had a shot at the title. It WAS a world championship. Of course, now that other countries have taken up the game it looks a bit awkward...

Re:Non-Americans

[ArsonSmith]

Both candidates are not qualified to run the government equally but differently. Rather than voting for another bad president may I suggest voting for a 3rd party. Especially one that is for election reform that would allow us to get away from this horrid 2 party system that gives us nothing but extreme candidates from either end of the political field. I can't vote for Kerry without losing things important to me, yet I can't vote for Bush without losing things important to me.

To not vote 3rd party is a waste of a vote to help perpetuate a system that is nothing more than promoting power grabs from either side. To insure the left has power they grab as much as they can while in office, the right does the same thing. This is all at the expense of our rights and freedoms.

We can have both economic freedom and personal freedom. Please vote accordingly.

Re:Non-Americans

[mlg9000]

I'll second this. I interact with Europeans on a regular basis and I've heard a lot of opinions about Bush. The vast majority are either missinformed or uninformed about the issues here in the US. Having spent time in Germany in the days before the Iraq war started I can see why. Every news channel I watched was spouting the same line with an obvious bias. With the exception of maybe Sky news out of the UK I couldn't find anything like the counter balance we have here with Fox. Maybe that's that's the cause or maybe that's the symptom I don't know. What's clear is that Europeans really don't understand American culture (it's not like Hollywood) or the American perspective.

Re:Non-Americans

[untaken_name]

Um, I never said anything about superiority. I *did* say that the interest level in other countries was so low that their talented players already play over here. I also noted that many players are of non-US origin. Please tell me how that leads you to believe that I am asserting the superiority of any nation over another. I recognize the humorous intent of your post, however it is the same as the old 'have you stopped beating your wife yet?' interview question. It relies on a premise which did not occur.

Re:Non-Americans

[mcmonkey]

Didn't they learn from the Bring It On and the Mission Accomplished tough talk?

Yes. They learned jingoistic tripe works, and they're rich enough and old enough to keep the boogie men in the closet. They're running up a tab, and they don't care which generation gets stuck with the bill, as long as it's not theirs.

Re:Non-Americans

[haxor.dk]

"Hmm...FOX News not aligned with the right...."

Dear heavens. Why does this nonsense always pop up? FOX is "!rightwing" because it presents news at an angle you don't like?

besides, what about New York Times with the "left"? I don't hear you whining about that ? Because you like that bias, perhaps ?

"Besides, FDR was acting with world support against a common foe, while Bush eschewed world support against a 3rd world country that harbored no ties to Al Qaida or had any chance of launching a missile outside of their own back yard. But it's the same thing."

Nonsense. There was a tremendous opposition to joining in on the WWII in the USA before Pearl harbour, which was ironically partially provoked by PDF himself beforehand. The american people did not want to repeat the disaster of WWI. Regardin "international support", many nations praised Hitler's initative, especially in social areas, even Mohandas Ghandi and the then Catholic Pope! And yes, dammit, even W. Churchill himself (before germany started strong-arming Poland). Saying that FDR was a benevolent dictator while Bush is an evil one (which isnt true, dictatorwise anyway) is revisionism and should be unveiled for what it is.

Re:Non-Americans

[mi]

It's so much better to support someone who dodged the experience altogether by using his daddy's power.

You, repukes, will never Clinton alone, will ya?

Re:Non-Americans

[Genjurosan]

Jesus, you really are an uneducated dimwit. See the posts below talking about the Canadian teams that participate. All you people are sooooooo bitter and pissed off. Perhaps you should check your own mindset.

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

The notion that the United States went to war for oil is ridiculous.

Well, Halliburton appears to have prospered as a result of this war.

Re:Non-Americans

[Dixie_Flatline]

Not so. In Lisa's example, Tigers DO exist. They aren't invented, there just aren't any there.

In situations like this, it's hard to prove causality, and it's all I'm trying to point out. While it's true that there are definitely enemies of the US lurking both outside and inside its borders, there's no guarantee that it's the Bush administration's policies that are keeping them at bay. Perhaps they're working on new strategies for attacking, or perhaps they're waiting for a more strategically advangageous time to attack. Neither of us can know exactly why they're not currently blowing something up, so it's unreasonable to make such assertions.

I was very careful to say that I don't know if Bush has helped or hindered the situation - that's not my place to say.

As for your final analogy, I'm afraid it doesn't work like that with terrorists. You can threaten a country into submission, but by their very nature, Terrorists don't respond well to threats. Anybody that is willing to throwthemselves in the line of fire with a bomb strapped to their body isn't going to pay much attention to the rock that you're brandishing, no matter how large.

Re:Non-Americans

[crush]

So there are very good reasons why people outside the US have a very low opinion of Bush. Calling him a modern Hitler is hyperbole, but such low opinion of him is not unfounded.

I think it's completely unfounded and I completely abhor the guy. The Bush=Hitler idea is mostly propagated by Democrats that want to stampede left/progressive people into voting for John Kerry. Yet if you look at what Kerry's position is on such things as:

• the USA PATRIOT Act (he helped write part of it, he voted for it, he won't repeal it)
• the Occupation and Invasion of Iraq (he voted for it, would have voted for it even if the WMD threat were not floated, has vowed to increase the number of US forces occupying)
• Gay-marriage: he's against it

Then it becomes reasonable to suspect that Kerry may actually be worse than Bush on the Hitler-scale.

It's interesting to note that the US had a favorable evaluation of Hitler until he declared war on the US and that even in the early stages of the war the official reports from the State Department's point man (Kennan?) were favorable. Hitler was seen as a moderate who would steer a middle course between the extreme-right and the extreme-left. Mussolini was similarly seen as a good man in keeping down the dangerous and untrustworthy masses and giving them leadership.

Kerry and all the Democrats have displayed nearly no difference in terms of foreign wars waged, foreign civilian lives taken and democracies overturned compared to the Republicans.

Anyone claiming otherwise is a blinkered knave. (Know you're not making that point, just ranting in general).

Re:Non-Americans

[ArsonSmith]

I came up with the wording for that during my commute a couple of days ago and was just itching to post it. Sorry didn't really mean it to be anything other than funny. Your post just was the first one to remind me of the quick thought I had.

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever heard the saying "freedom of the press only applies to those who have a press?"

Unfortunately, speaking on "any medium you want to" requires money. This is because our broadcast media are a government-sanctioned oligopoly.

It's not right that someone should be able to shout their lame-ass views to millions because the feds gave them an FCC license (aka a license to print money) 60 years ago.

McCain-Feingold is a band-aid on the real problem, which is the lack of public access to media. Too bad the real problem is unlikely to be solved by either ruling party.

Re:Non-Americans

[lakema]

While the wall street journal is a fantastic newspaper, their editorial page is overflowing with right wing propaghanda. To call it right-of-center is a gross understatement.

Re:Non-Americans

[uujjj]

The fact that you consider the New Republic left-of-center speaks volumes about your politics. Most Democrats (rank-and-filers, not idiot DNC consultants) can't stand TNR's foreign policy.

Conservatives: please do not take the New Republic as representative of left-of-center views. It is not.

For your left wing fix, consider Counterpunch. For something moderate, take a look at The Nation or the columnists for Salon.

PS Any slashdot story that includes the word "Bush" (notwithstanding those discussing plantlife) is flamebait and should probably go on flamebait central.

Re:Non-Americans

[mforbes]

Wow, you mean the Toronto Blue Jays & Montreal Expos are US teams?

Ok, sure, the Expos actually most likely will be soon, if & when DC finally gets to root for a home team again (no thanks to Baltimore), but that still leaves Toronto!

Re:Non-Americans

[tsg]

How many of them have Presidents in the last 150 years been members of?

Here's a hint: it's less than 3.
Here's another hint: it's 2.

Yes, there are other parties. No, they don't have the slightest chance of winning.

Re:Non-Americans

[Ohreally_factor]

While Canada is not a state in the US, you can't deny that they're basically just a territory under our control.

Now, excuse me while I run like hell. =)

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

Warning:

The Wall Street Journal editorial page is little more than a Republican propaganda sheet. The only insight you'll get there how the whitehouse is whitewashing the latest screwup.

Re:Non-Americans

[Tyler Durden]

You, repukes, will never Clinton alone, will ya?

True. But remember Clinton was against the Vietnam War while Bush and (I think) Cheney was for it. If you believe something is worth fighting for and yet you're willing to let others less fortunate than yourself who don't have your conviction risk themselves instead, then I'd have absolutely zero respect for you. If I met someone like that on the street I'd consider it my duty to spit in their face. Unforgiveable.

Kerry has his faults, but for some people to hold his actions involving Vietnam beneath those of Bush (who openly said that Kerry was more courageous) and a lot of his cabinet takes a type of moral double-speak that I simply cannot comprehend.

Re:Non-Americans

[bullitB]

If they were attempting to kill non-US citizens on non-US territory, the US would have no right to hold them.

Funny how few people seem to complain about Belgium when they do this.

Re:Non-Americans

[CptNerd]

Of course, if non-US citizens could vote,

Well, thanks to our absurd "open borders" policy, you can slip over the border from Canada or Mexico, get a driver's license and register to vote, and in a short time get your name on the rolls. Voila, you can vote! No citizenship required!

Of course, since the Democrats are the ones who "reformed" our voting policies to allow this, you would be expected to vote Democratic.

Re:Non-Americans

[clambake]

Anybody that is willing to throwthemselves in the line of fire with a bomb strapped to their body isn't going to pay much attention to the rock that you're brandishing, no matter how large.

They might if it's a particularly comical rock, maybe bright orange and shaped like a penis? Not that it would stop them, but they may pay attention to it as they run past.

Re:Non-Americans

[clambake]

The difference is that there has been evidence of planned attacks which have been thwarted.

That wouldn't be evidence collected by the same people who told you there were WMDs in Iraq, would it?

Re:Non-Americans

[Eslyjah]

Someone else made this claim also, but he was anonymous, so I'll respond to you.

Just yesterday, they ran an op/ed by John Kerry himself. It is entitled, "My Economic Policy: A new CEO in Washington would be good for American business." Right-wing propaganda?

On September 12, they ran an op/ed by Democratic Senator Joe Biden, entitled, "A Democratic Foreign Policy: President Kerry won't thumb his nose at the rest of the world."

Now, I've already said that I'm conservative, and I said that the WSJ is right-of-center. I recommended the WSJ's opinion pages because I think they're interesting. I think I've clearly demonstrated that my designation of "right-of-center" was accurate.

Have you actually read this site you're calling propaganda?

Re:Non-Americans

[Ohreally_factor]

Saying it was "for the oil", as if the oil was a spoil of war we could easily ship back to the US in one fell swoop, is disingenious. It was for control of the oil so that the withholding of it cannot be used as a weapon against us to strangle our economy (and perhaps to use as a weapon to strangle other economies that threaten to overtake ours).

Control of the oil supply is actually a pretty sensible goal. However, that is not how the war was sold to Congress or the American people. Basically, they lied to us about the reasons for going to war, and are still lying.

Granted, if they had been straight forward, they wouldn't have been allowed to enter a war of aggression, but that's how democracy is supposed to work.

Another problem with lying to push policies through is that the liars seem to eventually believe their own lies. Thus, when the Iraqi people didn't accept us as liberators and dance in the streets, our leadership wasn't prepared (and still doesn't seem to be). There was no plan for winning the peace. If the administration had been honest about it's goals, one would hope they would also have a realistic plan for occupation.

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

"Of or relating to recent times or the present".

Fuckwit.

Re:Non-Americans

[CptNerd]

"Considering that only, what, 40-odd percent of eligible voters actually bother to turn out on election day in the states..."
--

Wow, then how did the democrats get the Philidelphia area in Pennsylvania a 100% turnout in the last election when PA went to Al Gore??

Maybe Philadelphia is taking after Chicago, and opening up graveyard precincts?

After all, the dead paid their taxes, why shouldn't they be allowed to vote?

Re:Non-Americans

[4of12]

true leaders encourage, inspire, and persuade people who don't *have* to follow them.

That's how captains of athletic teams are usually picked

So that cheerleaders at athletic events would have appropriate qualifications for leadership positions?

Re:Non-Americans

[Geo]

Why don't you take your elitest attitude and shove it up your ass. I think it is your utter arrogance is on display here. Try being a little more polite and less condescending.

Are you trying to say that in NZ, Democrats are called Republicans? If so, I'm quite sure you are incorrect. If not, it is not clear at all what you are trying to get across except your inferiority complex.

G

Re:Non-Americans

[RWerp]

Soccer is as boring as baseball. But at least baseball has some strategy to it

There's a lot of strategy in football (not soccer: football; the thing you Americans keep referring to as 'football' isn't). Not that the American football team can offer much of it (they lost the game in Korea with Poland).

Re:Non-Americans

[ccp]

Quite frankly, the American issues you care about are only a small fraction of the ones I care about. Taxes, school vouchers, Social Security reform, healthcare, tort reform, and judicial appointments matter to me.

I suppose some Germans voted for Hitler because they wanted more autobahns, but their priorities were as confused as yours.

Cheers,

Carlos Cesar

Re:Non-Americans

[Minna Kirai]

the USA PATRIOT Act (he helped write part of it, he voted for it, he won't repeal it)

If he becomes President, then repealing laws is completely outside his power. Only by remaining Senator would he have the chance to start a repeal.

the Occupation and Invasion of Iraq (he voted for it

False. Many newspapers have reported this in their headlines, but they made an inaccurate interpretation of his specific statement. Kerry didn't say he would've voted for the war; he said, "Knowning what we know now, yes, I would have voted for the authority".

Giving the President the authority to attack Iraq is not the same as telling him to attack it, and absolutely not the same as telling him to attack it in the moronically blundering way he did. (There is a distinction between "the war", the specific one which Bush fought, and "a war" which a marginally competent commander might've lead)

Kerry voted for that authority to allow Pres Bush to support a UN ultimatum against Iraq, not to attack in defiance of the international body that had previously been rubber-stamping all US agression towards Iraq for the past 12 years. His own words at that time made this distinction very clear:

1. In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution

The only way to fault Kerry on that is for expecting too much of Pres Bush.

Gay-marriage: he's against it

That's actually a place where he's lying to increase electability on the national level. Really, Kerry supports de-facto gay marriage (not with the name "marriage", but with all the legal rights and obligations thereof). He's just not willing to say that on the record, because it would ruin him.

Anyway, Bush is completely and undeniable anti-gay-marriage, so how can you use this position to try picturing Kerry as more Hitler-like?

Re:Non-Americans

[syrinx]

a US-only baseball league.

Really? I'll let Toronto and Montreal know that they've been annexed.

Re:Non-Americans

[Canthros]

That's pretty much irrelevant.

If a minority party is having difficulty finding traction in a popular election, who should be surprised, or offended? More so when the parties in question are, often, relatively marginalised by their own political positions and candidates. There is nothing really stopping you from voting for a minor party's candidate. Write the name in, if you must, but complaining that any particular party doesn't have enough supporters to generate "a wider spectrum of political opinion" is either disingenuous (because the complaint is paramount to saying, "There aren't enough people who agree with me") or just fatuous (because it ignores the spread of political opinion represented within the major parties).

Vote for Badnarik, or Nader, or Cobb, or Walt Brown, or whoever. If they can drum up enough support to win (or even enough to produce a measurable blip on the electoral radar), they will be able to exert some influence on national politics, as the Big Two make moves in that direction to pick up those voters. If they don't manage enough support, it will be because they don't have that support in the first place: either the positions they represent aren't that popular, or they're already represented well enough by another candidate (such as one of the Big Two).

Minor parties don't function in the U. S. the way they do in other countries. I am unconvinced that they need to.

Re:Non-Americans

[tekunokurato]

That's why it's 'charged with' and not 'convicted of' or 'guilty of'

Re:Non-Americans

[Minna Kirai]

. If Americans start buying price-controlled drugs overseas and importing them, the bottom will fall out of drug research.

No. In that case, the drug companies will simply no longer sell to Canada anymore. If the US starts allowing drug re-importation (in significant quanity), then drugs will no longer be sold to price-controlling nations. If they want them, they've have to wait in line at a USA pharmacy and pay the same as anyone else.

(of course, after a few weeks of that, Canada would be forced to rescind the price controls, and they can start placing orders again)

Re:Non-Americans

[iceaxe]

Doesn't matter who I vote for. I live in Texas and my vote will not be counted. Bush will get a majority here and will walk away with all of the electoral votes as if it had been unanimous, leaving my bush-despising minority self disenfranchised.

So I will probably not vote for President at all. I will be voting in elections where my vote will count for something.

Now back to my regularly scheduled meltdown.

Re:Non-Americans

[starvo]

God, how incredibly pathetic our country is sometimes. We end up insulting someone (or at least trying to) by calling them trench looking. Ugh. I apologize profusely to the trench readers of slashdot for the idiocy of some parts of the US.

Well if French-looking-Kerry doesn't win, I'll probably pack my happy ass up and move to Canada or some nice German-speaking country in Europe.

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

of course, after a few weeks of that, Canada would be forced to rescind the price controls, and they can start placing orders again

Actually, Canada has a law that basically says "If you can't get us the drugs at a fair price, we will invalidate the Canadian patents on those drugs, and produce genarics on our own to ensure a safe supply". We pulled that one at the height of the 9/11 scare over Cipero (?)I believe. Ever wonder why drugs are so much cheaper in Canada than the US (actually not just in Canada but everywhere else on earth), its because your patents are only enforceable in the US, so your pharma corps, can only hold you hostage, not the rest of us.

You see, this is the big problem with the US, you think your laws apply everywhere. We abide by them only so long as your drugs are cheaper to buy, than they are for us to retool to produce ourselves. Once you cross that line, we will be happy to fill our own demand, and there is fuck all you can do about it.

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

Just as the attacks on multiple passenger jets were thwarted during the Clinton/Gore administration. Following your logic I conclude the WTC would still be standing if Gore had been President.

Re:Non-Americans

[tsg]

So, in other words, your evidence that there is a wide spectrum of political opinion is that there are more than two political parties, and that only those two parties can win is evidence that the wide political spectrum is adequately represented. This is circular reasoning at best. It completely ignores the possibility that the election process itself greatly favors a two party system and that the reason people don't vote for third parties is that they can't win.

Re:Non-Americans

[NM156]

a bill which restricts the ability of some institutions to mention a candidate by name within 60 days of a general election, and 30 days of a primary. How is this *not* a violation of the 1st Amendment?

Well, since you asked, it's not a violation because the first amendment protects individual rights, not rights of organizations. Organizations don't have the right to vote, citizens do. There is plenty of civil liberty encroachments to be angry about that our government has passed in the recent years, but the McCain-Feingold bill is not one of them. In fact, it's sole purpose is to try to limit the influence of special interest groups and PAC's on the outcome of our elections, which is a very honorable thing to do, IMHO.

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

Why evidence supports your claim that the New York times is left?
You realize that it was the Times that broke the Whitewater story when Clinton was president.

Re:Non-Americans

[crush]

If he becomes President, then repealing laws is completely outside his power. Only by remaining Senator would he have the chance to start a repeal.

Excellent point. So for people that cite the PATRIOT USA Act as a reason to vote against Bush they're basically barking mad.

False. Many newspapers have reported this in their headlines, but they made an inaccurate interpretation of his specific statement. Kerry didn't say he would've voted for the war; he said, "Knowning what we know now, yes, I would have voted for the authority".

Meaning that he did and would vote for the illegal occupation of Iraq in an act of regime change and foreign meddling. Not only that but that he would have done so even without the lie about WMDs that could threaten US citizens. I don't think we need any clearer explanation on that score. He attempted to out-Bush Bush and he did.

Giving the President the authority to attack Iraq is not the same as telling him to attack it,

How true. And saying that you're willing to give the President the authority to attack a sovereign foreign nation with no pretence of defense of your homeland is a statement of colossal criminality in your character. Kerry lined himself up on the side of the war criminals with that one.

(There is a distinction between "the war", the specific one which Bush fought, and "a war" which a marginally competent commander might've lead)

See, this is why the Democrats are going to lose big in this election: the fact that the Democratic Party (especially the neo-liberals of the DLC) are just as keen on foreign wars and regime change in other countries as the Republicans is clearly revealed by the unsubtle flounderings of the Kerry campaign. "We do illegal wars _better_ !".

Kerry voted for that authority to allow Pres Bush to support a UN ultimatum against Iraq,

Eh, no. What Kerry actually voted for was to allow the President to make a decision all by himself to attack or not. If Kerry was so incompetent that he didn't know what he was voting for then he should admit it and not try and spin it afterwards.

Gay-marriage: he's against it That's actually a place where he's lying to increase electability on the national level. Really, Kerry supports de-facto gay marriage (not with the name "marriage", but with all the legal rights and obligations thereof). He's just not willing to say that on the record, because it would ruin him.

De facto gay-marriage? Either gays have the same full civil rights as everyone else or they don't. That includes having the State recognize them as being "married". FWIW I don't think the state has any business legitimizing any relations between consenting adults, but while it exists I want it extended to all consenting adults. Kerry doesn't. He's anti civil rights because either: 1) he's a chickenshit liar as you claim; or 2) he's genuinely a reactionary conservative. This latter is a serious possibility as he supported the First Amendment defying "Communications Decency Act" which was proposed by his fellow DLC insider Tipper Gore.

Anyway, Bush is completely and undeniable anti-gay-marriage, so how can you use this position to try picturing Kerry as more Hitler-like?

The point is that the supposed "moderates" are often the ones that turn out to be the "Hitlers". Kerry/Democrats are touted as some sort of "opposition" or "Anyone But Bush" figures, as more "moderate", but there's plenty of reason to believe that he's just sneakier than good ol' Dubya who puts his vile views out in the open for all to see.

Kerry is going to lose.

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does this nonsense always pop up? FOX is "!rightwing" because it presents news at an angle you don't like?

Perhaps because the news chief at FOX News is Roger Ailes? Perhaps because it is owned by Rupert Murdoch? The New York Times editorial page is certainly left of center, but their news reporting at least makes an effort to be balanced. The blatant editorializing that characterizes FOX coverage is well documented and widely acknowledged (even on the right!).

See, for example http://www.reason.com/0410/co.mw.unbalanced.shtml, an editorial in the libertarian rag, Reason, that suggests rather than bothering with tedious fact-checking and presenting all sides of an issue, other media outlets should follow FOX's lead and become blatantly partisan.

Re:Non-Americans

[commodoresloat]

There was a tremendous opposition to joining in on the WWII in the USA before Pearl harbour, which was ironically partially provoked by PDF himself beforehand.

Look, I don't like closed file formats either, but PDF is the least offensive one I know. Blaming it for Pearl Harbor is a little extreme, don't you think? If you're going to blame a file format for Pearl Harbor, what about DOC?

Re:Non-Americans

[Aexia]

Why was it bad to talk about candidates' experiences (or lack thereof) serving in the military in 1992 and 1996, and somewhat taboo in 2000, but suddenly it's the only thing that anyone talks about? This is ridiculous.

Because Democrats didn't try to smear Bush Sr and Dole's military records and because Clinton didn't avoid serving in a war he supported. (Hint: that means his view was *consistant*.)

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

"besides, what about New York Times with the "left"? I don't hear you whining about that"

i used to get the sunday NYtimes and it was just as right wing as the thing sticking out a plane on the right!! want a left wing paper? guardian.co.uk and thetorontostar.com

fox news is just crazy. its not right wing its not even news. its a news like entertainment show similar in style to the daily show but alot less funny.

Re:Non-Americans

[commodoresloat]

Laurie Mylroie's Iraqi conspiracy theory has been thoroughly discredited by every knowledgeable observer of the evidence. Having an Iraqi passport does not mean one is an Iraqi intelligence agent. At best, it means one is an Iraqi. There are over 25 million people in Iraq.

But even that is unlikely. He was probably from either Baluchistan or Kuwait. His partner, Mohammed Ajaj, was caught entering the US with a Swedish passport. Nobody believes he is Swedish. And certainly nobody believes he was taking orders from the Swedish Intelligence and Security Directorate.

Yousef worked for al Qaeda, not for Saddam Hussein (whom Osama bin Laden thought was an infidel). When will people stop repeating this obviously false information?

Re:Non-Americans

[Minna Kirai]

Meaning that he did and would vote for the illegal occupation of Iraq

You're ignoring all the Kerry quotes I repeated about "seeking UN approval". If a UN mandate doesn't make an operation legal, then what does?

And saying that you're willing to give the President the authority to attack a sovereign foreign nation

The US president has had authority to attack Iraq continuously since 1991. The Gulf War never ended, remember? That authority had been occasionally invoked by Clinton during his tenure.

are just as keen on foreign wars and regime change in other countries as the Republicans

There's nothing to "reveal". That's been their stated platform, for a while. The Democrats are pro-nation building (but against risking US troops). The Republicans are anti-nation building, but lying about it.

He's anti civil rights because either: 1) he's a chickenshit liar as you claim

All Kerry has said is that he opposes gay marriage. But... so do you. It's possible to be anti-gay marriage and pro-civil rights at the same time, by being universally anti-marriage. Kerry hasn't taken that position, because it would be electoral suicide.

(Similar to all the Republican governors that win elections in Democrat states, by convientently forgetting they have opinions on abortion and death penalty)

he's just sneakier than good ol' Dubya

No, Dubya is far sneakier, as are the Republicans in general. (Or maybe it's not really that Bush is wily himself, but his handlers are). Bush ran as a small-government, anti-nation building, pro-Christian candidate, and he's reversed himself on all three, while managing to convince the media that Kerry is the flip-flopper.

Fundamentally, the Democrats are the party that serves the majority of voters, and the Republicans are the party that serves the rich minority. They use that money advantage to convince non-rich voters to support them, voting against their own economic interest by inflating the importance of sexual regulations.

Kerry is going to lose.

True. The USA's voters will get the president they deserve.

Re:Non-Americans

[mi]

But remember Clinton was against the Vietnam War

I doubt, Clinton, actually, cared to have an opinion back then. So hold on to your saliva.

The problem with John Kerry and Vietnam is not that his service is questionable. It is that he chose to make such a big deal out of 4 months of commanding a small boat 35 years ago -- instead of the 12 years of being a US Senator (an infinitely more powerful position) 0 years ago.

Vietnam is irrelevant. The rotten pseudo-liberalism is important. Kerry knows, his views are not popular in US, so he hides them behind the military attributes -- saluting, "reporting for duty", et al. What military music is to music...

As for the face-spitting, take comfort -- Kerry approved the current war, and continues to approve it. Perhaps, past military service is not required to make sound decisions...

Re:Non-Americans

[BigAl_nz]

Now, I may be wrong, but my understanding is that the series is called the World Series because it was originally sponsored by the US magazine World Report. Can anybody confirm this for me?

Snopes says false.

Re:Non-Americans

[blengino]

Obviously, I'm right-of-center politically, and what I find insightful, you may find unconvincing.

I'm a very extrange person on the political enviroment. I'm quiting the communist party because of the lack of coherence betwen thought and action.

All that said, i prefer to disscus (that's the right word?, maybe flame is better ;)) with an inteligent right-winger to smash my head against the wall of an idiot-type left-winger

By the way I'm in Argentina, so we have enough of the democrats and republicans. Please let the international courts cuestion Kissinger about the "Plan Condor"

Re:Non-Americans

[SkippyTPE]

When will people stop repeating this obviously false information?

I for one will stop today, now that I stand corrected. However, there are more effective ways of correcting someone than calling them a blatant liar, you know.

What makes this 'obviously false'?

Answer: nothing but refuting evidence of which I was, until now, unaware.

Besides, Iraqi or not, my original premise stands... 9/11 was not the first attack against Americans on American soil in the modern era.

Re:Non-Americans

[Minna Kirai]

The facts are pretty simple. We had been saying for years that any WMD programs Saddam did have were moved out of country.

Even if Operation Iraqi Freedom was really about terrorism and WMD, it was still about oil.

The only reason the USA has to fear Iraq WMD is because it went to war against Iraq following their Kuwaiti invasion. The only reason it did that was because of Kuwait's oil. If not for that, Kuwait's problem would've gotten no more attention than Sudan is getting now.

Similarly, the reason Al Quaeda attacked the USA is because of their troops stationing in Saudi Arabia. Which are there because of Iraqi... so it comes back to oil, again.

(The only other reason besides oil that an Islamic terrorist would target the USA is Zionism. And it's hard to guess if the foreign policy would continue to be so pro-Zionist if Israel didn't distract the Arab states from raising oil prices)

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

I think if you're the American military (or CIA or backed by the CIA) it's 'ok' to kill anyone. At least ok as far as getting away with it is concerned.

Re:Non-Americans

[Minna Kirai]

So for people that cite the PATRIOT USA Act as a reason to vote against Bush they're basically barking mad.

No. The president has a part in making laws; he has to sign it into law. Bush shares blame for PATRIOT, because he signed it. But the president has no formal way to help repealing a law (except for signing the repealing act, which is something Kerry would probably do, although he'll never be president, and the Republican congress would never send it to him)

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you just go to a park or something and drink beer? Then you wouldn't have to pay for an admission ticket.

Re:Non-Americans

[Tyler Durden]

I doubt, Clinton, actually, cared to have an opinion back then.

But where you have doubts, I have facts.

Vietnam is irrelevant.

But character is relevant.

Kerry approved the current war, and continues to approve it.

Although I thought it was a mistake to get into the war in Iraq in the first place (as Bush Sr. has so eloquently argued against regime change in the past), there are arguments to go in backed up by the correct way to wage it I can respect. The way the current administration executed it has been an absolute circus. What was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom" can be more accurately described as "Operation Al Qaeda Recruitment Program."

Like the administration you support, you are blindly assuming that the course in Iraq was the correct one without considering other arguments. And now we have to live with the results.

Re:Non-Americans

[ahodgson]

Yep, just held in prison indefinitely. Go go concentration camps.

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

Baseball has strategy?!? MORE strategy than soccer? WTF? Baseball is even boring to play, never mind watch. It even beats football (of the US variety) for watching boringness. Soccer is much more exciting to watch, the players are actually athletic, and it's cheap and easy to play (a roughly flat field and a ball is all you need). Even a volleyball will do, so you can play on the beach. Hockey is similar in many ways to soccer, but hockey is faster and tighter, obviously, being played on a smaller surface.

Re:Non-Americans

[ahodgson]

More likely, we'd rescind the mutual IP treaties, and allow companies here to mass-produce generic versions of the reverse-engineered drugs.

It's only government protection that allows the drug companies exclusivity over production.

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd hardly call two teams (both in the east) 'several'. They're in deep financial trouble, being held afloat apparently by magic. Two 'foreign' teams, in a single country, 50 kliks across the border, does not a WORLD series make. They should get a friggin cup, name it, and call their championship that. Like Grey Cup. Or Stanley Cup. Until they have multiple actual viable non-US competitors, it's not a world-anything.

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, well, so are Flames, Senators, Canucks, etc. but they don't call it the WHL, do they? Gee, maybe because the rest of the world does not compete in it?

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why don't you just go to a pub (with patio) or someone's house (with backyard/deck) and enjoy pretty much the same thing, at 1/4 the price?

Re:Non-Americans

[commodoresloat]

Sorry, didn't mean to call you a liar! I guess it's "obviously false" to me because I've been reading about it for 3 years now, and I get frustrated seeing it trotted out again and again in various forms in the media.

As for your main point, that 9/11 was not the first attack on Americans on American soil, I wholeheartedly agree. Beyond that, I think the evidence is clear that radical Islamists associated with al Qaeda had been slaughtering Americans and others all over the world since early in the 1990s.

Re:Non-Americans

[Minna Kirai]

More likely, we'd rescind the mutual IP treaties, and allow companies here

That comment is incomprehensible without knowing where you live. Otherwise, the words "we" and "here" are complete mysteries.

It is true that it'd be silly for the USA to allow "importation of drugs from Canada", when they could just "import drug prices from Canada", skipping the pointless extra shipping.

reverse-engineered drugs

No such thing. Drugs are patented. As such, their secrets are published by USPTO, and reverse-engineering is needless.

Re:Non-Americans

[bluewee]

"This is the grammar police. Drop your negatives and don't come out without your hands not down."

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

No, hatred, not giving a shit about "foreigners" and getting pissed off is fucking clueless.

Cluestick: We are not foreigners, you are from where I sit. Besides, there are far more of us then there are of you :-)

Re:Non-Americans

[Martin Blank]

From a speech that Kerry gave on the Senate floor, February 1992:

The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam, not reopen them; that one help identify the positive things that we learned about ourselves and about our nation, not play to the divisions and differences of that crucible of our generation.

We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it. Are we now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn against the will of their own aspirations?

There were plenty of accusations that Clinton did evade military service during Vietnam, even within his own party. This speech was made just after Sen. Bob Kerrey (a Democrat) tried to make Clinton's lack of service an issue in the Democrat primary race -- a race in which John Kerry was a candidate.

Re:Non-Americans

[untaken_name]

So have many other companies. Seems like those bastards are trying to do that all the time. How dare any company ever make money? Dammit, that's not what they exist for!

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

An excerpt: Did the economy go into recession because President Bush came into office? Of course not. Had Al Gore become president, would the economy have entered a recession in March 2001? Certainly.

Doesn't that sound like Rumsfeld doing that annoying question-talking thing? Of course it does.

But seriously, to the extent there has been a limited recovery, are you sure the lowest interest rates in most people's lifetimes didn't have anything to do with it?

I don't believe in giving any President very much credit -- or blame -- for the economic situation at his term's end. Of course, things a President does (like driving up debts into the trillions) could have serious effects on the economy several years down the road.

Re:Non-Americans

[untaken_name]

That's cool. I actually had to reread my post because sometimes things I say don't come out the way I intend :) I know that I don't feel superior to non-Americans, nor do I feel inferior. It's good to check yourself every now and then to make sure you're conveying what's intended.

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you saying that flip-flopping is a bad thing?

Re:Non-Americans

[DeadScreenSky]

Why was it bad to talk about candidates' experiences (or lack thereof) serving in the military in 1992 and 1996, and somewhat taboo in 2000, but suddenly it's the only thing that anyone talks about? This is ridiculous.

I think the main reason is just that no one really trusts the candidates will do what they say, so voters are more interested in what they have done in the past. Dubya said all sorts of stuff in 2000 that he completely went against when he got into office - it would be silly to trust what he says now. Even ignoring the "is Kerry a flip-flopper" argument, a challenger can say pretty much anything they want - there is no real record to look at like we have for Bush (and experience with Bush doesn't help another candidate in the reliability contest!).

I am not saying I necessarily agree with this argument, or think it is complete (I think the media's need for contraversy and a certain metanarrative is a big factor). But with how dishonest politicians almost always are, you can see why voters would want to hear more about how they have acted in the past. Sure, they will try and lie about that, too, but at least we can maybe get some kind of accurate view of actual actions.

Re:Non-Americans

[untaken_name]

We don't control the oil. Also, as a result of our action, OPEC raised the rates we pay for the oil we *do* get from that region. I'd say, if the war truly was fought for control of oil, not only has it failed but it could never have succeeded. I truly hope that it wasn't the unstated reason we went to war, because that level of stupidity would unsettle me far greater than the 'we are the world's police force' stupidity that I believe actually precipitated this war.

Re:Non-Americans

[antiMStroll]

Thinking like this is why so many Canadians consider Americans complete assholes. Personally I don't, I realize it's only true of a very large percentage.

Re:Non-Americans

[Ohreally_factor]

We don't control the oil.

Not yet, obviously, and probably not ever, the way we're going about it. The Middle East has a grand old tradition of people trying to control it, though (We didn't put the Shah in charge of Iran in 1953 for shits and giggles).

OPEC raised the rates we pay for the oil we *do* get from that region.

OPEC does not directly set or control prices. OPEC ostensibly* controls the supply belonging to its member states. So, indirectly, they affect the price when they set supply, but it's still the market that sets the price. The current high price is not due to OPEC limiting supply, but due to the legal and tax problems of Russia's biggest oil company. OPEC has been increasing their end of the supply equation, but have been unable to put much of a crimp in the price.

*[This only works when the member states do as directed, and don't attempt to pump more oil than they say that they will. OPEC has had problems with discipline.]

I'd say, if the war truly was fought for control of oil, not only has it failed but it could never have succeeded. I truly hope that it wasn't the unstated reason we went to war, because that level of stupidity would unsettle me far greater than the 'we are the world's police force' stupidity that I believe actually precipitated this war.

It might have succeeded in 1991, had our leaders bitten the bullet and seized the opportunity. We surely would have suffered a blow in world opinion, but nothing compared to what we are seeing today. Bush Sr. chickened out because at that time, he still thought he had a chance to win the '92 election, and such an act might not have gone over well with the voters. Ten years before 9/11, without a good fear club to beat us, he didn't have a good false pretext.

Re:Non-Americans

[Minna Kirai]

I believe I speak for many of us when

I don't think you do! I suspect that most people prefer to see their enemies at the most laughable, and would rather watch the defeat of yet another hapless strawman then face the discomfort of a serious challenge to their beliefs. At least, judging from ratings, that's what viewers want...

Re:Non-Americans

[CaptainAvatar]

Hey, you might like cricket too - my attitudes to sport generally range from indifference to contempt, but I like cricket for much the same reasons as you like baseball ...

Re:Non-Americans

[Minna Kirai]

and none have gotten through yet

False. Americans have been killed by terrorist anthrax. That attack wasn't prevented, nor was the perpetrator caught.

You might say "That was just a few people, that's barely anything"... but the fact remains that Sep01 was not the most recent terrorist strike on USA soil.

Re:Non-Americans

[untaken_name]

I stand corrected re: OPEC and the current oil prices. I still believe, however, that the war was waged out of a sense that America is supposed to police the world. I don't agree, but when the UN does nothing to enforce its own regulations (including against the US, I might add) then there is no truly responsible international body. Its lack, however, does not justify the US taking up the reins, as it were. At least, not in my opinion.

Re:Non-Americans

[Canthros]

No, I evidence diversity of political opinion by the number of inter- and intra-party differences of opinion. Consider that the Republican party can contain people of such diverse opinions as George W. Bush, Rick Santorum, John McCain, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and George Pataki. Some of them are hard-line conservatives or religious right-wingers, some are moderates, some are fiscal conservatives and social liberals, and some few are socially conservative and fiscally liberal. The Democratic Party has a similarly broad reach that might be easily evidenced by the not-too-distant primary season.

Views which fall even farther afield from the centerline of US politics may find representation in third parties. You are correct that it is unlikely that a third party will gain great enough support to ascend to the Presidency. This is not tantamount to saying that U. S. politics is not diverse: a broad range of views are represented and may, if their constituency is large enough, find representation in national institutions.

There are two major difficulties in their way. First is that a third party which gains noticeable support is often used as an indication of changes in the views of the electorate, and so the Big Two will tend, either consciously or unconsciously shift to reflect those changes, siphoning potential supporters from the third party and forcing them into more extreme or marginal positions. Second is that the electorate simply doesn't have enough people who place a high enough priority on the goals and principles of $third_party, or agree with them closely enough, to bring that party into political ascendancy to a footing that is equal or greater than that of the pre-existing parties. The reason people don't vote for third parties isn't "that they can't win." It's that people place a higher value on priorities which may run counter to supporting particular third parties.

Partly, this is due to the continued dominance of the two major parties. The members of either coalition splitting into more tightly cohesive groups would provide the other party a major advantage in the legislature. In a political system with many major parties, coalition governments are often necessary for the controlling party to maintain a great enough degree of control over the legislature to govern effectively. This leads to compromise and alliance between closely compatible parties on major issues. In the U. S., this sort of compromise already happens within the major parties. Internal factions, bound together by a major issue or collection of issues, agree to work together and compromise on various major issues on which they disagree in order to further the cause of the more important issues.

This year, the issues seem to be national security, vis a vis the War on Terror, and George W. Bush. The Democrats are (sort of) united in their belief that national security and the War on Terror can be best pursued by police and judicial activity within existing legal frameworks, and that it would be best for us all if George W. Bush were not President. The Republicans, broadly, hold the opposite opinion, preferring to prosecute the war on terror via military means and to support Bush both as an effective war President, and an effective President domestically (not without reservations, obviously, but broadly and generally speaking).

The implied statement was that there is no diversity of opinion within United States politics. This is, and I think I have done a fair job of demonstrating it to be, patently false. The political spectrum in U. S. accomodates a very broad range of opinions on just about any issue you could name -- look at the citizenry and you will find supporters and critics of almost any and every political policy or decision, with the probably inclusion of sunshine and puppies. At the national level, the U. S. polity is not, I suspect, significantly less diverse than that of most other major democracies (and almost certainly more diverse than non-democracies). It is probably more con

Re:Non-Americans

[mi]

But where you have doubts, I have facts.

It was a joke on my part. I find it funny, that the two parties have now switched positions. After 8 years of defending Clinton's draft dodging, Democrats accuse the entire National Guard of cowardice. And vice versa.

But character is relevant.

I quite like Bush's character, actually. But, more importantly, I prefer his convictions over those of Dukakis, err. Kerry...

What was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom" can be more accurately described as "Operation Al Qaeda Recruitment Program."

A notable lack of substance in the above spinning...

Just like Bush and Kerry I support the war -- Saddam had to be removed, and I'm glad we did it (Kerry's own words, BTW). This -- Saddam's removal -- is why I support Bush. If he loses the elections, no future president will dare attacking a contemptuous tyrant, and the tyrants will know, that the "leader of the free world" will be reminded by his/her staffers about the "fate of the Bushes", who waged and promptly won to just wars, but lost the subsequent re-elections... You want eloquency? Here...

In any case, note, that if you disaprove of the war, Kerry is not your candidate either.

Re:Non-Americans

[ahbi]

I don't know what you are reacting to but it certainly wasn't in my original post.

All parties discussed in the original post were US parties.
I am fully aware that other countries have different parties with different names and different opinions. The AU versus CN Liberals come to mind. I also know about the US Democrats versus DE Social Democrats.

The point of the post was that unless you live in the country of Party X, you don't fully understand Party X. The What, Why, or How of Party X's agenda isn't something you can get from a news report (TV, web or paper).

And you certainly shouldn't be pledging allegiance to some foreign country's Party X when you don't fully understand what they really stand for and who supports them.

These people had a right to their opinions. They just should have been more informed before making their pledges to some foreign political party.

I don't know what you were on when you read in whatever "intolerance" you found. But it wasn't in the original post.

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking of hubris, you don't see the average American citizen going on and on about the election in a foreign country. If we did the World would scream about the US interfering in the country's internal politics. We have been amazingly tolerant of how the World wants to be involved in our internal affairs.
It really is the height of arrogance that Europe presumes to tell us what our gun, drug, marriage, and penal system laws (to name a few) should be.

Look I really shouldn't have to explain how a Democracy works to you but, in a Democracy the CITIZENS get to vote on how the Democracy is run. America, for all its corruption, is a Democracy. If you want a vote on what America does the rules are simple (1) immigrate, become a citizen and vote, or (2) surrender your nations sovereignty and become a State of the United States.

Re:Non-Americans

[Tyler Durden]

If he loses the elections, no future president will dare attacking a contemptuous tyrant, and the tyrants will know, that the "leader of the free world" will be reminded by his/her staffers about the "fate of the Bushes", who waged and promptly won to just wars, but lost the subsequent re-elections..

Bush Sr. didn't lose because of the Gulf War. He lost because of economic issues. Anyone who seriously follows politics, be they from the left or right, acknowledges that George H. was very astute when it came to foreign policy and that going to war against Iraq was the right call. But there were many good reasons he gave against going all the way to removing Saddam which you should look up if you get the chance. The possible problems he brought up fit disturbingly close to the situation today.

If the second Bush loses because of Iraq, the next president should take as a lesson, "If you're going to attack a contemptuous tyrant, be sure you properly evaluate if it's worth it by balancing the potential costs both of action and inaction. And if you're going to start, make sure you know how to finish it properly."

In any case, note, that if you disaprove of the war, Kerry is not your candidate either.

Now that the Bush administration has linked the war in Iraq with the War Against Terrorism and terrorists have made it their cause to wreck our naive hopes of forced democracy in Iraq, it is vital we are successful in Iraq, whether it was the correct decision to begin it or not. Bush has painted us into a corner. And like the majority of presidential elections, I have to pick the lesser evil.

Re:Non-Americans

[Minna Kirai]

Why, if you're in favor of securing the nation, is the southern US border among the most weakly patrolled in the western world?

Eh? The southern border is guarded a lot tighter than the northern one!

Terrorists would be stupid to come through Mexico, where a lucky DEA or INS agent might spot them, when the Canadian border is so much longer, and less defended. (Note: that only applies if they'd be recognized as terrorists if arrested, either by what they're carrying, or if their identities are known. If it's just unknown people entering the country, then blending in with migrant Mexican laborers is a fine plan)

One of Michael Moore's less famous films consisted of him "sneaking" increasingly larger crowds of suspicious-looking persons in from Canada.

Re:Non-Americans

[crush]

Bush shares blame for PATRIOT, because he signed it.

As did Kerry. Hence if Kerry were President he'd probably sign the PATRIOT USA Act, go to war on Iraq without even an excuse, ban gay-marriage, and generally be an all-round pain-in-the-ass which is why he's going to lose.

Re:Non-Americans

[Caseyscrib]

It's possible to lead someone without having authority over them. In fact, that's the way leadership usually works. Anyone can command somebody who has to obey them. But true leaders encourage, inspire, and persuade people who don't *have* to follow them.

Wow. You pretty much summed up my view on leaders & politics in the last sentence right there. Throughout high school, I was frequently known as the kid who knew everything. I feel that I did a good job supporting my point of view and questioning popular opinion when I felt it was wrong (ie: the war in Iraq, or more broadly, everything Bush has done). I have considered getting into politics, but I'm not sure I want to be a leader (in the traditional sense). Yes, I can do a great job at pursuading opinion to support my side, but I hate when people listen without questioning me why. I like arguing and I like being proven wrong - I really do. No matter what the topic of discussion is, you will always learn another side of the story that applies to something else in life. I'd much rather teach people to lead themselves than follow me without reason, but I've found that time and time again people would rather follow somebody than think for themselves. Even when I can prove somebody wrong and they run out of arguments, they'll say "whatever" and go back to support their original idea without a good reason. It's very sad, but I think thats what it has come down to. OTOH, somebody once told me that the most important target during a debate is not your opponent, but the audience.

"Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime"--Author unknown

I'd rather do the teaching.

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That's spacious [sic] reasoning, Dad.

I think the word you're looking for is "specious"

Re:Non-Americans

[True Grit]

This -- Saddam's removal -- is why I support Bush.

Fundamentally, Saddam's removal is not where Bush made his mistakes. The problem is *how* he did it.

If he loses the elections, no future president will dare attacking a contemptuous tyrant

They certainly won't do it in the haphazard, unplanned, unilateral and arrogant way Bush did.

Besides, US policy has never been about removing tyrants in other countries just *because* they are tyrants. Its a dangerously simplistic idea, and wrong, if for no other reason than it implies we should also invade the remaining third of the world thats *still* run by tyrants. This idea was just the excuse used because Bush & Co. couldn't tell the world the real reasons they felt compelled to attack (reasons which were far less noble than this idealistic vision).

In fact, the idea that we should invade other countries because we don't like their leaders on our own whims, unilaterally without UN support, is exactly the kind arrogance thats gotten us into so much trouble already.

if you disaprove of the war, Kerry is not your candidate either.

If your goal is to get rid of Bush at any cost, you vote for whoever has the best chance of beating him, and that of course, is Kerry.

Re:Non-Americans

[True Grit]

As long as the US relies on "winner takes all" rules, a +2 party system is impossible. We would need proportional representation in the Congress, perhaps including something like Condorcet voting, to make that possible. Right now, throughout the US government and its Constitution, you only need "50% + 1" to get *all* of the power.

Its not going to happen unfortunately. There are just too many Americans who implicitly think our system of governence is "perfect", and "special", and nothing should be changed (except for the social conservatives who want to shoehorn their idea of morality into the Constitution). Few never seem to wonder whether its a good thing that a country with 270 million people always reduces every issue, simple or insanely complex, down to just 2 perspectives.

Re:Non-Americans

[Kirijini]

Not what you want to hear, but turnout was so high in around the turn of the century because of political machines. Everyday people relied on parties for jobs and social interaction, especially in cities, but many other places too, and they "paid" for it by voting for their party. So 80% sounds like a lot of people were actively engaged in their nation's political debates, but if you cut out the people voting purely because their boss (political) told them to, the percentage probably would be around 30 to 40 percent.

So which is better? Voting because the party helps you get a job, or because you believe in the party's agenda?

Re:Non-Americans

[BlueLightning]

It's "nit-pick", damnit.

Re:Non-Americans

[mi]

If he loses the elections, no future president will dare attacking a contemptuous tyrant

They certainly won't do it in the haphazard, unplanned, unilateral and arrogant way Bush did.

Another empty spinning attempt... Even if you are right, it is, in my strong opinion, much better to have done it imperfectly, than not at all.

unilaterally without UN support, is exactly the kind arrogance thats gotten us into so much trouble already.

Our foreign policy is and should be affected by UN and other foreigners, but it shouldn't be dictated by them. Like old age to youth, certain UN-members were trying to prevent us from doing, what they simply could not do themselves (any more). It is not the arrogance, that's hurting us -- people, complaining about it, are not our enemies nor were they ever our helpful friends.

UN was trying bring peace to Yugoslavia for many years and became the sad laughing stock of Yugoslavs on all sides. In Somalia, UN was distributing food to, essensially, the local warlords. Clinton was convinced to try to fight some of them, but his overadherence to UN reduced the punch's power and 19 Americans died (plus hundreds of Somalians).

That Bush found "the minerals" to axe through the Gordian knot of politics, which Saddam was able to use for over a decade to mock us and the UN, is why I'm on the Bush's side. The removal of the contemptuous despot was not, of course, the whole reason for the action, but most of the objections heard from the opposing countries are not any more sincere.

The demonstration of America's willingness to attack (in addition to its already well known ability) was quite useful. Already Gaddafi bent over and Charles Taylor fled. It may even work on North Korea, who make no secret of their waiting for the results of this elections. Guess, who those thugs prefer?

Re:Non-Americans

[tsg]

All of this hinges on the belief that the views represented by the two major parties is broad enough. Many people, as evidenced by the lack of voter turnout, do not agree.

Both parties take funding from corporate sponsors. Many people don't like this but the fact is a candidate can't get elected unless he does. And the corporations are not backing the long shots. They are only backing the two people who can give them the most return on their investment. So already the two majors have a distinct advantage even having their platforms heard. Of course people are going to select one of those two, they don't know anything about the other options. In this case, the view represented is very narrow. The only difference between them is who they're accepting funding from.

The reason people don't vote for third parties isn't "that they can't win." It's that people place a higher value on priorities which may run counter to supporting particular third parties.

This is not true. The vast majority of voters see an election, supported by the media and past history, as a race between two candidates. Logic dictates that they make their selection from the only two that have a chance of winning. There is also the fear of inadvertantly helping your last preference by not voting for the candidate that can beat him.

The implied statement was that there is no diversity of opinion within United States politics.

No, the statement was that the diversity of opinion was not wide enough. Yes, there are a lot of different views represented by the two major parties. There are many views which get no representation at all. Your argument seems to be that they get no representation because they don't have any support. My argument is that they don't have any support because they don't have a voice.

These things have happened. If they didn't, we'd still be voting for Federalists and Democratic Repbulicans.

The last time this change happened the country was only 80 years old. It's 150 years later and we still have the same two parties. In the past 100 years, independents have never held more than 4% of the Senate and 3% of the House. I maintain that it is the election process itself which supports a two party system and not the lack of any "real" support for views represented outside these two parties.

Re:Non-Americans

[rotor]

Point taken. It's a sad thing that I have to admit that the attacks on September 11th overshadowed these so much in my mind that I'd forgotten about them.

Re:Non-Americans

[thelaw]

"I like arguing and I like being proven wrong - I really do."

I'd guess that as a politician or other type of leader (as described above), you'll have plenty of opportuninties to be proven wrong. :)

Even academics and journalists, people whose occupations consist in tearing other people's ideas down, travel in herds. Whether they follow the dominant paradigms, "the story", or any other occupational requirement, they will follow the herd. Try to find more than the token traditionalist at an elite academic institution, or a Newtonian physicist at a major research university. Or try to find a political reporter who wants nothing to do with the story of the American presidential election. There are a couple exceptions here and there, but humans are herd creatures and always will be. That's why forums like Slashdot prosper. :)

"I'd rather do the teaching."

A noble calling. But somebody has to vote to pay the teachers more. :) Wherever your skills are best-used, I say.

Jon

Re:Non-Americans

[famebait]

Saying it was "for the oil", as if the oil was a spoil of war we could easily ship back to the US in one fell swoop, is disingenious

Well, yes. But there's more than one way to loot a country. As an abbreviation for "wreck everything, hire me and my pals' companies to fix it, and sell their oil in order to pay us very handsomely for the favor" it really isn't too bad.

Not claimimg that's the whole reason for the war, but it's demonstrably happening, and the bucks are very big indeed.

Re:Non-Americans

[Lars T.]

Where is this evidence? All we had was raised threat conditions whenever Bush dropped in the ratings. And an increased number of attacks world wide from Al Qaeda.

Re:Non-Americans

[Lars T.]

Tidbit: After Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Osama Bin Laden offered the govenment of Saudi Arabia to send his Mujahideen to drive out Saddam. Instead they asked the "Infidels" for help and let them place foot in the Holy Land. The rest is history.

Re:Non-Americans

[Lars T.]

You forgot:

Oklahoma City
Atlanta Olympic Games
Anthrax

Ooops. Those were by Americans.

Re:Non-Americans

[Lars T.]

But that as well as the Washington snipers were Americans. Bush only promised to defend you against Al Qaida and Saddam.

Re:Non-Americans

[Martin Blank]

The US is somewhat lax in dealing with the Canadian border, but there's also a force on the other side of that border that's interested in keeping people from crossing illegally. And how many people even try to come in from Canada?

This year, it's expected that more than four million people will illegally try to make it across the Mexican border with the US. Of those, three million will make it through. The Border Patrol has said that it's arrested about 55,000 people who were not Mexican from Oct 1, 2003, to Aug 25, 2004. Extrapolated out to the end of the fiscal year, that's 61,000 OTMs that will be arrested. Working on the 1:4 arrest ratio, that means that nearly a quarter of a million non-Mexicans will make it across the border into the US this year.

If you were trying to wreak havoc in another country and had a 75% chance of getting in through a given means, wouldn't you try it?

Aside from that are the costs of supporting illegal immigrants once they're here, which is some $5.5 billion per year in California and $1.3 billion per year in Arizona, very little of which is reimbursed by the federal government. I can think of a lot of things that can be done for that amount of money.

Re:Non-Americans

[Thuktun]

The lack of perfection does not imply incompetence.

However, the lack of any coherent post-invasion plan and any realistic exit strategy would seem to imply that.

Re:Non-Americans

[WhiplashII]

No, no, no, it's that he's a haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat who, by the way, served for Vietnam.

Sorry, I will stop, I promise!

Re:Non-Americans

[Minna Kirai]

If you were trying to wreak havoc in another country and had a 75% chance of getting in through a given means, wouldn't you try it?

If I was trying to wreak havoc and had a 25% chance of getting caught on initial entry, I definitely wouldn't try it. Not when Canada is right there with an arrest chance of probably 2% or less.

You know that the occasional wealthy Mexicans who want to sneak into the USA fly to Canada first, right?

For a terrorist, there are pros and cons to both Canada and Mexico, though.

Mexico: if arrested, and you don't show up on a terrorist watch list, and you can convincingly act Mexican (the Spanish language will be tough for Al Quaida agents), and you're not carrying anything suspicious, then you have a good chance of being released to Mexico. Then, if the recieving Mexican police don't detect you're not one of them (again, a big obstacle for non-hispanic Al Quaida), you're free to try entering again.

Canada: On the other hand, people sneak in through Canada so rarely that there'd probably be a decent police investigation on anyone caught. But, if not caught, you can probably drive a pickup truck full of weapons over- while entering from Mexico only gets the shirt on your back. The chance of being caught entering via Canada is low, and if you have the luxury of a 10 day walk through the woods, it falls to zero.

The final advantage of Mexico is that foreigners arriving in Mexico by ship or plane will be less closely examined than visitors to Canada. That could really be the decisive factor for most terrorists. (Although if you were, for example, a North Korea team carrying a nuclear bomb, you'd want to come through Canada)

Aside from that are the costs of supporting illegal immigrants once they're here,

Actually, there's no such thing as an "illegal immigrant" in the USA right now. There are "unauthorized immigrants", but they're not really illegal. Otherwise, the normal police would be moderately interested in arresting those lawbreakers, and calling 911 to report an unauthorized alien wouldn't get you threatened with a fine for abusing emergency infrastructure.

Only if the government gets interested in cracking-down on unauthorized immigrants will it be fair to call them "illegal". But so far, small business owners in the USA are so happy to have a pool of employees that accept sub-minimum wage, that nobody wants to stop them.

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

But that as well as the Washington snipers were Americans.

He never caught the anthrax guy, so we don't know, do we?

Bush only promised to defend you against Al Qaida and Saddam

Hey, that sniper's name was Muhammed. Sounds like an Al Quaeda operative to me!

Re:Non-Americans

[Lars T.]

We do know that it came from an American high security lab. The fact that somebody can smuggle out BioHazMat from there is bad enough, if they either are semselves or sell to non-American terrorists, it is obviously time for a revolution.

Re:Non-Americans

[dcmeserve]

Both candidates are not qualified to run the government equally but differently.

I really think you are mistaken. The only thing that they do equally bad but differently is talking off-the-cuff. Bush is bad because of his Alzhiemer's-onset-like speech impediments; Kerry is bad because he rambles too much. Of course, Bush has the benefit of a campaign mastermind (Karl Rove) coaching him to keep his sentences short and simple. Kerry still has to learn this. If he can really start talking in a more soundbyte-able manner, they'll be back to even on this front.

But based on all the evidence I've seen on Bush's record (White House and otherwise) and Kerry's (Senate and otherwise), Kerry is clearly a leader. Bush is a figurehead who can follow directions, with maybe a little volition involved.

Re:Non-Americans

[xrayspx]

I hope he reads this.

Re:Non-Americans

[tomhudson]

Nice troll.

The US is easily the most moral western country on the planet and likely the most moral country on the planet, ever, bar none

Death penalty, lack of proper medical care for 1/3 of its ppulation, a huge prison population, more likely to be in jail if you're black, counting ketchup as a vegetable so you can lie about the nutritional value of school lunches, recent tax breaks that shift the burden disproportionately to those least able to pay it ...

Like I said - nice troll.

Re:Non-Americans

[ahodgson]

That comment is incomprehensible without knowing where you live. Otherwise, the words "we" and "here" are complete mysteries.

Well, grandparent was talking about refusing to sell to Canada, so maybe not a complete mystery.

No such thing. Drugs are patented. As such, their secrets are published by USPTO, and reverse-engineering is needless.

Even easier then.

Re:Non-Americans

[sumdumass]

there is an exit stratigy. It has been told numerous times. Maybe the incompetent person is you?

We are going to exit when the iraq people have a repaired infrastructure. (running water,sewage treatment, phone service stuff like that). Iraq needs to have elections and elect thier own leaders in free elections as well as maintain the ability to defend themselves both inside the country and from the outside.

Once that is done, the us troops will pull out. As a matter of fact, less troops will be needed the closer it gets to hapening. I'm not even going to start on your asumption or lack of understanding of the "post invasion plan".

Re:Non-Americans

[sumdumass]

and whats imoral about that?
Nothing wrong with the death penalty for people that deserve it. Your definition of proper medical car? Whats improper about it? Any one in the us can get medical care. Some have to pay for it while some get it paid for. Those stories about people getting turned away from hospitles for not having insurance are all lies? It has been a felony for a hospital to refuse emergency medical treatment to anyone based on thier ability to pay since the 80's.

As a percentage of the population more blacks commit more serious crimes. This probably has somethign to do with leaders spouting some bulshit about the man and how you shouldn'twork for him and take this or that. maybe it has somethign to do with the rise of drug use and drug slaves in the lower income portions of the cities.

As for the ketchup? i can both sides of that. If it is used inside a product them its ingredients need to be listed. if it is a condement then no. I havn't head anyhting of that happening here so i don't know how it was being used.

Now for taxes. You have know basis for saying this. Your just plane wrong. The majority of taxes in the united states (somewere around90%) are payed by the top 5-20 percent of incomes.earners. The rest is paid by the middle class. Generaly the people that least able to pay actually get paid for filing tax returns. If you make under 20,000 with one kid you pay nothign in taxes and get some back that you never paid in in the first place. Have you ever filed a tax return or participated in the tax process? Our tax system is such a modern day robinhood system it is funny. I will repeate. there is no basis for you to say this about the tax systems. you are either uuninformed or flat out lying...

Re:Non-Americans

[tomhudson]

... emergency medical treatment to anyone based on thier ability to pay since the 80's

You know, if you had decent medical universal care down there, you wouldn't end up with so many emergencies from non-treated chronic conditions - things that people can't afford to get treated. One of the guys who posts here can't afford to get proper treatment because he no longer has medical insurance.

So what are his choices - wait until it becomes an emergency? And after that, ('cuz emergency care is expensive) end up bankrupt? Sheesh.

As a percentage of the population more blacks commit more serious crimes

Let's look at the facts for a change: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=4 5&did=539

Two of the country's foremost researchers on race and capital punishment, law professor David Baldus and statistician George Woodworth, along with colleagues in Philadelphia, have conducted a careful analysis of race and the death penalty in Philadelphia which reveals that the odds of receiving a death sentence are nearly four times (3.9) higher if the defendant is black. These results were obtained after analyzing and controlling for case differences such as the severity of the crime and the background of the defendant. The data were subjected to various forms of analysis, but the conclusion was clear: blacks were being sentenced to death far in excess of other defendants for similar crimes.

Now, onto the ketchup thing:

As for the ketchup? i can both sides of that. If it is used inside a product them its ingredients need to be listed. if it is a condement then no. I havn't head anyhting of that happening here so i don't know how it was being used.

Here's a quick reference in case you missed it: http://www.fact-index.com/k/ke/ketchup.html

In 1981, Ronald Reagan's budget director, David Stockman, proposed classifying ketchup as a vegetable as part of Reagan's budget cuts for federally financed school lunch programs (it would make it cheaper to satisfy the requirements on vegetable content of lunches). The suggestion was widely ridiculed and the proposal was killed.

Never mind that tomatoes are fruits, not vegetables.

Now for the effects of Bush's tax cuts killing off the middle class: just google for "tax cust shift burden - you'll get lots of hits showing that the rich (who need it the least) get the most benefit: one example: http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/000299.html

Three successive tax cuts pushed by President Bush will leave middle-income taxpayers paying a greater share of all federal taxes by the end of the decade, according to new analyses of the Bush administration's tax policies.

As I said,

recent tax breaks that shift the burden disproportionately to those least able to pay it ...

The poor can't pay it, the rich won't pay it, so who's left? The guy in the middle. And he's getting squeezed - again. Killing off the middle class is, historically, always a big mistake for the future of any country.

So, to quote you, in all these cases,

you are either uuninformed or flat out lying...

All this also ignores the problem of the $5 Trillion Bush Deficit, which will have to be paid, meaning less money for social programs, health care, etc., and still more taxes on the middle class.

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

..and still more taxes on the middle class.

Great. Adding the middle class to your mill? Not enough to just bash gays to fight your petty war against religion, now you want to oppress the middle class out of your unbridled envy of your neighbor to the south. Or do you think everyone is just too stupid to realize Big Brother Health Plan and lower middle class taxes just don't go together.

Use and abuse, use and abuse, use and abuse. It's the only tune you know how to play. Everybody else is just a tool for your purposes. Ever wonder why you're alone all the time?

Re:Non-Americans

[sumdumass]

umm. That story is quite a bit dated. Not to memntion it doesn't even come close to adressing the who pays what issue. If you remeber the politics of the time, The us was arguing that it had spent well over the amount owed in peace keeper and military action that was requested by the un. Also we were disputing coruption within the UN that was funnling money away from projects and into thier respective popckets. The UN screwes anyhtign up it gets it's hands on. It refuses to look were real tragity has happend nd genociede is ocuring today. IT passes some resolutions withtout any intent of enforcment thinking it is actually part of some sovereigned government when at best it is even close. Look a little deeper then that one story and you will see why it was printed.

Manny americans have looked at the failures of the un and think we need to abolish it and either instatute somethign moremeaningfull or go back to the old days. I agree with that. Anyone Who puts faith in the UN is more brainwashed and hopless then these bible thumping zealots. All the UN is, is a way to open comunications to another country. Anythign else it does gets screwed up in the process and NEVER AMOUNTS to anything.

Re:Non-Americans

[sumdumass]

what has kerry led on in the senate? Last i heard there wasn't one bill he sponsored or introduced. The efects he has on bills were only because they went to his comity. Please i hope you right but show me or tell me of one.

i call a spade a spade and i wouldn't call kerry a leader based on his senate record.

Re:Non-Americans

[tomhudson]

And as I said before, fuck off, fat boy!

Anyone not too lazy to click on the link and read the thread will realize you're still a liar, still stupid, and that it's YOU who does the gay-bashing, not me.

Re:Non-Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

Bzzzzzzt. Wrong. Your head's shoved so far up your butt every time you open your mouth all that comes out is the top of your flea-ridden head. Anyone who clicks on the link will see that, gay-basher. (To be fair, though, you bash anything that will take your mind off the joke you have become. Gays are just an easy target in your book.)

Good luck on raising taxes, though. Maybe screwing up another country will make you feel better about your screwed up life.

Run, Tom, Run!

Re:Non-Americans

[tomhudson]

Still pissed off about this, aren't you, you fat, stupid loser.

Re:Non-Americans

[sumdumass]

You know, if you had decent medical universal care down there, you wouldn't end up with so many emergencies from non-treated chronic conditions - things that people can't afford to get treated. One of the guys who posts here can't afford to get proper treatment because he no longer has medical insurance.

Well i'm sorry about the state he is in. Chances are though his condition reguarding medical coverage was of his own doings though. Mismanaged money, buying things not neccesary like computers or new cars, or lack of willingness to change career paths could have played a significant role in this. In america, It has always been the indevidual or parents responcability to provide for thier health. In short, he should go bank rupt or wiat for an emergency. If he cannot afford medical insurance legit instead lacking coverage because of spending money unwisley, then he would be better off with the clean slate. Sometime people just need to start over and learn from thier mistakes.

I know countless people That have no insurance and have no problem getting treated for ilnesses. I also know countless people that buy thier insurance themselves instead of expecting the government or thier employer to provide it. One guy i recently spoke to said he had to make real sacrifices to get insurance. Sacrifices like not going out and drinking every other night. This isn't top say everyone drinks up thier insurance premiums but i bet they could find some coverage they could afford if they adjusted thier budget a little. If they still cannot aford insurance then they most likley fall into the poor catagory were the government already has programs availible for them.

As to the death penalty, I read the page linked in your reply. Out side of it soun ding like a sales pitch trying to convince someone of somethign, it had little representation of the us in it's entirety. It said philidelphia had more death penaly cases then the rest of pensilvania out of the eligable convictions blacks were 40% more likely to get the deth penalty then whites. What the study fales to look at is facts like The death penalty may only be applied in Pennsylvania in cases where a defendant is found guilty of first degree murder. A separate hearing is held for the consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. If at least one of the ten aggravating circumstances listed in the law and none of the eight mitigating factors are found to be present, the verdict must be death. If race is a consideration of one of the ten factors and it is construed so that black offenders by the nature of being black will violate them i would agree. However i find that very unlikely.

Back to the katchup thing. I find this laughable, someone made a sugestion that was droped and you act like it was instatuted. Nothign ever became of this and in you previous post you act like it is a fact in practice daily. I don't see how you couls even insinuate this in good concience when you provided the links to verify it. This is like trying to convict someone for robbing a bank when all they did was say lets robb a bank as a joke to end thie rmoney problems without ever acting on anything or making plans for anything.

As for the tax cuts, after reading your link, again i find your concluision misleading. It doesn't say that the middle class taxpayers are going to pay more in taxes, it say thier taxes are going to cover more of the amount of taxes colected. Know were does it say there would be a tax increase to the middle class. It is basicaly saying that the middle class is being left out ot the cuts. While i would like to see the middle class recive tax breaks, i don't see how this is near as bad as your making it out to be. If you were paying ten dollars a year in taxes and i'm paying $100, when i pay only $90 the next year and you still pay $10, you not having an increased burden. You have the exact same burden but the amoutnit counts for

Re:Non-Americans

[tomhudson]

The facts are simple: The tax decreases went primarily to the rich. When taxes go up (and they have to, to cover the Bush deficit), who's going to pay? Just google for "President Bush responds that the rich have accountants who can help them avoid taxes" The poor can't pay. The rich won't pay. So who's left to absorb the increase, if not the middle class?

As for medical costs: http://www.newsbatch.com/healthcare.htm

Another serious problem is that the system is stacked against workers at all income levels who have medical problems. Not only are they unable to obtain insurance, their condition often prevents them from obtaining employment from employers who offer medical insurance because they are bad risks.

It's not people spending their money unwisely ... the system is broken. If you have a chronic disease, you're less likely to get hired, and less likely to be able to afford health care.

As for the study on racism, they controlled for all factors and still found blacks were 3.9 times more likely to get the death penalty in the same circumstances.

The ketchup thing (I say "ketchup", you say " catsup", etc :-) would have been passed except for the public outcry. In today's atmosphere, it would probably have passed unnoticed.

Look at all the garbage already in force or trying to be foisted on the population that would have been unheard of 5 years ago. The PATRIOT Act. INDUCE. The whole Department of Homeland Security (has a Stalinist/1984 ring to it, don't you think?).

Re:Non-Americans

[sumdumass]

The facts are simple: The tax decreases went primarily to the rich. When taxes go up (and they have to, to cover the Bush deficit), who's going to pay? Just google for "President Bush responds that the rich have accountants who can help them avoid taxes" The poor can't pay. The rich won't pay. So who's left to absorb the increase, if not the middle class?

you are acrediting somethign that didn't happen as if it already did. Worse yet you are also blaming parties that havn't made any action towards your assumption because of you ideolog. History has shown us that an eventuality of tax cut is alway an increase in tax revenue. How long it will take or and how much are the only variable factors. This is not raising anyones taxes either. If the increased tax revenue doesn't come soon enough or with enough amounts then the tax cuts would be repealed. I bet your not even considering the fact that bushes tax cut havn't even taken efect completly yet have you? There are certain factors that have to be present for the remaining tax cuts to become a reality. If we are in a recession then they won't materialize. If there is so much of a deficate then the remaing tax cuts won't become real. And about the acountaNTS, right now the laws saw you are supposed to file your taxes the way it requires you to pay the least amount. So what is wrong with acountants looking for tax structure in transactions? You could do just then same as they do. BTW , Acountants don't cost all that much either.

Again, there are many insurance policies availible that are both afordable and availible. Granted, most are either har der to get if you have an existing medical condition or you have a period of time you have to wait before they cover that condition. If the condition is life threatening or stops you from working, then there is a government programs availible to help. I know a guy who just tore his knee cap out. He had it fixed/replaced and was back to work in about 6 months. BTW, he had no insurance of his own, didn't loose his home, and drew a paycheck from the government while he was off. No it wasn't a worker comp situation either.

If the system is broke, then a universal care program will break it more. here is an article i found that was linked from the news page in your post. It basicaly say that in countries with socialized medicin, the quality of care/life drops. I'm sure there is as much bias pushing a cause here as there is in the articles you pushed but in the middle we will find the real story. The system isn't broke, people are just not using it.

As for the study on racism, they controlled for all factors and still found blacks were 3.9 times more likely to get the death penalty in the same circumstances.

No, they found that in philly, 3.9 times as many murderers that matched the criteria for the death penalty were black. As i explained earlier, in PA. to get the death penalty you must commit first degree murder and then qualify on at least one of the 10 pieces of criterial then you get the death penalty by default. You don't have a judge giving it to you, you don't have a jurry giving it to you, if somethign you did when commiting the murder, matches somehtign they have on a list, you automaticaly get the death penalty. You cannot adjust for that It is manditory. Do you understand that when they sates say if this is true and this is true, you will get the deathpenalty. (BTW being black isn't part of the requirements) You have a study that put numbers together without any understanding of what they means to advance a cause. They know that other won't know what they mean and believe anythign thay say about it. You fell for it and i'm sure a bunch of others did too.

And once again the kethup thing didn't pass. And you are still trying to act as if it did. It doesn't matter why it didn't pass, or why you think it didn't pass, you try to claim it as a

Re:Non-Americans

[tomhudson]

You really miss my point on insurance. Someone working at the minimum wage with a chronic illness is simply not going to be able to get insurance coverage. It's called "the working poor".

As for this

How about when they placed a machine that would monitor phone lines for key words and then notify certain people when these key words were mentioned. (hint: this has been around a little longer then this president)

people fell for the bullshit that they were able to do this back in the early 80s, and that it was done for all phone conversations. It wasn't true then, and with the larger amount of data going through the phones now, the changing slang, etc., the purported 3000-computer cluster at langley couldn't do it today, either.

It was always "targeted surveillance" and misinformation to keep the unwashed masses stupid. When friends would mention this, I'd say, "Oh, yeah, right, can't say the words bomb, the president, white house, allah akabar, all in one sentence. Shall I do it again?" They'd freak, I'd do it again. Then I'd explain that it doesn't work the way we were led to believe by those "news scoops" and "investigative reports" that were "leaked", that it was all disinformation (mind you, I might be planting disinformatin right now, because I might be watching you through a hidden cam . Please adjust your TFH appropriately :-).

Re:Non-Americans

[sumdumass]

Nah i'm not missing the point on the working poor. I'm saying it is impracticle to count them. First, the minimum wage workers are either in highschool living with thier parents or are in some entry level job or are retired. Never mind who i think is working at minimum wage and lets examine some facts. Minimum wage is not enough to make a living on, people trying to are in more trouble then not having medical insurance in the first place. Creativly they solve these problems by getting room mates or government assistance. Then all the sudden minimum wage isn't as little as it is.

The so called working poor is kinda of a pet peive of mine. There really isn 't anysuch thing. Of course there are people that don't make verry much money and have to do without some luxories like brand new cars, maybe running the airconditioner in the summer or going out and drinking at the bars. Maybe they also have to go with out pop and potato chips or quite smoking. In every case, the so called working poor usualy find ways to make up for thier inability to make a living by either moving in with family or friends and sharing the bills or find some other way to supliment thier income like woking more then one job. If they split the cost of living with others, then with a few habit changes and they can get insurance. Belive it or not, the pay from a five dollar an hour job is like 10 dollars an hour when your cost of living is split in half. Yet still some will spend unwisley and still not have what they consider a nessecity. Maybe becaue thier idea of a ballanced meal if a wopper with cheese, frys and a coke. The working poor also usually qualify for some government assistance too. so they aren't comletly out of the picture there either.

and for the phone mointoring bullshit, i think so too. That was kind of my point. targeted survailence and misinformation to control the masses with the impresion that everyone is suspectable. But it is much the same as we are seeing today. With only one or 2 exceptions, they are using the new freedom in lawenforcment to go after what they claim are terrorist, They did have a supream court challenge on the echelon and part of it was supposedly shut down (actualy taken over by foreighn governments and then shared with us as we for them) basicaly it is the same things we have seen before but the names and stuff have changed a little. It will all either be taken out by a court or be adjusted to a level that is acceptable. This other stuff, and there really is too much to list, was done and see in much the same light as the shit going on today. It doesn't make anyone ba d, just stupid or unpopular. Look at the UK, almost every street a person with money would walk down has a camera on it. Is that to protect the high trafic areas or just the people with money? It probably was targeted because people with money make atractive targets and there was an increase in crime at one point in time. But look at how many different spins we can put on it in cluding the UK government doesn't care about your safetey unless you have money. An interesting situation isn't it.

Re:Non-Americans

[tomhudson]

How is someone making minimum wage going to be able to afford comprehensive health insurance?

Minimum wages : source http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm

• $2.65/hr - Kansas
• $4.00/hr - Montana
• $2.80/hr - Ohio
• $2.00/hr - Oklahoma

Nah i'm not missing the point on the working poor. I'm saying it is impracticle to count them. First, the minimum wage workers are either in highschool living with thier parents or are in some entry level job or are retired. Never mind who i think is working at minimum wage and lets examine some facts. Minimum wage is not enough to make a living on, people trying to are in more trouble then not having medical insurance in the first place. Creativly they solve these problems by getting room mates or government assistance. Then all the sudden minimum wage isn't as little as it is.

Guess you've never known someone who's "fallen through the cracks..."

How are people supposed to get back on their feet with "Nah i'm not missing the point on the working poor. I'm saying it is impracticle to count them" as an attitude. How are they supposed to find the funds necessary to better themselves through more education, training, etc?

Re:Non-Americans

[sumdumass]

nice of you to point out old outdated usless information, instead of the actual miniumum wage. Again i think you are misscrewing reality with a little somethign to prove your point. did you even read the article you linked from? i will quote from it.
Note: Where Federal and state law have different minimum wage rates, the higher standard applies.

What this says is that if a states minimum wage is lower then the federal minimum wage then the hiest standard (eg. federal minimum wage) will apply. Not only have you selected the states that have not updates thier minimum wage laws since the federal minimum wage raised back in the 80's or 90's you also selected the very lowest minimum wage aplicable to the smallest company out there. (in ohio's case) This does nothign to further your argument except show you to be some kind of zealot.

I'm amazed that instead of linking to an article that screws the facts to pudh an agenda you misonterpret them your self and try to present it. Good job.

You don't need nore education to get out of a minimum wage job. You only need work ethic and dedication with the resolve to look for the people paying more. minimum wage jobs are only for highschool kids looking for work experience or retire people looking to supliment thier retirment income. If anyone trying to support them selves are making minimum wage they are problematic in the first place and need a reality check. Yes even here were i live, a plant closed down 2/3rds of the 3000 people that lost jobs had new jobs paying roughly the same amount within 6 months to a year from when they lost thier job (between $7 to $15 an hour). the other third took advantage of retraining programs and got absorbed into a government program learning to do other stuff.

Again, i will say that there isn't any such thing as a person that cannot make more then a minimum wage. And when people do try to support themselve they usualy share the cost of living with others and then it is the same as them making more money. IF you make minimum wage and bring in (5.15*40*4) $825 a month gross and it take around $1200 a month to live. I move in with you and share the expences and magicaly you only need $600 for basic living. Now you have an extra $225 to play with. lets say we get a third person and boom, you have almost $425 left over. Thats how it works in real life with the exception that usually the minimum wage part doesn't stick around for very long. Well it might for some slackers that think the government should provide for them and never do anyhtign more then they absolutly have to.

Another thing in dispute is comprehesive health coverage. you don't need a cover everythign plan. All you need is a major medical plan to cover accidents like breaking a leg, getting cancer or somethign. If you get the flue, see a doctor on your own. you should have opened a medical savings acount that would easily fulfil this need. Somethign cronic not covered? quit your job and go on welfare. Your not loosing anyhting on minumin wage anyways.

Why is it our parents could live thru a depresion and keep everything. they have insurance, they can pay thier bills, maybe they forgot to teach us somethign.

Re:Non-Americans

[tomhudson]

You're a bit wrong on one of your assumptions. The federal law only applies on federal projects and federally-regulated areas.

Otherwise, state law applies. When the state law is under the federal minimum, state law applies. When the state has no minimum (as 6 states don't), state law applies.

This is part of what "state rights" means.

Re:Non-Americans

[sumdumass]

The minimum wage law (the FLSA) applies to employees of enterprises that do at least $500,000 in business a year. It also applies to employees of smaller firms if the employees are engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, such as employees who work in transportation or communications or who regularly use the mails or telephones for interstate communications. It also applies to employees of federal, state or local government agencies, hospitals and schools, and it generally applies to domestic workers.

This federal minimum wage law will cover any resturant that has or recieve product from other states or is part of a chain that is in another state. About any companie that employs more them 3 people will fall into this catagory. I'm sure if you look hard enough you might find someone bending the laws a little and staying out but the majority of places will fit into one of the catagories were federal minimum wage falls into play. IT just isn't practicle for an employer to isolate itself from the outside world like that and plan on making money. There might be some small company that slides by but the majority of companies won't fall into that catagory.

In your example, lets see what a person working at the very lowest amount of money in ohio will have happen. They are totaly useless and can't work for any compnay (even dishwashers around the columbus area get 6-7 dollars start off)that pays at least the federal minimum wage. At $2.80 and 40 hour weeks with no vacation, they get around $5820 a year. This is in the poverty range and they do qualify for food stamp and medical card. They also qualify for housing assistance. Whats your point they are covered!

To recap, The federal laws aply to more then just government projects, It also aplies to people using the mail or phones for out of state comunication. This will cover the majority of companies out there. And even when the low minimum wage levels do come into play, they make so little they are absorbed by a government program already in place. IT is trivial to argue this point because there are programs already in place to ketch them.

And cording to federal law "state rights" step aside to this. As it was noted on the top of the page you linked to as well as the page i linked to. federal law superceeds when it say so. BTW, the constatution says whats not granted to the federa government by the constatution or congress will be left up to the states. I'm not s ure this falls into the left to the states part. Labor laws and wages as well as working hours has been controled and regulated by the federal government for a while now. Some of the limits on how long you can work have been succesfuly challenged but verry little of the rest has.

Re:Non-Americans

[tomhudson]

Most restaurants don't receive their products from out-of-state suppliers. Most restaurants receive their produce daily from local suppliers.

Also, there are exceptions tat allow even lower minimum wages for those who might receive tips.

Arguing that people can either go on welfare (as you stated in another post), or submit to means tests to get coverage that is taken as a basic human right in most other western societies, is degrading.

I'll stick with our system here in Canada. It works for me.

Re:Non-Americans

[sumdumass]

What is a basic human right? If they aren't making any money then they need assistance. Thats what your arguing. Going on welfare isn't some insult or anyhting unless you think not being able to make a living is an insult.

I have already demonstrated that most people have enough money to aford some sort of health insurance and you point out the poor wich still cannot by posting the very lowest minimum wage possible in some states. These minimum wages are not even practicle in most cases because MOST EMPLOYERS FALL UNDER FEDERAL GUIDLINES. Definatly any large suplier of jobs will fall under federal minimum wage guidlines.

Your argument seems to be we need a new system that gives healthcare out because people cannot aford it. Well when you point out the people that cannot afford it, i pointed out there were already programs availible for them and you are saying going on welfare isn't an answer. GET A GRIP. socialized healthcare is WELFARE. As i pointed out in another post, There are problems with other nations socialized healthcare. serious problems like people not getting treatment because they have to wait too long in line. problems like doctors not being asigned to certain area (can we say the projects or low income housing?). Instead of using the system we have now, you purpose to replace it with another problematic system. Well that or just complain about it. People that need health care today can get the same level of care if not better then in other countries.

Your system in canada works so well, back in the late 90's your prime minister caught a redeye to New York to have an emergence heart operation that your health care system deamed not neccesary. SO yes even in your perfect system, those with money get better treatment then those without. There are all kinds of reports were canadian citizens buy american health insurance just in case they need to come to america for medical attention. Here in america, the news reports the short cummings of the canadian health care system all the time. It is somewhat of a humorous byline. We enjoy hearing how well it works when some guy get a tumor removed from his eyelid and has to wait 200 some odd years for the proceedure. Americans goto canida to get the cheap and in some cases pirated drugs were canadians come to america to get treatment before they die. Well at least thats how the news reports it.:sarcasm> you know they won't make somethign up /sarcasm

Re:Non-Americans

[tomhudson]

Your system in canada works so well, back in the late 90's your prime minister caught a redeye to New York to have an emergence heart operation that your health care system deamed not neccesary

Never happened. Jean Chretien (prime minister in the late '90s) didn't have any sort of procedure for his heart anywhere in the US in the last decade. Nice try, troll.

Americans goto canida to get the cheap and in some cases pirated drugs

In no case are the drugs "pirated".Oh, and it's "Canada", not "canida".

We enjoy hearing how well it works when some guy get a tumor removed from his eyelid and has to wait 200 some odd years for the proceedur

I guess we're just tougher and healthier, if we can live so long.

"Socialized" health care is not welfare - it's not altruistic - everyone benefits from a healthier population, both the have's and the have-nots. It's called enlightened self-interest.

Oh, BTW, In our system, you choose your doctor. They're not "assigned" to you.

Re:Non-Americans

[sumdumass]

your right, it wasn't Jean Chretien (prime minister in the late '90s) who came to america for treatment because the candian system was lacking. It was obert Bourassa, the Premier of Quebec who didn't wait for the canadian health system and went to maryland for cancer treatment.

The reasons patients travel for treatment vary. Many medical tourists from the United States are seeking treatment at a quarter or sometimes even a 10th of the cost at home. From Canada, it is often people who are frustrated by long waiting times. More on the fabulous wait times form the canadian health system Long waiting times are the main, and in many cases, the only reason some Canadians say they would be willing to pay for treatments outside of the public health care system.
- Roy Romanow in his report on the future of health care in Canada, November 2002

Now anytime you take tax dollars and redistribute it to people for specefic services they might not be able to afford, it is called welfare. I find it strikingly odd that you call going on welfare to get proper medical tratment when your pay is too low to afford insurance but don't make the conection when the same program is expanded to every one reguardless of thier income. It almost apears to be a "My way or it isn't good enough" argument.

Now to pirated drugs. WoW how snowballed are you? This made big news in the US.

Canada, taking an unusual step that the United States has resisted, said yesterday that it had overridden Bayer's patent for Cipro
So yes they do in some cases. This is the only one i know about but i havn't done any searching out side trying to google for remebered headlines. Canida as i like to call it, is a purposeful mispelling.

Oh, BTW, In our system, you choose your doctor. They're not "assigned" to you.

Sure, if you can find a doctor.. GOOD LUCK

Re:Non-Americans

[tomhudson]

Not exactly. Bourassa went to the states for treatment for cancer even though the local facilities were able to take him immediately "for personal reasons". The actual reason was that it would have necessitated revealing a second, potentially embarrassing, medical condition that would have been leaked to the general public.

Now anytime you take tax dollars and redistribute it to people for specefic services they might not be able to afford, it is called welfare

So educating the next generation is "welfare", according to your misbegotten definition. And so is the fire and police departments, and the military (most people can't afford private police, never mind a private army). Or private water systems. All these are operated for the benefit of all the public - why not health care?

As for patents on drugs, we have compulsory 3rd-party licensing for certain drugs. Seeing as we extended patent protection from 17 to 20 years a decade ago, and seeing as we also finance the drug company's research here to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars each year from the public purse in direct financial aid / grants, why wouldn't we want something in return? They are still guaranteed a profit.

On the question of Cipro, Bayer admitted it was unable to meet emergency demand in the case of a bio-terrorist problem, and both Canada and the US had indicated that they would, in such a case, authorize other manufacturers to produce the drug. And it was 3 years ago - old news (October 19th, 2001). So much for "pirated" drugs.

By the way, such an action is permitted under international treaties.

In the states, the relevant law is 28 USC 1498 http://www.cptech.org/ip/health/cl/us-1498.html, giving the US government the absolute right to use any patent or invention.

Authorization under the NAFTA trade agreement is article 1709 http://www.cptech.org/ip/health/cl/nafta.html

In the end, Bayer backed down when they realized the public-relations fiasco it was turning out to be. The government had the right, provided they paid compensation, which they were going to do.

So your "facts" are both out-of-date and just plain wrong fromn a legal/trade/treaty point of view (sort of like Bush's WMDs, which must be because the Iraqis have the Romulan Cloaking Device)

Re:Non-Americans

[sumdumass]

Not exactly. Bourassa went to the states for treatment for cancer

yep, that him. I new it was one of them but i didn't want to look too hard. Hmm, and his reason wasn't because the long wait times, or the level of experience/quality of treatment, it was because in a socialized health system private medical information becomes public. Thats a good system if you ask me

So educating the next generation is "welfare", according to your misbegotten definition. And so is the fire and police departments, and the military (most people can't afford private police, never mind a private army). Or private water systems. All these are operated for the benefit of all the public - why not health care?

education? yes. Untill recently in the US, education has been private and had reletivly better results. Colledges are private and have a better learning/programs and the students benefit. Of course there are those that cannot afford colledge in much the same ways as someone might not be able to afford health insurance. No body bitches about getting aid there?

The police fire and military are services performed for the government. In all situation, They are not in place to protect you but to protect the government. In the us the supream court ruled that it was not the responcability of the police to protect someone that was getting death threats. This case was brought by her still alive reletives after they found this girl dead from the person she reported to the police a few days ago.

Public water? This isn't free at all. I don't see were that hits even close unless your still living with mom or somethign and don't realize what bills actually need paid.

On the question of Cipro, Bayer admitted it was unable to meet emergency demand in the case of a bio-terrorist problem, and both Canada and the US had indicated that they would, in such a case, authorize other manufacturers to produce the drug. And it was 3 years ago - old news (October 19th, 2001). So much for "pirated" drugs.

A pirated drug is a pirated drug. The fact that it happened 3 years ago or that someone felt they had a right to do it doesn't change anyhting from my original statment Americans goto canida to get the cheap and in some cases pirated drugs Bayer Might have backed down (i didn't follow it too closly) but at the time it was happening they did say they could have covered the manufacturing demands and they WERE AGAINST it. So against it they actually filed and won an injunction to stop Apotex from producing it. They also threatened a law suite before a compensation agreement was reached.

Furhter, The NAFTA section you convieniently linked to but failed to read only makes it ok in cases of emerencies. Canadian Alliance member of parliament Chuck Strahl said the government had not declared a state of emergency allowing it to skirt patent laws, and he questioned the sense of breaking patent law to buy a non-approved drug. It was bypassing the issue that made it legal. There are agreements now, sure it is an old story too, but american didn't just start going to canada for prescriptions either. As for my comment being plain wrong? Nope a member of your government even says i'm right. read above.

And for the WMDs. Now o see what you are. Well i will overlook you problems and just say this. France, germany russia the UK and canada thought saddam had WMD's at the same time america was claiming it and wanting to goto war. NOBODY DISPUTES he had weapons, they were disputing what to do about it. France and germanies position was "well he's contained" russia sort of took the same position but wasn't as vocal. They weren't bush's WDMs they were saddam's and the whole world new it. Well those with inteligence (agencies)

Re:Non-Americans

[tomhudson]

it was because in a socialized health system private medical information becomes public

No, the info is protected by law. Unfortunately, the treatment he went for would have left clues that any reporter could have ferreted out.

education? yes. Untill recently in the US, education has been private and had reletivly better results. Colledges are private and have a better learning/programs and the students benefit. Of course there are those that cannot afford colledge in much the same ways as someone might not be able to afford health insurance. No body bitches about getting aid there?

And up here, college is free. So, guess who spells better (hint - read your posts). I remember the case - it made headlines because it was so contrary to what people believed. However, up here the police have a duty to protect citizens, and can be sued if they don't. Guess our system, while not perfect, is better.

Furhter, The NAFTA section you convieniently linked to but failed to read only makes it ok in cases of emerencies.

If you read it, you'll notice that there is no requirement that the government make a formal public declaration. Quoting Chuck Strahl - ah, yes, the Canadian Alliance - the nuts who want us to teach in creationism in the schools, ban homosexuality (not just gay marriage) any and all abortions, etc

And Cipro is not, as your quote alleges, a non-approved drug. It hadn't been specifically approved for the treatment anthrax in this country, because the manufacturer didn't see the need pre-9/11, to seek approval for that use. So blame Bayer.

Remember, this was during the post-9/11 hype. Your government was going to do the same thing. As both were allowed to do by law. No pirating was involved. Bayer would have ben compensated, again as provided by law. They would have made a profit without having to lift a finger - they just didn't like the idea that they got caught in the public eye not being able to meet the demand.

As for your claims that everyone thought Saddam had WMDs, guess you missed all that criticism about the supposed proof that Colin Powell tried to foist off on the UN, where, basically, NOBODY believed it, and it was shown to be full of shit within days.

This is why nobody trusts the US when it comes to the middle east - they got caught lying, knowingly lying, and in a world forum. And, they already knew that some of the allegations they were presenting as true (the aluminium tubes, for example) was wrong.

Bush is full of shit. The war was stupid. It was about oil and money. It's still about oil and money. Everyone suspected it at the time, but now we know - especially since the US refuses to do anything to curb either its oil consumption or its greenhouse gas emissions.

So what are you going to do when, 30 years from now, the ice caps are gone and mid-day temperatures in Texas are 140 to 160 degrees? And the crops fail because of the heat? And half your population wants to move somewhere cooler (hint - Canada)?

Eurpoean perspective

[Tx]

I really hope you guys elect Dubya again. We in Europe need all the help we can get competing in science, so Bush is our man.

Re:Eurpoean perspective

[d3ik]

Offtopic, but I just have to compliment your sig. Glad to see more Dead Like Me fans around.

Re:Eurpoean perspective

[harmonica]

Funny, yet sadly true.

However, both Bush and Kerry emphasize that they want to make it easier again to attract smart foreign students, at least according to this SPIEGEL article (in German). In the time since 9/11 it has become extremely hard to get into the country, and not only for students that match certain profiles. Even if you're a white female Christian from Northern Europe there were quite a few obstacles.

Re:Eurpoean perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, you don't need any more help. Our culture has all but crushed the interest in science out of the normal student. Our education system is practically a joke. But don't worry, becasue despite how bad America is, China will stomp us all.

Re:Eurpoean perspective

[Vspiritas]

Life doesn't suck so bad if you like blow jobs. dig in and be happy

Re:Eurpoean perspective

[Tom]

We in Europe need all the help we can get competing in science, so Bush is our man.

But only until they find oil in the Netherlands.

Re:Eurpoean perspective

[feldhaus]

I really hope you guys elect Dubya again

"Again"? They didn't elect him the first time...

Re:Eurpoean perspective

[rainman_bc]

lol here in Canada, I can't speak for all Canadians, but personally I'd like to see him re-elected too. I really want to see which sovreign country he'd like to invade next :)

As the governator said: Foa Moa Yeas!

Re:Eurpoean perspective

[linzeal]

Well as an American undegrad student I'm looking outside the United States for my masters program if Bush gets re-elected again.

Re:Eurpoean perspective

[meringuoid]

Personally, I'd like to see Bush re-elected, and John Prescott succeed Blair as PM. The prospect of those two giving a serious joint press-conference... well, is there any lover of the English language who wouldn't delight in such unintentional comedy?

Re:Eurpoean perspective

[jotaeleemeese]

Unfonuded claims? Which ones?

Bush puts his wacko beliefs on top of any real science.

If you think this will not benefit other countries (South Korea and the UK for example have done all the pioneering work in human cloning) you must be smoking some very fine herb.

Re:Eurpoean perspective

[maggern]

They have already found oil in Norway! hehehehehehe and much of it!

Move along Move along

[booyah]

Nothing to see here...

the responses are political canned responses, most likely passed off to higher ranking lackeys in both organizations...

keep moving, nothing to see here.

Re:Mod Up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Its true. Even if lives are on the line. Just look at the War on Drugs. Even congressionally mandated research w/ results they 'disagree' with get ignored. And, because of this, people suffer and DIE.

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

Religion and science are not mutually exclusive

Religion and science? Perhaps not. Religion and the Bible in particular? Definitely.

The Bible is not self-consistent. The Bible makes claims that contradict observable phenomenon. The Christian faith requires people to make assumptions against available evidence. The Bible is inherently anti-science.

As elegant as science is, and as helpful as it has been to the world around us, it has no room for things like morality.

You are missing the point. Nobody is saying that science can replace religion. The previous poster's point was that the Christian faith in particular requires an attitude that is directly in opposition to the scientific process.

Science != religion

[amightywind]

Any president who reads the bible for help making presidential decisions cannot be pro-science

+5 Insightful??? Are you saying science is a substitute for religion, or those who practice religion should be dismissed as scientists? President Bush's actions in expanding the funding of NSF, NASA and many other agencies suggest that he is pro-science. Would you have said the same thing about Jimmy Carter who was also devoutly Christian? How about Albert Einstein who was a practicing Jew, or Donald Knuth who is a devout Lutheran.

Re:Science != religion

[TGK]

Einstein was willing to put his science before his faith, such as it was. Many have argued that Einstein's religion was more a reaction to oppression in Europe than it was a deeply seated religious belief.

Re:Science != religion

[juangonzo]

The NASA money is not really being put to good science use. There isn't really any point in manned missions to the moon. We need to be sending more telescopes and things like the Gemini probe into space rather than wasting incredible amounts of money sending people into space when robots can perform experiments much better than people.

Re:Science != religion

[ad0gg]

Einstein had a different view of god then most religions out there. He did not believe in a personal god and was a critic of people who preached that god is always watching you.

Interesting read about the subject

Re:Science != religion

[npsimons]

Hmm, not a bad post, but a little off (as in smells funny) in some places. Let's take it piece by piece , shall we?

Are you saying science is a substitute for religion, or those who practice religion should be dismissed as scientists?

Well, I'm not saying that religionists should be dismissed from science, especially since it's not really a problem anyway . . .

By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials(out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared "abruptly."
- Newsweek, June 29, 1987, pg. 23

So, I think the problem solves itself :)

President Bush's actions in expanding the funding of NSF, NASA and many other agencies suggest that he is pro-science.

So that would be why the Union of Concerned Scientists is concerned about Bush's science policies? Of course, Bush giving money to help science could be seen in the same way as Gates giving money to computer science: they could do so much more good if they actually focused on using their time and efforts closer to home than giving out money to look good.

Would you have said the same thing about Jimmy Carter who was also devoutly Christian? How about Albert Einstein who was a practicing Jew, or Donald Knuth who is a devout Lutheran.

I'm don't know about Carter or Knuth, but I know that Einstein was _not_ religious, and I quote:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
-- Albert Einstein

I'm getting sick and tired of people trotting out the old "but Einstein was religious!" argument, especially when it's not true.

Who knew?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was surprised to see a political slashdot posting that actually had something to do with science or technology. Well done.

30% over limit

[BumpyCarrot]

He can't even follow the guidelines set for the article and he's expected to run a country?

Interesting comparison

[dcsmith]

Not a bad read for anyone interested in science. In addition to revealing their stances on the individual areas of science in question, the answers also give some indications on how the candiates see science's impact on the US and global economies, the environment and even US interations with other nations. Actually more information than you might expect out of campaign rhetoric.

I was amused that most of Kerry's responses mentioned John Edwards, but Cheney is not mentioned ONCE in Bush's answers. I suppose that makes sense for the questions about energy policy...

Its clear that the candidates don't ever plan on using these responses verbally. I'd love to see W try and pronounce "carbon sequestration". (In the Bush response to question #12.)

Re:Interesting comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

"I was amused that most of Kerry's responses mentioned John Edwards, but Cheney is not mentioned ONCE in Bush's answers."

That's because this year's October's Surprise is the replacement of Cheney with Giuliani. I'm bookmarking my response to support the inevitable, "I told you so" in a few weeks.

Re:Interesting comparison

[jacoby]

I saw a documentary on WWII where Harry Truman referred to kamikaze pilots as "cammie-kayzees" (to get close to the phonetics of it). He's considered to be one of the better presidents, even if he wasn't able to pronounce the name of the threat to our fleet at the end of WWII. "Nucular" is one of my wife's shibboleths, led by my father-in-law managing the distribution of radioactive substances in a big university, and supported by time in grad-school, where you discuss the issues in person with classmates and professors and thus understand the terms and their pronunciations. She's decided on her candidate in this election on other issues.

And, compared to his father, even Bush's off-the-cuff stump speeches sound like Shakespeare.

Re:Interesting comparison

[Daimaou]

I saw a documentary on WWII where Harry Truman referred to kamikaze pilots as "cammie-kayzees" (to get close to the phonetics of it). He's considered to be one of the better presidents, even if he wasn't able to pronounce the name of the threat to our fleet at the end of WWII.

Nearly all English speakers pronounce the word wrong. They say KamEEkazEE (like chEEze) instead of the proper KamEE (EE as in chEEze) kazE (E as in Egg).

Discover also has an analysis...

[Silverlancer]

Over similar issues. Except this one is just an anlysis, no interviews. The sad thing is just how horrible Bush's scientific policies are. For one, when he dropped the USA out of the Kyoto treaty, he claimed that Global Warming was an "unproven hypothesis." While it is still sometimes disputed how much of global warming is caused by humans, global warming has been well-known for decades and the proof is very solid.

Re:Discover also has an analysis...

[Mycroft_514]

Then you haven't done enough homework.

The model that supports global warming is seriously flawed. The only people that support global warming in the scientific community are those whose grants are based upon it. Gee, I wonder why.

You want to seriously look into how the Global warming scam is being played, check out www.junkscience.com They have a lot of information over there that just might open your eyes.

Re:Discover also has an analysis...

[InsaneGeek]

You think possibly the fact that not a SINGLE person in the senate voted (95 to 0) that the Kyoto treaty as it stood was acceptable, might also be a reason why he didn't persue entering into it?

In fact Bush has said that he supports the concept of the Kyoto treaty, (which would basically contradict what you are trying to say that he doesn't believe that humans can cause issues) but like ALL the other senators (remember every single one said don't sign it, Dem & Repub) has issues with the writing.

And it's not just all the US Senators, here's an open letter from SCIENTISTS also concerned with the content of the Kyoto treaty. http://www.envirotruth.org/openletter.cfm I'd say that a number of nations were rushing to "pat themselves on the back" rather than actually solving the issue.

Re:Discover also has an analysis...

[Yolegoman]

This interview is debatably pro-Kerry. It appears to me that Kerry is merely finding Bush's "weak" points, then trying to "exploit" them. For instance, when the media attacks Bush's views on Global Warming, Kerry will decide it is in his best interest to voice that he will take action against emissions supposedly relating to global warming.

However, global warming is NOT occuring, at least in the "magnitude" that everyone is worried about. It is, technically, a lie by the uninformed media.

This "global warming" that everyone is worried about? It's really a variation in the earth's temperature of around 2 degrees over the last century and a half!

This article has more about it, as well as this chart:

Chart

This image here demonstrates a bit more clearly what I wish to say:

Chart

[Image taken from this article here.]

Yes, that has data taken over only the last 25 years, but I assure you, the data sames relatively the same ever since scientists have started estimating the global temperature.

In addition, we see that the graph shows temperatures rising, yes, but then going way down the very next year, then bouncing back up! That is not how I would classify global warming!!!

Here is yet another graph, this one with data over the last century!

Chart

While the last graph was taken from an article that thinks global warming IS occuring, it provides no real data for their argument. And also, their chart directly contradicts their hypothesis!

So, to recap: Global warming is a lie. To blame Bush for not taking action against global warming is to blame him for not needlessly restricting industries actions.

[I realize that Mycroft and others have said similar in their replies, however, my reply contains charts, articles and other arguements, so I posted it anyway.]

- Yolego

Re:Discover also has an analysis...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm. I did go to junk science. I found it to be an extension arm for Fox news. Most of its US links are straight to fox news. So that explains.

Re:Discover also has an analysis...

[maxpublic]

Global warming is real, and measurable. It isn't up for debate, except among fools who like to stick their heads in the sand and pretend it isn't happening.

What's up for debate is how much of the warming is being caused by humans. It could be that human activity is having little impact and that the warming is natural; or it could be that humans are accelerating a natural process; or that humans are the primary cause of warming. Nobody knows.

Max

Re:Discover also has an analysis...

[jdbo]

FYI, envirotruth is "Sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research", a famously partisan
"think tank" (i.e. a media mill for a partisan viewpoint)

Look here for a decent overview of similar organizations (though these are mostly industry-funded, vs. politcal) http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Indus try-funded_organizations

Re:Discover also has an analysis...

[Anonymous Coward]

40 years ago environmental scientists were crying about the coming ice age because temperatures were dropping every year. A much more appropriate position now would be: You can't tell how the environment will change 100 years from now when you've only got a 50 year window of prior analysis.

And of course some countries jumped on the Kyoto Treay. It creates a huge market opportunity for under-developed countries to sell their unused carbon quota to over-producing countries like the US and Russia. That's free money for them, and all they had to do was agree to something which wouldn't affect them.

Re:Discover also has an analysis...

[myside]

I would like to add to this that at that time, not one of the other (175 odd?) countries had ratified the treaty. This was essentially a "hot potato" handed to Bush by Clinton (who knew by the Senate vote that there wasn't a prayer's chance for this treaty) in the last month of his term. Pure politics.

Re:Discover also has an analysis...

[Guuge]

Very true. I wish more people would realize that this is a problem that will affect all of us. We need to be figuring out what to do about it, even if it isn't caused by humans.

Re:Discover also has an analysis...

[Guuge]

In fact Bush has said that he supports the concept of the Kyoto treaty

Remember, Bush opposes nation-building and supports the (late) assault weapons ban. What Bush claims to support has had little bearing on what Bush does. I think it's pretty certain that, if granted another four years, Bush will do absolutely nothing to address the problem of global warming. Can anyone say that they honestly believe otherwise?

Re:Discover also has an analysis...

[Anonymous Coward]

The world's atmospheric scientists disagree with you.

Junkscience is a famously right-wing site with no credibility among scientists.

You have no understanding of what global warming is, and you should probably stop talking about it because you're clearly an idiot.

Re:Discover also has an analysis...

[Silverlancer]

I wasn't saying that the fact that we were causing global warming was proven, just of course, obviously, the temperature is rising! Covering that simple fact up is like saying the Earth is flat.

The reasons why many believe that it is human-caused are pretty simple. First of all, it has conincided exactly with human activity. As the industrial revolution started, there were small hints of warming, then towards the 1950s-1970s more warming, and now the most ever in recorded history. But that could just be a coincidence, right?

The other thing is the amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere. Measurements show that we are pumping twice as much CO2 into the atmosphere as plants around the Earth can handle. But still, that might be a small, and minor factor, right?

Next reason. The poles are warming much faster than the rest of the planet. This would be easily explained if the majority of the problem was pollution, as just like ozone-zapping CFCs, most other pollution also tends to drift towards the poles. This also discounts the possibility of the sun heating up slightly (which would be quite reasonable), as it would warm all parts of the Earth by an equal percentage (in terms of light hitting land), while global warming is warming the poles more than anything else.

One of the things that is also happening is that some types of pollution actually deflect sunlight by creating clouds. Many scientists believe that they may actually be slowing global warming (a good thing, if it ever gets too bad maybe we could just release millions of tons of these into the atmosphere...). This explains the pole phenomenon even more. The poles are already covered with ice, and thus reflect almost all their sunlight back into space. Thus a sun-reflecting pollutant wouldn't have any effect, but sun-trapping pollutants would. So while they might nearly cancel each other out in other parts of the world, at the poles, the CO2 rules.

While it is possible that global warming isn't caused by humans, it is unlikely, simply because of how much pollutants we are pumping into the atmosphere--its going somewhere. My personal belief is that the warming is a lot worse than we think it is--its just that we've pumped enough sun-reflecting pollutants into the atmosphere that its almost negated the CO2, etc. Of course, the poles are still melting...

BTW, sorry for not getting any links for this--you can probably find them for yourself using google. A lot of this was also just a little analysis of mine, sort of to explain to the nonbelievers why the believers believe ;). Don't flame me :).

Re:Discover also has an analysis...

[fredmosby]

He supported legislation that will make it easier for companies to build nuclear power plants. Relying on nuclear power is the only economically feasible way to reduce C02 emissions.

Re:Discover also has an analysis...

[Anonymous Coward]

Those are Canadian scientists. And Canada accepted the Kyoto Protocol.

Distorted views of the "Nature" of politics

[adzoox]

First of all, it is regularly pointed out [admittedly by Republicans] that Nature is politically far left. This generalization in the introduction to these questions from the site just stopped me from reading anything else:

" scientists [read as educators/professors] at universities have become unfriendly territory for Republicans"

Professors at universities have NEVER been Republican - republicans ask for accountability and aren't necessarily for higher teacher pay. The teacher associations are the single biggest democratic support = bias

AND


"Bush accuses the Kerry campaign" - with no followup - Kerry accuses Bush campaign remarks = bias

I'm not just accusing Nature of being bias either.

Re:Distorted views of the "Nature" of politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Nature politically far left --- is this a joke?

Teacher Associations are for K-12. Try an experiment, walk into any university and ask the professor if they belong to a teachers association or teachers union. No such luck.

Actually, having been in university for the past 30 years, I heard way more professors come out in support of Reagan over Carter then Carter over Reagan. Haven't met a professor yet who supports Bush over Kerry. But I am sure they are out there.

Re:Distorted views of the "Nature" of politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, having been in university for the past 30 years, I heard way more professors come out in support of Reagan over Carter then Carter over Reagan. Haven't met a professor yet who supports Bush over Kerry. But I am sure they are out there.
It's called the college of business, every university has one, they are the rich kids who don't do anything at college except complain that they have to take trigonometry and expect to be earning a lot more in a year than any science/engineering student will earn in a lifetime.

Re:Distorted views of the "Nature" of politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigh. Yep, you heard it here first, folks - "Nature" would vote for Kerry. Sheesh...

Re:Distorted views of the "Nature" of politics

[Paulrothrock]

Professors at universities have NEVER been Republican - republicans ask for accountability and aren't necessarily for higher teacher pay. The teacher associations are the single biggest democratic support = bias

My Republican economics, math, IT, and philosophy profs would beg to differ.

But in terms of actual, well, science (physics, astronomy, biology), yeah most of them oppose the Republicans. Mostly because they want to take physics and make more nuclear weapons (to stop other countries from getting nuclear weapons), ignore astronomy for 'flags and footprints,' and eliminate biology altogether by claiming that evolution is a myth and stem cells are people.

Re:Distorted views of the "Nature" of politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and we know it's all a liberal conspiracy. They're only hiring and nurturing leftists in academia.

Or what about the obvious answer? Too tough for you to admit?

Re:Distorted views of the "Nature" of politics

[jlleblanc]

Teacher Associations are for K-12. Try an experiment, walk into any university and ask the professor if they belong to a teachers association or teachers union. No such luck.

Try every state university in Pennsylvania. Union contracts for professors everywhere.

-Joe

Re:Distorted views of the "Nature" of politics

[LarsWestergren]

So, you are telling us that among the biggest group of people who dedicate their lives to the persuit and spread of knowledge, most people are Democrat.

And the same for this science magazine.

Perhaps this should tell you something?

"republicans ask for accountability" - hehe... lamest rationalisation I've heard.
"and aren't necessarily for higher teacher pay" - oh yeah, cause as everyone knows, teachers are rolling in the dough!

Re:Distorted views of the "Nature" of politics

[Anonymous Coward]

regularly pointed out [admittedly by Republicans] that Nature is politically far left

Given that science itself is apolitical, which one is it?

1. Nature is a crap scientific rag
2. Those (Republican) politicians you're talking about just can't stand their policies being debunked?

Re:Distorted views of the "Nature" of politics

[solarlux]

Interesting how you nit the parent message for generalizing about professors being Democracts and then proceed with a stream of your own generalizations about Republicans.

Re:Distorted views of the "Nature" of politics

[jsebrech]

First of all, it is regularly pointed out [admittedly by Republicans] that Nature is politically far left.

Anything is politically far left compared to the republicans. They are the most extremely right-wing party I am aware of in any post-industrial nation.

Re:Distorted views of the "Nature" of politics

[Paulrothrock]

First, I've had economics, math, IT, and philosophy profs who were Republicans, and they would beg to differ with the idea that all professors are Democrats.

Second, the republican party platform includes funding for new nuclear weapons research to improve national security and a Mars and Moon program with no long-term funding guarantees. Christian Conservatives have both opposed evolution and stem cell research, as has the Republican presidential candidate.

Finally, the purpose of having a political party is to generalize. It's a group of people with similar political goals. However, saying all professors are Democrats because they're teachers is a false generalization.

As for my second paragraph, I'm just trying to illustrate why a majority of scientists support Democratic Candidates.

Re:Distorted views of the "Nature" of politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything is politically far left compared to the republicans. They are the most extremely right-wing party I am aware of in any post-industrial nation.

They're so far to the right, they consider Hitler and the Nazis to be left wing liberals. I'm not joking. Listen to Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter, they say it every so often.

When Gore gave his speech denouncing Bush for letting Abu Ghraib happen under his watch, one Republican paper, the Boston Herald, ripped Gore a new asshole for not believing that all Americans are genetically superior to the rest of humanity by nature of their county of birth and hence need no training or discipline to always act in the utmost moral manner.

Hannity says the Herald is "hardly a right wing paper", implying that their views are closer to liberal Democrat Ted Kennedy's than his own. Of course, Hannity will lie about anything to pick up a few rhetorical bonus points, but it's worth noting that one of the most popular Republican opinion shapers considers opinions like that to not be right wing enough for his liking.

Re:Distorted views of the "Nature" of politics

[JeanPaulBob]

and eliminate biology altogether by claiming that...stem cells are people.

Not stem cells--embryos. IIRC, research from existing lines of stem cells was not under fire--the problem was with extracting new lines from newly terminated/aborted/whatevered embryos.

You know, it might help if you gave a concise explanation of why you think biology proves embryos aren't people. When does biology tell us personhood starts--birth? During the 2nd trimester? Seven weeks, two days, three hours, and five seconds after conception? Really, I'm fascinated.

Re:Distorted views of the "Nature" of politics

[Paulrothrock]

I heard a pretty good explanation once. It went along these lines: Life doesn't start at any point, it is continuous. The sperm and egg are alive, the person they come from are alive, so at no point is a zygote/fetus/baby *not* alive. But you have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise menstruation and masturbation is murder.

Me? I draw the line here: If the entity is capable of surviving outside of the mother's body, regardless of whether it needs assistance, and there is trivial danger to the mother in removing the entity intact, then abortion is wrong.

But it's a personal decision, and I'm not going to make it for you or your girlfriend/wife/mother/sister/etc., so you shouldn't try to make it for me. No one is saying you *must* get an abortion, just like no one is saying you *must* marry someone of the same gender. You just have to tolerate that other people have different ideas about what is right.

And that doesn't mean you can't try to convince them otherwise, because that's your right. Just don't blow up a clinic, shoot a doctor or plaster pictures of aborted fetuses on the sides of buses, because that's wrong.

Re:Distorted views of the "Nature" of politics

[Paulrothrock]

One more thing: If it's abortable, you can use it to save other people by harvesting stem cells. You wouldn't stop someone from getting stem cells from afterbirth, would you?

Re:Distorted views of the "Nature" of politics

[Anonymous Coward]

You should get your facts straight - look to see if the owners of the Boston herald aren't some of the biggest Kerry campaign supporters then come back and apologize.

Re:Distorted views of the "Nature" of politics

[JeanPaulBob]

Life doesn't start at any point, it is continuous. The sperm and egg are alive, the person they come from are alive, so at no point is a zygote/fetus/baby *not* alive. But you have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise menstruation and masturbation is murder.

Me? I draw the line here: If the entity is capable of surviving outside of the mother's body, regardless of whether it needs assistance, and there is trivial danger to the mother in removing the entity intact, then abortion is wrong.

You didn't present an argument straight from hard science, so I'll assume your answer is, "I guess I was wrong; it's not anti-science to say personhood begins at conception."

Your standard seems nice--"viability" satisfies the "common sense, gut feeling" test--but it seems rather useless to me without a precise definition of "assistance." I'm sure we'll eventually gain the technological prowess to remove a fetus at any point and bring it to term, ex-utero. You're basically saying that the personhood of a fetus can be affected by the surrounding society's technological achievements.

Another standard I think passes the "common sense, gut feeling" test is this: Once an egg has been fertilized and a new entity with its own DNA has come into being, that entity is a human being.

You may find problems with that standard, and who knows, you might even be right--but that doesn't mean the standard involves "denying biology."

I also reject out of hand the assumption that judging when life begins is a personal decision. An abortion either is the unjustifiable killing of a human being, or it isn't. If it isn't--if a fetus really is just a "potential person," and there's no distinct point at which a person appears--then you're right. But it strikes me as ludicrous--and frankly, somewhat childish--to ask someone to concede the point out of hand.

Incidentally, I also think the ethics of "plastering pictures of aborted fetuses on the sides of buses" is highly debatable, and is greatly impacted by whether there really are hundreds of thousands of innocent people being killed every year.

Re:Distorted views of the "Nature" of politics

[Uberbah]

Another standard I think passes the "common sense, gut feeling" test is this: Once an egg has been fertilized and a new entity with its own DNA has come into being, that entity is a human being.

A single cell organism is a human being? That's as ludicrous as saying that a baby 5 minutes from delivery can't be considered a baby. Obviously there's a grey area, but a single cell organism does not a human being make.

Re:Distorted views of the "Nature" of politics

[Curtman]

republicans ask for accountability

They do? So how come every time you guys elect republicans, they go on a massive spending spree and run up a humongous deficit? Its really sad when the left wing becomes the voice of reason

Re:Distorted views of the "Nature" of politics

[Anonymous Coward]

a link from CNN is credible?

You guys?

Re:Distorted views of the "Nature" of politics

[Curtman]

You guys?

I'm sorry. I certainly didn't mean to confuse you with the big words. Maybe a picture would help?

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats just because the Catholic Church still desperately wants to prove that the Earth is flat and the center of the universe.

Mr. Bush!

[Mr.Senator]

Yes, Mr. Bush... How do you feel about the development of new Nucular weapons?

Re:Mr. Bush!

[Fuzzums]

That's simple. Nuclear weapons are a threat to our freedom, so if there are any nukes on this planet, we'll make sure we have them. This way we ensure we're the ones pressing the buttons of Mass Destruction.

Re:Mr. Bush!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Mr. Bush... How do you feel about the development of new Nucular weapons?

Indeed. I take it you also noticed that Bush's response never answered the question? He just beats around the bush and uses weasel-words to avoid saying what is explicit in his published policy documents, that YES he is in favor of more nukes, new designs of nukes, more nuclear testing, and policy that allows nuclear weapons to be used first in a war.

This is just plain mad, not to mention MAD!

Re:Problems in Firefox..

[gmf]

Works for me... With Firefox 0.9.3 and Flash 7.0 r25, both from Debian unstable...

Funding

[Zorilla]

It should be noted that the current ban on stem-cell research actually only prevents funding research on the topic. Has anybody else seen that piece on 60 Minutes about the Howard Hughes research center that has been able to research it anyway because of its massive private funding?

That said, I'm still against the blocking of research funds. More eyes can be useful on this subejct, obviously.

Re:Funding

[Blitzenn]

The fact that you missed in the funding ban is that if a research lab pursues embryonic stem cell research, they will lose ALL of their funding in ALL of their areas of research. The Bush administration has made it clear that they do not want to be tie to this in any way. Nearly every major research firm in America recieves federal funds to aid their research in one fashion or another. They are not going to pursue private funding for research in this area and risk losing all of their funding in others. It is a scare tactic used by the government to stop the research and it works pretty effectively.

Re:Funding

[Zapdos]

Embryonic stem cell research has been going on since the early 80's and has yet to deliver on the promises that have been made.

Research "which is fully funded" that has been providing results has been using adult stem cells.

Stem cells are stem cells. Fund the research that delivers.

Re:Funding

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is the government in the business of subsidizing research? Why do my tax dollars pay for this crap?

The government should NOT subsidize ANY research. Cut all of those government programs and BS. All we need is military. Once we eliminate taxes, everybody gets a ~40% raise. Geee what would that do for the stock market...

Now that everybody has money, private research becomes much more prominent. Through competition, research results come more quickly and at cheaper cost than any government subsidized program could.

Oh wait, I've been reading lp.org too much...

Re:Funding

[Blitzenn]

Aids research has been going on longer than that. Perhaps we should stop that too, it MUST be a lost cause then. CAncer research has obviously been a complete waste of time according to your theory. Come on that is simply idiotic.

Secondly, I would expect there to be more results from a fully funded parallel research as opposed to one that is nearly completely choked off. That's simply commonsense.

Re:Funding

[Blitzenn]

You make a good point. Do I really want the governemtn to determine whether the disease my brother is dying from worthy of research or not? Then again have the drug companies shown me that they can be trusted to provide me with a cost effective solution to my health problems? I am not sure where the balance needs to be, but it is clear that we don't have ANY balance right now.

Re:Funding

[Curunir_wolf]

Funny how everybody keeps calling it a ban when it is, in fact, new funding for stem cell research (there was none before), but with certain restrictions.

The only restriction is that you can't use any newly conceived/aborted fetal material for the research. That is, the stem cell lines already being used are ok, but it's not ok to create new embryos (this is conception, whether invitro or natural is immaterial), then harvest them for stem cells.

This is *NOT* a strictly religious issue, it is a moral one. Life is created for research everyday, but there may be some moral question about whether it's OK to create HUMAN life and use it for research.

Personally, I think it's OK in this instance to allow material from abortion clinics to be used, but it's still a debatable issue. Some folks would say that if you start with that, soon you'll be maturing humans artificially, then harvesting their organs for transplants.

I *don't* think it's OK to go too far with this, though. For instance, I think it would be abhorrant to clone a baby at birth, then lobotomize the clone but keep it healthy so you have spare parts in case they're needed later.

Re:Funding

[magefile]

Stem cells are not all equal - adult stem cells are partially differentiated, which embryonic stem cells are completely undifferentiated. Guess why stem cells are so useful/versatile/powerful? Yup, they're undifferentiated. So do you want the embryonic ones, or the half-assed adult ones that are only good for a few situations?

And there's a heck of a lot of research that's been going on for more than 20 years that hasn't delivered yet.

Re:Funding

[magefile]

Wrong. Fetal stem cells aren't being banned; they're partially differentiated anyway, so they're no better than adult stem cells. It's embryonic stem cells we are concerned about.

And the problem with the "existing lines" argument is that there's not enough of 'em, some of them have problems of various types, and even research on existing lines is somewhat restricted (and fairly expensive).

Re:Funding

[Curunir_wolf]

Wrong. Fetal stem cells aren't being banned; they're partially differentiated anyway, so they're no better than adult stem cells. It's embryonic stem cells we are concerned about.

Then it seems to me that the moral delimma is an even greater issue. Presumably, the way to get new lines is to get some sperm and egg donations, perform some invitro fertilization, then harvest the resulting embryos. (Please correct me if I'm wrong, IANAMB.)

The argument is that you have created a person (a unique human individal), and you are going to experiment on it.

Personally, I don't agree with that. An embryo, undifferentiated, in no way viable, should not be considered a protected entity. But I do understand the view point that this is "creating human life in order to destroy it". And for many people it is morally wrong. I don't really think it's a religious issue. Few people would support performing medical experiments on human beings. But from a certain perspective, this crosses the line into that territory.

So I think Bush made a reasonable compromise in order to provide funding that was not available before, knowing that he was under pressure to not provide funding for any kind of stem cell research.

To me, the funds should be available without those restrictions, but everybody's taxes are being used to provide the funding, so I see the need for compromise. And calling it a "ban on stem cell research" is disingeneous political posturing, and not conducive to an honest debate. The issue, I think, is that research facilities using federal funds for stem cell research are banned from creating new embryos.

Re:Funding

[Zapdos]

The ones which provide results. Oh, that would be adult.

Re:Funding

[argStyopa]

You mean that researchers might have to actually find sufficient justification for their work to get commercial or private funding? (Because the ban is on FEDERAL funding, not on research.)

Ye gods, no!

Hm, yeah, it's probably a lot simpler to just write grant proposals to the government and never actually have to PRODUCE anything. Where is the $billions$ in commercial and private research going on since stem cells are such an unadulterated potential boon to medical science? You mean none of the famously greedy megacorps has formed a shell subsidiary and poured money at this? Gee, why not?

We're very sorry to have shut down your public feeding trough on this one. Please find some other government teat to suck, or, get a real job.

Re:Funding

[Blitzenn]

Results because of the funding issue. You have 1000 people working on adult stem cells for every 1 on embryonic. it's no a fair comparision to say, "see no reuslts there, we were right". That's like tiying someone's hands behind their back and then saying, "See I told you he couldn't hit the ball!"

Re:Funding

[sharky611aol.com]

Umm, no.

The center I work at has several labs working on stem cell research, and we also have several other labs working on federally funded (NIH) projects as well.

While it is true that the ban makes a lot more red tape necessary (i.e. separate supply rooms for the labs that do stem cell research, very careful bookkeeping, etc.), the research still gets done.

"Scare tactics" work better on potential voters, not well informed researchers....

Re:Funding

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you, we should fund embryonic stem cell research. The research with the most potential should get the most funding, and since stem cells are all the same the source doesn't matter. We should allow scientists and researchers to work with the stem cells they want to, since that gives the highest chance of saving lives instead of having to jump hurdles so nutcases can have their way. I'm glad we agree that nutcases with no opinion based in fact should not be allowed to dictate how the world works.

Re:Funding

[Blitzenn]

What is your companies name and address. We need to send a group of auditors to your facility to make sure none of the federal funds are 'leaking' into research where funding is specifically banned. By the way we will have to close your entire facility during the investigation. We are not stating anything wrong was done, we just need a year or so to be sure that you are working properly.

Yours Truely
Republican National Committee

P.S. The White House is ours! Keep your grubby democratic mitts off our stuff!

Re:Funding

[Minna Kirai]

Presumably, the way to get new lines is to get some sperm and egg donations, perform some invitro fertilization, then harvest the resulting embryos.

You don't even have to go that far- there's no need for researchers to solicit sperm or egg donations. In-vitro fertilization happens thousands of times per year, producing about 0 to 7 embyros each time. Then those are sequentially implanted in the uterus, each having a 20% chance of success.

With luck, the first or second attempt will be successful, often leaving behind 2-5 embryos that aren't needed. They're kept frozen for a while to see if the mother wants any more children, and if not, they're incinerated and thrown out with the biohazardous waste.

All stem-cell researchers would need to do is get permission from some test-tube parents to recycle extra embryos that were slated for destruction anyhow.

Re:Funding

[Obasan]

If we only funded sciences that gave immediate results, we wouldn't have much of ... well, anything, right now.

Many scientists feel there is potential in embryonic stem cell research. Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong... but one thing I guarantee, they know more about their field than you do. Scientists get credibility and reputation for working in areas that produce results. Those results may come in baby steps, and wrong turns may be taken along the way. But I think those scientists are in a better position to know whether its worth investing in embryonic stem cell research than we are.

(And lest you feel there may be some kind of conspiracy to 'get funding'... labs & institutions that don't produce interesting research lose credibility in the community and funding. It isn't in their best interest to pursue a field if they truly think its a doomed project, they would just be tarnishing their own reputation.)

Re:Funding

[Burpmaster]

And this policy is from the same guy that promotes the "faith-based initiative." To ensure that no government money accidently happens to fund stem cell reasearch, he'll pull all funding from labs that do that research, but he pushes the opposite policy with respect to religion so he can promote it unconstitutionally. The stem cell policy undermines his case that he's not promoting the preaching itself and so it's not a violation.

Re:Funding

[Minna Kirai]

Oh, that would be adult.

I don't see any tigers around, do you?

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. I tolerate people who believe in that giant pixie in the sky who will Make It All Better[tm]. Hey, if you want to believe it, it's none of my business. But it scares me that somebody that is under the influence of such delusions can become the most powerful man in the world.

To the Christians who feel offended: imagine you found out that Bush was actually in the thralls of Scientology. How would you feel? Christianity is a lot less extreme than Scientology in my opinion, but they are travellers on the same road. So however scared, bewildered or angry you would be at somebody who believes that they are reincarnated aliens being president of the USA, tone it down about 50%, and that's how scared, bewildered and angry I am that somebody who acts on what the Giant Pixie in the Sky says is president of the USA.

Re:Religeon

[Threni]

> last I checked they read the Bible for guidance in decisions.

That's why they are anti-science. There's simply no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the Bible has any value as a method of predicting future trends.

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

The previous poster's point was that the Christian faith in particular requires an attitude that is directly in opposition to the scientific process.

Newton who was a Christian. But then again, I guess Newton wasn't really a Christian.

Re:Religeon

[vgaphil]

He's also pro-life AND pro-war, go figure.

Please,.......PLEASE!!!!

[spectrokid]

I am not a US national and don't have the right to vote. Yet my life will seriously be influenced by the outcome of the next elections. So please use your f*cking heads!

Re:Please,.......PLEASE!!!!

[smooth wombat]

When you say we are to use our f*cking heads, do you mean people who vote based on someones religious beliefs or people who don't know it's illegal to be paid to vote a certain way?

Re:Please,.......PLEASE!!!!

[RussDavisDotCom]

Okay, this isn't really directed at the previous poster, but I'd like to keep it in the same thread.

What do you say you guys butt out of our election? I mean, I understand you being concerned and all... but, honestly, I'm not your best forum for change. I feel a lot of countries really feel like we should all be a global nation and everyone has a say in everyone else's government.

What do you say I elect my president, you elect yours (this is assuming the post is coming from a democracy/republic) and we let them work it out. You have a problem with who I elect? Deal with it. This has never been more of a US internal matter regardless of the Bush administration's foreign policy.

Re:Please,.......PLEASE!!!!

[mark2003]

You know I would love to butt out of your election. However when you country is responsible for causing me problems then I feel I have every right to comment.

Why should my house be flooded by rising sea levels caused by global warming because you guys want to drive 20 tonne SUVs and your government refuses to even sign up to the Kyoto agreement? Why should my city be regularly affected by terrorist alerts because your idiot of a leader has made the world a much less stable place? Why should my country (a very close ally of the US) loose business because of anti-competetive trade practices, such as import tariffs on steel, put in place illegally by your government?

Stop screwing over the world and maybe the world WILL butt out.

Re:Please,.......PLEASE!!!!

[feed_those_kitties]

Wow, I can't believe you got modded 'troll' for that. If I had mod points, I'd give you 'insightful'!

Everyone on the planet will be "influenced" by the results of this election. Whether it be a continuation of the "send troops first, try diplomacy last" policy of the current administration, to the U.S. continuing to use WAY more than our fair share of energy (and producing WAY more than our fair share of CO2), to the U.S. being seen as a bully to the rest of the world instead of being seen as a friend to the rest of the world -- Yes, everyone will be influenced.

If you thought the last presidential was divisive, this one will be ten times more so...

Re:Please,.......PLEASE!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the rest of the planet could agree with your position....if you could just let your idiotic leader know that he has to keep out of everyone elses business as well. This is why we all have opinions, because your asshole leaders are always fucking with everyone elses business.

What do you say I elect my president, you elect yours

Sounds great, unless we elect someone you don't like, then you cue the B-2's. Why not let Iraq elect who they want? Thats right, because you would end up with another islamic state that hates your fucking guts. And you can't have that, can you. I mean Isreal just doesn't have any oil, and they are the only ones in the Middle East who even PRETEND to like you.

The rest of the world is dealing with your choices. Your people have never been more disliked. You have no credibility anywhere on earth. Your people are not welcome anywhere outside of the US. It is really sad. I remember just a few years ago, most people liked the US, and Americans. The sadest part is that the American people, are being labeled because of the actions of your idiotic leadership.

I imagine the response will be the usual "We don't care, fuck the world, USA USA USA", but someday, you will need someones help, or support, or oil, and you may then realise the hole you have dug yourself into. Or maybe not. Just remember, there are many reasons to demand effective leadership, and your reputation is only one of them.

Re:Please,.......PLEASE!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly how many B-2 attacks have there been on Germany, France, or any other nation that opposed the United States on issues like the Iraq war? Right, none. According to some, we have a history of not allowing free elections - that's why France and Germany were so supportive of our actions. Because we have our own people in power over there.

A lot of the world doesn't like us? Really, that's fine. We for the most part don't feel a need to be liked. Kind of like a parent who is doing what's right and who knows that over time, their children will be better for it - note - I'm not calling other countries our children (it's obviously the other way around!) but you get the point.

Additionally, most Americans *would* like to have our government stay out of everyone elses business. Unfortunately, history has a way of showing that we cannot do that and have much of the world not go nuts. Isolationism, while a nice idea, just doesn't work, and everyone knows it.

Re:Please,.......PLEASE!!!!

[mrchaotica]

You know, us Americans originally revolted against the British because we weren't represented in their government....

Re:Please,.......PLEASE!!!!

[RussDavisDotCom]

You may feel as though you have right to comment, but, really, you don't. Being a US citizen by birth, I have the disinct pleasure and right of being able to choose my own leaders who make the decisions that benefit me.

If you'd read up a little bit on Kyoto instead of just jumping on the global-warming bandwagon, you'd see that Kyoto is generally regarded as one of the least cost-effective means of controlling greenhouse gases. In fact, because it's not cost effective many policymakers feel that it violates the UN framework convention which requires parties to pursue a 'cost-effective' method of curbing greenhouse gases. The notion that the sea-level is even rising out of sync with normal climatic changes has been challenged by many scientists in the field. Why sign a document that is overly burdensome to our country for something that the scientific community can't even reach a consensus on?

If your city is under terrorist watches, why blame my president? It wasn't my president who attacked and killed over 3,000 of my fellow citizens. It wasn't my president who tried to assainate his father. It wasn't my president who regularly puts your city under terrorist alerts. Perhaps you should direct a little more anger at the actual terrorist cells instead of at the US. I can assure you, directing your anger at us will only help build the case for the terrorists.

Can you honestly blame my president (yes, he's my president, lest you forget) for trying to look out for the people that elected him. I think it's fairly easy to forget sometime that the president is only accountable to US citizens and no one else. Quite frankly, I could care less if your steel is having trouble on the global market. Perhaps if some (again, I say some because I don't know where you are -- this may not be the case in your country, forgive me if not) of the steel producing countries would have to pay their employees a decent wage, steel tarrifs wouldn't be required. Don't be angry at the president or his administration because of his steel tarrifs. He's doing exactly what we want him to do. He's doing what we sent him to do. He's looking out for US citizens.

I doubt very seriously that the 'world' would ever butt out of our interests. The United States is the strongest, most wealthy nation in the world. People are always going to put their two cents in, regardless because of our size and power. Historically, the top of the heap is generally the most criticized.

Re:Please,.......PLEASE!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't want everyone else to butt into your elections, can you please start by keeping your damn wars to yourself in future?

Re:Please,.......PLEASE!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Any election for national leader in just about any nation is going to have a worldwide impact. I'm American and I keep hoping to hear that Blair was finally booted out. Without his influence it would have been harder to get support for the Iraq war and we might have kept Bush in check. Instead he made even more bald-faced lies than Bush did and was just as bad in "rallying the troops".

But I don't feel the need to tell the British to "use their heads" all the time. If you're not a US citizen and you've got an issue to present and debate about, then by all means do so. But swearing at us and telling us to "use our heads" is pointless and deserves a troll mod.

Re:Please,.......PLEASE!!!!

[Shotgun]

Whether it be a continuation of the "send troops first, try diplomacy last" policy of the current administration,

I guess you just fell off the turnip truck, did you? Or are you just blindly spouting the inflated lies of your bullshit-artist leaders?

The UN spent a decade trying to get a despote leader to abide by international sanctions. Were you not paying attention when the inspector kept getting kicked out by Hussien? How long should the international community have put up with Hussien's bullshit?

to the U.S. continuing to use WAY more than our fair share of energy (and producing WAY more than our fair share of CO2),

Why don't you turn off your computer to conserve some of that CO2? The only way to reduce CO2 emissions is to not create the electricity. Bush can't make a round of the whole country, insuring that people turn off their lights when they're not in the room. If he had the power and actually used it, the left would say that he's trying to inhibit poor children from studying at night.

I don't see Bush's reluctance to lower our standard of living as a bad thing.

Re:Please,.......PLEASE!!!!

[CrazyBusError]

Amazing. When it's Microsoft abusing a monopoly I'm willing to bet you'd be right up there with those people calling for the curbing of their powers and stopping their anti-competitive practises. When it's your own government pulling the same stunts it's 'Oh you're all just jealous'.

Yes, the US is the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world. No, the rest of us put together can do nothing to stop that. Your president consults his bible and randomly makes policy affecting the rest of the world whether we like it or not and we can do nothing to stop it. Of *course* we're gonna beg the American populace to put someone else in power.

To go back to my original analogy, if your government indluges in this bullshit as and when they please, what on earth makes you think they're going to do anything about the surfeit of global megacorps you seem to have doing the same thing?

Re:Please,.......PLEASE!!!!

[mark2003]

Oh dear...

You don't care, your President doesn't care, your fellow countrymen don't care. They're all alright, screw the rest of the world.

And you wonder why America is so unpopular at the moment?

Right - onto your points:

Kyoto is regarded as one of the least cost effective methods of curbing green house gasses by who? The US government? Japan and the European nations seem to think it is a workable approach and it is definately better than doing nothing. It may make US industry slightly less competetive if they can't cut cornrs with regard to polution - but that ain't my problem unlike global warming. You obviously do not understand scientific method either - science progresses by challenging ideas hence the scientific community will very rarely reach a total consensus. They are fairly close on global warming causing sea levels to rise though as there is plenty of data to back up this assertion - try looking in New Scientist, Nature, Scientific American for some information.

With respect to terrorism - of course I blame the terrorists for the attacks, but I also blame your idiot of a President for charging into Afganistan and Iraq without any plan of how to restore the peace (if they had a plan it isn't working) and managing to piss off the entire Arab world through their inability to be even remotely fair in their stance on Isreal.

I also get annoyed when the US repeatedly flouts WTO regulations but yet tries to enforce them on others depending on which is in it's own self interest. I agree that the US President should look out for American business first but does that mean they should behave like the Mafia - getting their way through bullying and coercion? What happened to ethics?

Nice can of worms

[Big_Monkey_Bird]

I just hope people don't read their bible for science anymore. WWGD : What Would Galileo Do?

Re:Nice can of worms

[gfxguy]

bumber sticker: "Galileo's Dead" - God

Answer2 - interesting reasoning...

[someme2]

This is interesting: "what would you do to ensure that your administration receives genuinely impartial scientific advice?"

Both essentially answer: "It is really important to get impartial advice, that's why I will take only impartial advice."

Both don't get at all into the problem - which is "how do you know what advice is impartial?".

Both answers have nice parts like Bush's world class sentence "I have sought out the best scientific minds..." - completely ignoring that the question was "how do you deal with the problem that it is hard to know what good science is?"

Kerry's reasoning is equally interesting when he says "[Hey, how do I ensure that I receive impartial advice?] My administration would never utilize biased advice."

That's true Mr. President. You can very well be sure that you receive impartial advice when you just don't utilize the biased advice!

JUST ALWAYS BE SURE THAT YOU PERSONALLY SEEK OUT THE BEST SCIENTIFIC MINDS!

Both candidates didn't say anything about the problem itself stating trueisms of the worst order.

Re:Answer2 - interesting reasoning...

[harmonica]

It's a general problem for a president or any high-ranking executive official to get good advice. It's the same for science as for any other area. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes not. So the only sincere answer a politician can give is "I'll have to try, in each case". The president rarely does the selection of people who will give advice. His staff will have to make sure that people with a clear agenda stay out. Unless they want to push that agenda, but then they do not seek advice but simply want to emphasize that the direction they've taken is supported by renowned expert X.

Re:Answer2 - interesting reasoning...

[cynic10508]

JUST ALWAYS BE SURE THAT YOU PERSONALLY SEEK OUT THE BEST SCIENTIFIC MINDS! Both candidates didn't say anything about the problem itself stating trueisms of the worst order.

Probably because we don't know how to adequately define what the 'best' scientifid mind is. Is it the one that gets published most through the politically-charged journals? Or the one that teaches the most classes? It seems like bias (as to what is the 'best' scientific mind) again rears its ugly head. So its a catch-22 perhaps?

Re:Answer2 - interesting reasoning...

[scrout]

Scientific minds here in Oregon have wiped out the logging industry for the Spotted Owl, what's next, we cant tear down old barns because of 'barn owls'? We refused to give farmers water in Klamath Falls because the 'science' said the sucker fish in Klamath Lake would be harmed if the water levels fell below totally arbitrary levels. Shit, you could drain the freakin lake and not kill sucker fish. Now they are closing the beaches to save the Snowy Plover, which lays its eggs in open sand. Never mind the inland plovers are all over the place next door. What really peeves me is the arrogance that these so call scientists show, who are funded by the govt and would not have jobs without these crises, and all the while saying THEY know what nature has selected for extinction. yeah.

Re:Answer2 - interesting reasoning...

[danila]

This is not science fault - this is a fault of wacko environmentalists. They are organised - they can manipulate public opinion, media and lawmakers. After all, you don't want to be AGAINST Spotted Owls, do you?

A big indicator of the problem was the candidates' response to the BSE question. They both said this is a serious problem that warrants a lot of attention (and funding), even though less than 100 people died from BSE during 5 years. Heck, I am sure more people die because they don't wash their hands before eating. :) So politicians only care about problems that are PERCEIVED as important, they don't care how valid is the science. Eventually, when people in the USA realise that global warming is happening, every American candidate will start supporting Kyoto protocol and other measures.

Re:Answer2 - interesting reasoning...

[Anonymous Coward]

JUST ALWAYS BE SURE THAT YOU PERSONALLY SEEK OUT THE BEST SCIENTIFIC MINDS!

That's nice but what makes you think the Chinese want to help you?

This random sentence added to bypass the lame-filter.

Re:Answer2 - interesting reasoning...

[runderwo]

"how do you deal with the problem that it is hard to know what good science is?"

In what way is it hard to know what good science is? Simply apply Sagan's baloney detection toolkit, or ask the following simple questions:

Is the hypothesis falsifiable?

Was there a placebo/control group used?

Are the experimental results published and available for open scrutiny and experimental reproduction?

The biases of the scientist in terms of his personal beliefs and his funding are irrelevant, because if the scientific method is followed, the results are valid science in any case. Unfortunately, many people ignore key components of the scientific method and then attempt to pass off their results as science, which weakens the credibility of real scientists in the popular view.

wowzers!

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile, I'll read other articles.

what an incredibly way to remain stupified.

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

Any person who bases their entire argument on an ad hominem attack deserves to be kicked to the curb.

To those who "spent" their mod points to rank the parent post as "informative" - do you even understand the concept of editorial moderation? Hint: It has nothing to do supporting those who give voice to your personal biases.

Yet again, "nerds" show that, on average, they are as fallible as the rest of humanity.

President Kang

[caitsith01]

Kent Brockman: Senator Dole, why should people vote for you instead of President Clinton?

Kang: It makes no difference which one of us you vote for. Either way, your planet is doomed. DOOMED!

Kent: Well, a refreshingly frank response there from senator Bob Dole. ............

Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They're nothing but hideous space reptiles.

[audience gasps in terror]

Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.

[murmurs]

Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system.

Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.

Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away! ..........

Marge: I don't understand why we have to build a ray gun to aim at a planet I never even heard of.

Homer: Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

Re:President Kang

[Zorilla]

Aww...you left out the part with Ross Perot punching a hole through his campaign hat.

Re:Problems in Firefox..

[Anonymous Coward]

On my IRIX, it doesn't even shows a table!

Missile defense

[antifoidulus]

They ask an interesting question about star wars here. Bush claims that the program is working, and will be much more fully operational soon, Kerry says that more research is needed. However, the question only focuses on the scientific aspects of the system, not on it's stratagic usefulness. The world is much different than it was during the Soviet era. During the soviet era, outside the possibility of submarines the only way for the Soviets to attack the US was through missiles, because we hardly did any trade at all with our "enemy", but today the world is much different.
Suppose North Korea really wanted to nuke the US. They have missiles that could potentially reach Alaska, MAYBE California, and will soon have the nuclear technology to make weapons, if they don't have it already. But if North Korea really wanted to attack the US, why would they use a missile whose source can be detectable when they could just sneak a missile on one of the thousands of Chinese ships that come to the US each year that go virtually unsearched by customs? North Korea would have to be morons not to have spies working in the Chinese shipping industry(unbeknowst to China of course).
We are just dumping money down the drain on a system that is questionable both scientifically and strategically.

Re:Missile defense

[prisoner]

That star wars thing was a great idea in the 80's. Throw some money at it and watch the soviets squirm. Now? I just don't know what the hell is going on with it. Sure, it might be good to research and test at a low level of funding but to start sticking those interceptors in silos when we haven't had a real unscripted test of the real launch vehicle? It seems like we're spending a lot of money on it before we're sure it's actually going to do anything. As far as what the N. Koreans will do, who knows. Their leader is as crazy as a shithouse rat.

Re:Missile defense

[harmonica]

But if North Korea really wanted to attack the US, why would they use a missile whose source can be detectable when they could just sneak a missile on one of the thousands of Chinese ships that come to the US each year that go virtually unsearched by customs?

That only works for a first strike, not so good for retaliation, a response every head of state (especially the crazy ones like Kim-il-Jong - or was that the father's name? - anyway...) likes to have.

Re:Missile defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Missile defense without giant solid state lasers is like your mom without the tartar sauce: It just turns into a big bloated operation that people like to talk about rather than actually doing anything. We need giant solid state lasers. Without them you're stuck with a very limited number of clunky projectiles.

Re:Missile defense

[AtomicBomb]

I strongly agree with your analysis regarding North Korea... No one in Asia (the world??) really likes them. The only reason China and Russia kind of support them is because they want to avoid American Army from setting up bases too close to their border...

There was an alleged spying incidence last year, in which the North Korea spies tried to infiltrate Japan using a fish boat with fake Chinese fishing boat registration and flag. The Japanese coastal guard carried out a hot pursuit and entered the Chinese economic exclusion zone... After a brief gun fight, the North Korean spies set off a bomb to sink their boat and committed suicide... Initially, the diplomats between China and Japan all got mad and started pointing fingers... After the boat sank, items scattered around indicates a North Korea origin. At the end, every one wants to give Kim Jin II a punch....

By the way, the North Korea spies are known to be well trained in language (remember they hijacked some Japaneses before so that the spies can learn the latest slangs...). It makes them indistinguable from the other Asians in wartime. You cannot discount the possiblity that other lunatics in the world may employ similar strategy in the future... The most likely route to deliver a surprise nuclear attack is through cargo ship, fishing boat, trucks or even at the back of an elephant. Missile is just way too obvious, expensive and ineffective.

Re:Missile defense

[linzeal]

I think Japan would be a likely target and possible to strike from North Korea regardless.

Re:Missile defense

[Anonymous Coward]

every one wants to give Kim Jin II a punch....

It's Kim Jong Il you retarded ape!

(Where the hell did you get Kim Jin 2?)

Re:Missile defense

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say that, on the contrary, ballistic missile defense is a very good long-term investment. Consider:

- There is currently no defense against ballistic missiles, other than the threat of retaliation.
- Ballistic missile technology is not very different from spacelift technology, which we know is currently beginning to enter the commercial realm. My rough guess is that in the next 30-50 years the number of nations capable of developing ICBMs will double.
- Nuclear technology is already 50 years old, and, as shown by Pakistan, apparently available on the black market.

Since the end of the Cold War, we (the US, NATO, the free world in general, etc.) have enjoyed a unique position of relative military dominance. While this raises concerns both internally ("OMG we have all this power now nobody likes us") and externally (assymetric warfare, etc.), I'd say it's generally a Good Thing (tm). Considering who's in charge here (elected officials and entourage of bureaucrats) and who's in charge over there (insane dictators with horrible fashion sense and weird glasses), I'd rather do the pushing around than be ones pushed around.

Ballistic missiles are an Achilles heel that will become more apparent in the future; all the more reason we should start covering it now.

Re:Missile defense

[Hythlodaeus]

The argument that ballistic missile defense is useless because there are other ways to deliver nuclear weapons is spurious. You don't disband the infantry just because they can't shoot down jet aircraft, and you don't take the locks off your front door just because a burglar could use a window. We need missile defense to handle the missiles, and we'll develop other procedures to handle the other attacks.

Re:Missile defense

[Anonymous Coward]

He's probably American, take it easy on 'em, they have "special needs".

Re:Missile defense

[Minna Kirai]

The argument that ballistic missile defense is useless because there are other ways to deliver nuclear weapons is spurious.

That argument is spurious, like many of the Black & White justifications used by the Bush administration.

you don't take the locks off your front door just because a burglar could use a window.

But I don't spend $1,000,000 on a titantium-alloy door with retinal scanners and active electronic countermeasures, because a burglar could use a window.

NMD is not a cheap project. Considering the tremendous cost, the low rate of effectiveness, the many other less expensive and less tracable ways an enemy could deliver a bomb, and the fact that building it cannot possibly be done without the enemy's knowledge... there's just no justification for pouring in more money.

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

+5 Insightful? I know most slashdotters are raving antichrists, but come on. At least try to use rational thinking when trying to take your anger out on God by attacking his followers.

Re:Religeon

[orcrist]

Ah, the same church that imprisoned Galileo for his findings and writings?

OK, that was a cheap shot, that was hundreds of years ago.

No, that's not a cheap shot. In fact the "hundreds of years ago" makes it worse: they didn't admit they were wrong about Galileo until 1992!!

-chris

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

Anybody who spells Religion as Religeon shouldn't be trusted with their point of view on a subject they can't even spell.

Re:Religeon

[ChzMstrX]

Last I read the Bible it was a bit scant on information about quasars... but that isn't my point. I don't think they're turning to John Chapter III for guidance on where to point their telescopes. What you're saying is simply ridiculous. Why does faith exclude someone from a field that is largely based on hunches and guesswork?

Re:Religeon

[qwijibo]

Of course they tell you that they believe in an invisible man in the sky on faith alone. There are a lot more people who can accept that without question than people who can fathom the truth.

Do you really think the church is going to come out and say "we know that intelligent design is how we got here because we actually met the space aliens who put us here"? It's much easier to claim some individual omnipotent being is responsible for everything. Do you realize what it would do to society if people knew we were a science experiment by a bunch of deviant aliens? How else do you explain the anal probes?

They didn't imprison Galileo for his ideas. They imprisoned him because the church is a cash cow and Galileo met the aliens and was trying to set up a competing company. The church is the original big-faceless-corporation.

This conspiracy has been brought to you by the fine people at Halliburton and the letter W.

Re:Religeon

[NeoSkandranon]

At least a Christian has (ideally, I realize this is not always so) a somewhat consistent set of morals to base their decisions on. Whether GWB is adhering to those is a different bowl of kibble, but my point is, guidlines, right?

I would be fairly scared (regardless of the fact that I'm a christian) of someone in power who had no set of beliefs other than "Do what you can rationalize to yourself", which strikes a string on most athiests I know.

We non-Americans are hoping....

[Anonymous Coward]

that this time your president will be the one who actually wins the election.

Re:We non-Americans are hoping....

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you going to do if we Americans turn our government into a cheap parody of a democratic process?

We are well on the way with our black-box voting machines toward making our "elections" into an episode of MTv's Real World. A majority of us don't vote, and the rest don't care whether our votes will be counted with any integrity. Both our major party candidates for President are on the record favoring illegal military interventions abroad and the capriciously systematic suppression of civil liberties at home. We are generally represented in Congress by representatives who show open contempt for their constituents interests. We see no reason to hold our President or any of his advisors accountable for the murder, torture and disappearance of captured prisoners in the WarOnTerror(TM). Worst of all, the electorate pretty much regards any criticism of these policies as unpatriotic at best, and perhaps even a majority of them consider it treasonous.

What do we have to do before the rest of the world will wake up and realize that the U.S. is experiencing its second revolution, and the outcome will not be a victory for democratic principles?

(We've not gone quite as far south as Russia, but Bush says he looked into Putin's soul and found a friend... and, no, I don't feel confortable posting this under my real name. Yes, it's that bad now in America.)

Re:We non-Americans are hoping....

[dpilot]

Do you mean 'win the election' or 'legitimately win the election?' The big fun about electronic voting, as emerging into practice, is that it makes it impossible to tell the difference.

Re:We non-Americans are hoping....

[gfxguy]

Well, if you don't think Bush won the last election then you don't understand a democratic republic, representative democracy...

By all real (not imaginary) counts and recounts, Bush did actually win the election.

Re:We non-Americans are hoping....

[Politburo]

(We've not gone quite as far south as Russia, but Bush says he looked into Putin's soul and found a friend... and, no, I don't feel confortable posting this under my real name. Yes, it's that bad now in America.)

Look I hate Bush as much as anyone else, but that simply isn't true. Go to any left blog and look at some of the ranting there. Do you think those people are being tracked and locked up?

Re:We non-Americans are hoping....

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean anyone is actually out to get you.

Re:We non-Americans are hoping....

[TamMan2000]

Both our major party candidates for President are on the record favoring illegal military interventions abroad

Which illegal military intervention is Kerry on record supporting? Not Iraq, he is on record supporting the president having the authority to use the military. It is a right wing spin machine making people believe that he supported going into Iraq. Now that we are there though, he supports being responsible for the mess we made.

Re:We non-Americans are hoping....

[kin_korn_karn]

they are tokens. If they disappeared people would realize what's going on.

That's ok, they'll become enemies of the state after the next terrorist attack happens, and it probably will :(

Re:We non-Americans are hoping....

[Anonymous Coward]

Look I hate Bush as much as anyone else, but that simply isn't true. Go to any left blog and look at some of the ranting there. Do you think those people are being tracked and locked up?

No, but they can be fired from their jobs with impunity. And that is happening. I don't need to lose my job for expressing an unpopular political opinion, so I post to those lefty blogs and Slashdot under a pseudonym when I have a rant like this.

Do you want to argue that I'm being excessively paranoid? Seriously?

Re:We non-Americans are hoping....

[Anonymous Coward]

As I posted in another followup in this thread, I don't think I'm being paranoid. I think I'm taking a reasonable precaution to avoid being fired from my job for expressing an unpopular opinion. That is happening to people in America right now, for expressing opinions pretty much like the one I expressed above. So I choose to use a pseudonym.

Do you really want to argue that I'm paranoid? Seriously?

Re:We non-Americans are hoping....

[linzeal]

If Bush gets relected and he probably will at this rate, I'm moving out of the country ASAP. By the 2nd year in office I will be in Vancouver or thereabouts going for a masters program. I will not even consider using my skills (robotics, automation, and the like) in a country that will likely use them directly or indirectly in many more senseless wars with utter disregard for human life and international opinion.

Re:We non-Americans are hoping....

[Politburo]

It's correct that people are being fired for political beliefs. My personal opinion is that I wouldn't want to work for anyone who would fire me based on my political beliefs, so I wouldn't mind getting fired for posting some rant.

I don't know if you're being excessively paranoid. I don't know your work environment. However, it is my belief that while some politically-related firings are going on, it is not a widespread occurrence and your generalization of America in your initial post was inaccurate, as evidenced by the fact that many people, both on slashdot and other sites, continue to post political rants without a pseudonym and without a problem.

Re:We non-Americans are hoping....

[Anonymous Coward]

Which illegal military intervention is Kerry on record supporting? Not Iraq [...]

Yes, Iraq. He voted to authorize the President to violate the U.N. treaty without actually voting first to reject the treaty. It was an explicit authorization for an illegal intervention. The President ordered the intervention, but Kerry voted to authorize the order, and he maintains still to this day-- even knowing everything we know now-- that giving the bird to the U.N. was the right thing to do.

My point is that Americans in both major parties are in consensus about the Bush doctrine that regards the United Nations as a debating society and generally rejects the notion that military invasions should require the explicit authorization of the U.N. Security Council. Kerry has taken great pains to avoid refuting that proposition.

Re:We non-Americans are hoping....

[Anonymous Coward]

My personal opinion is that I wouldn't want to work for anyone who would fire me based on my political beliefs, so I wouldn't mind getting fired for posting some rant.

How nice for you. The last time I lost my job (I wasn't even fired--the company I worked for failed to get an important Pentagon contract and it went out of business), the resulting series of life experiences associated with a prolonged period of unemployment in a down job market nearly killed me. Seriously.

You have no idea how much your nonchalant response makes me want to tell you to FSCK OFF with extreme prejudice.

Re:We non-Americans are hoping....

[Anonymous Coward]

I was thinking the same thing, except the only skills I will be depriving the US of is my uncanny knack in finding and downloading free porn.

Re:We non-Americans are hoping....

[untaken_name]

Bye! Don't let the door hit you on your ass on the way out, you spineless worm. If you don't like something in your country, take a stand and try to change it. Running is the coward's way out, and only removes support from others attempting to change the system the legal way. Fuck you and every spineless jerk that thinks running away will solve anything. You don't think that if the defenders of liberty in this country all move to Canada that the resultant tyranny here will leave Canada alone, do you? Only then the chance to reform the system will be gone, thanks in part to deserters like you running from your responsibilities as a citizen of this country. I'm sorry if you're offended, ok, I don't really care if you are. What are you doing to FIX the problem, here and now? Run away, keep running, and don't ever stop. Others will make the sacrifices so that people like you can enjoy the benefits, just like always in this country.

Re:We non-Americans are hoping....

[Politburo]

You have no idea how much your nonchalant response makes me want to tell you to FSCK OFF with extreme prejudice.

Nor do I care! I'll present my opinion without regard for your or anyone else's situation, thank you. If you have a different opinion because of your personal experience, that's great. While I've been fortunate enough to never have to go through what you have been through, that isn't going to change my belief: I don't want to work for someone who doesn't respect me. You want me to believe that I should be a slave to my employer because you had a hard time finding a job?

Re:We non-Americans are hoping....

[Azghoul]

Oh get real.

You don't want to post on freaking slashdot using your real name? Shit like that just takes whatever point you were trying to make and buries it under the weight of your tin foil hat.

Re:We non-Americans are hoping....

[Azghoul]

Holy shit, you need to cut down on the coffee dude.

Your nonsense about being unemployed makes me want to tell you to go ahead and start shouting. It'll just tell more people how nuts you are.

Re:We non-Americans are hoping....

[Politburo]

If you don't like something in your country, take a stand and try to change it.

Yes, that's why he said if Bush wins the election. He's trying to change it by electing Kerry, I would imagine.

Fuck you and every spineless jerk that thinks running away will solve anything.

I don't think those of us who are talking about leaving think it will solve anything, except that we won't have the problem of living under Bush anymore. You have a problem with your logic. You seem to think there is some sort of magic bullet that will turn this country smart again. Let me clue you in: almost 50% of this country voted for Bush the first time. He didn't win by some technicality. He has a lot of support. You talk about change, and yet, you suggest nothing yourself. What do you plan to do if Bush gets re-elected? What can you do to stop a 2nd Bush presidency after 11/02/04?

Re:We non-Americans are hoping....

[untaken_name]

What will I do? The same thing I do now. I will canvass and stump for Libertarian candidates such as Michael Badnarik and I will volunteer my time and money to support causes with which I agree. I will not turn tail and run when things are not going my way. There may be nothing I can do to stop Bush from getting elected again, but I certainly won't have to worry about a third term. Think long term, act short term. That's what I do. What I don't do is cry and run away when things get tough. I suggested nothing? I wasn't asked for suggestions. I said 'if you want change, work for it and don't run away'. That is what I suggested. I don't know exactly what kind of change the OP wanted, therefore I cannot supply specific suggestions on how to accomplish it, nor do I know that I would care to. However, whatever kind of change you want to effect in this country, it will not be accomplished from another country.

Re:We non-Americans are hoping....

[Politburo]

What do you have against leaving the country? If a majority of the people here have beliefs that are different from mine, maybe it's time to find a new country. Would you say that those fleeing Cuba are spineless?

Re:We non-Americans are hoping....

[untaken_name]

Does Cuba have a system in place whereby normal people can introduce changes to their government?
Fleeing a dictatorship is not the same as fleeing a representative republic. Of course, you knew that when you chose your example; your appeal to pathos is weakened by your disregard for logos.

Re:We non-Americans are hoping....

[Jeremi]

The previous poster never claimed that people are being tracked and locked up, only that he is uncomfortable posting under his real name. There are other ways to suppress political discourse than locking people up.

Re:We non-Americans are hoping....

[Politburo]

Does Cuba have a system in place whereby normal people can introduce changes to their government?

Does America? The answer is no. An accurate statement would be: America has a system in place whereby a group of people can introduce changes to their government. If your group isn't big enough, no one's listening.

Re:We non-Americans are hoping....

[linzeal]

The US is not repairable in one generation or two, if ever imho. I will not have my children born into uncertainity with most of the world hating the country I live in. I see a real chance in other countries to affect postive change in my life time. Like many engineers and scientists in germany before WW II I'm leaving before I am compelled by social pressure and perhaps force to make war machines for a country that is run by psychopathic corportations.

I have no responsibility to this country beyond that which is forced upon me by neccesity. I would rather the United States divide into many smaller countries like Europe, we should acknowledge our differences and move on. That is the only way I can think of that we can stop people and organizations from abusing the currently massive power structure that is the US federal government, now and in the future.

Re:We non-Americans are hoping....

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, I'm well equipped and prepared to cover your shift too.

Re:We non-Americans are hoping....

[untaken_name]

I suppose groups form spontaneously?
Every cause and every group starts with one person. Either that person seeks out like-minded individuals or that person acts in such a way that like-minded individuals seek them out. *shrug*
Point the second: some small groups make everyone listen to them. Do you think all lobbyists represent huge demographics? Do you think all demographics have equal representation?

Re:We non-Americans are hoping....

[untaken_name]

I have no responsibility to this country beyond that which is forced upon me by neccesity.

I gather a lot of ungrateful people feel this way. I suppose you educated yourself, did you? Built the roads you drive on every day? Deliver your own mail? Fought for your freedom from tyranny? Died so that others could cavalierly disregard your sacrifice and declare themselves to have 'no responsibility to this country'?
I may not agree with everything this government does (or most of it, even) but I will never forget that I have civic duties that are every bit as important as the privileges I receive along with them. I will work to decrease the size and scope of government legally. I know that it is a difficult task, but people such as yourself make it no easier. Instead of being afraid of the challenge, I am doing my best to step up to it. I realize that concept may be foreign to you. So you can't add value to your life here? Then go away. But don't tell me that you aren't ducking your responsibility because you have none. That's just not true.

Re:We non-Americans are hoping....

[Anonymous Coward]

How did Kerry vote on Kosavo? You know the action that also did not have the Ok from the UN Sec. council.

Re:We non-Americans are hoping....

[TamMan2000]

You mean the NATO action?

I am not happy about it, but I don't think it was illegal...

And in a similar vein:

[Illserve]

Next week we'll hear about a wrestling match between a 400 lb gorilla and a 2 year old child.

Re:And in a similar vein:

[Anonymous Coward]

But the 2 year old child has assault weaponry.

Exactly my point

[caitsith01]

How good would it be to see an interviewer sit down and totally grill Bush or Kerry for a good hour, with no aides or press secretaries, or time limits to force them to move on, and with no fear of losing 'access' and no drip-fed policy announcements and spin.

I often think about this. I think I have decided that open press conferences should be consitutionally mandates. The President should have to face the public and the press at least once a week throughout his term, and during the campaign there should be both compulsory debates and compulsory open press conferences. None of this stage managed bullshit.

Doonesbury says it well.

Re:Exactly my point

[stray]

I'd mod you up for that if I had the points.

For me, living in a small European country where you often hear politicians speaking freely in unscripted debates and interviews, it is really strange that you put up with a president puppet so far removed from the ordinary people. If it's all a staged show, how can you trust a leader?

I also was quite disappointed by the interview. It's pretty pointless to just publish carefully prepared sitting-on-the-fence talk, kind of like newspapers just publishing PR press releases instead of "independent" news (if there is such a thing).

Re:Exactly my point

[enthused i swear]

That happened, sort of.

http://www.boingboing.net/2004/06/29/president_bus h_accid.html

I warn you though, it's not pretty.

Re:Exactly my point

[maxpublic]

In a free country you never trust your leaders; you always question their actions and intentions, never taking your eye off the ball. It's the only way to keep them honest.

Max

Re:Exactly my point

[Tony]

In a free country you never trust your leaders; you always question their actions and intentions, never taking your eye off the ball. It's the only way to keep them honest.

God, if only that were true for the majority of people.

As it is, we have people like Ann Coulter saying it is treasonous to question the president, let alone attack his policies. We have "Free Speech Zones" safely removed from political arenas.

But I think there are more of us that question than the current (and recent-past) administrations might believe.

I hope.

Re:Exactly my point

[strike2867]

Is this what happens to Blair? BTW the current administration is doing everything it can to stop, or at least limit the debates with Kerry. They did the same thing with Gore.

Re:Exactly my point

[Coryoth]

Is this what happens to Blair?

Have you seen any of the very regular open press grillings that Blair was undergoing when there was the scandal over how doctored the WMD reports on Iraq were? He had to field plenty of hard questions, and anything short of a very good answer only got him pounded with even more pointed questions. So yes, that's exactly what Blair gets.

Jedidiah.

Re:Exactly my point

[guyo26]

The UK has this, it's called Question Time or Parliamentary Questions (PQs) Note also that the questions and answered are published in book form.

Something we could well copy from them, although I admit that it's highly unlikely under the current adminstration.

Re:Nuclear, not Nucular you idiot!

[Anonymous Coward]

Heartless? How the hell is he getting heart attacks every five minutes then?

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting discussion. Religion, especially where Christianity is concerned, is geared up to give people answers to the fundamental questions of why are we here. These answers are pretty haphazard (Everything was made in 7 Days, Homosexuality is said to be evil/wrong, etc. etc. ) and God is said to have written the bible. So if you believe the bible you must believe it all because its the word of God. If you believe it has been tainted by men you have to decide what you want to take from a book like that, and the only way to do that is to take the logical and beautiful parts of it rather than the bits that you feel are corrupted by men.

Re:Religeon

[Weh]

you cannot prove that the earth is not the center of the universe. The center of the universe may theoretically be located under my keyboard's shift key for example.

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that it's done well at predicting things before. Example: King Cyrus overthrowing Babylon. Example: Alexander the Great's kingdom splitting into four subdivisions. It was predicted in the book of Daniel and historians confirm it occurred: link.

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

"Science and religion simply cover different aspects of the world."

Not quite.

Science attempts to explain the real world, but religion only provides fantasies, often quite bizarre ones. That's why they call religion "religion" and not "science".

Signed:

The Least Reverend AC,
Chuch of the Holy Shit.

More Nuclear Weapon Research?

[Jakhel]

The work was needed, according to a confidential Pentagon document, to determine whether the United States' earth-penetrating nuclear weapons could be used to destroy deeply buried bunkers in other nations that might house chemical or biological weapons.

In addition, Bush argues that the work will invigorate the minds of nuclear-weapons scientists and help them to respond more quickly to new threats. Such researchers have been consigned to maintaining the nation's stockpile of nearly 9,000 weapons since the end of the cold war.


So you mean to tell me that the 9000 nuclear bombs we already have that can destroy the human species 100,000 times over isn't enough? I guess we need bigger and better bombs so we can take out EVERYTHING, even cockroaches.

Re:More Nuclear Weapon Research?

[Paulrothrock]

If we don't get rid of the cockroaches, we'll have a population gap!

With apologies to Mr. Kubrick

Re:More Nuclear Weapon Research?

[NotClever]

Just to quibble with your math, according to you, each nuclear weapon can destroy humanity 11 times over. Given that two weapons were dropped on Japan, I'm surprised there is anyone left over there (although to be fair, they were much less powerful than the modern city busters). Of course, many nuclear weapons were tested in the 50s, 60s and 70s, and some of those were the monsters... and yet not only do I live, but I along with everyone else haven't been killed 11+ times over!

An excellent idea

[SolemnDragon]

In fact, why not expand this to other issues? Why not require an on-the-spot literacy and basic knowledge test? I think that this would be a great idea, no leader left behind, and all. I may sound snarky, but i mean it. I'd love to see them have to answer some basic stuff. Things they really ought to know if they've got their hands on the purse strings and their finger on the button...

1. Which country does the US currently owe the most money to?

2. How much is one trillion, in millions?

(If you can't answer this, i don't want you spending my taxes. The English answer is often different from the American answer, too.)

3.a. What's the basic standard treatment for radiation sickness?

3.b. How thick should the walls of a fallout shelter be?

***

What else should be on the test?

Re:An excellent idea

[stray]

I'd like to hear them (well, the W anyway) answer some of these:

- How many sovereign countries are there in the world?

- How many world religions?

- Earth's circumference? Land surface? the U.S. land surface?

- How long does it take to cross the U.S. by car, east coast to west coast? How many timezones do you traverse? How much do you pay for the gas for this trip?

Have a public debate, randomly draw 10 questions like those out of a pool of 100, and let the candidates answer them.

I don't know any exact answers to any of these questions, but I think it would be very interesting to hear some unprepared guesses from the candidates, orally, with a bit of discussion about how they arrived at their answers.

You'd get to know the guys a lot better than by being inundated by election TV ads and smear campaigns.

Re:An excellent idea

[Alsee]

I fear Bush's first answer would be "one" and his second answer "two" (either you're with us or your against us).

After that your pop quiz exposes a blatant anti-Bush bais. Question three contains a four syllable word.

-

Re:An excellent idea

[CrkHead]

What else should be on the test?

Without removing your shoes, please count to twenty.

Re:An excellent idea

[tonywong]

I think that both leaders would fail this spot test:

1. What is the price of a loaf of bread in your home city? Milk?

2. Is $50 too much to pay for filling up your gas tank?

3. What is the average wait time to see a physician for your child's cold if you are a median income American?

Re:An excellent idea

[alkali]

The answer to your proposed question #2 ("Is $50 too much to pay for filling up your gas tank?") is no, incidentally.

Re:An excellent idea

[Idarubicin]

3.b. How thick should the walls of a fallout shelter be?

I'm pretty sure I'd be uncomfortable with the foreign policy of a national leader who was really familiar with fallout shelter design....

Re:An excellent idea

[Anonymous Coward]

How about the values of 2^2, 2^10, and 2^20. This is how terrorists are multiplying.

Re:An excellent idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I'd say - without the aid of google - :

- About 190

- Too many! No, seriously, there's Judaism (sp?), Catholicism, Prodestantism, Islam(ism?), Bhuddism, Zoerastrianism (that can't be the right spelling!), and Scientology (joke!) - that makes 6, plus or minus a couple

- 40000km ; 3/10 the total (cheat, I know!) ; 20000km^2

- 10 days ; 4 ; depends on the car, but about $200 (Cdn)

Now, with google, the answers are:

- 192 (Including East Timor)

- 22! (I knew there were too many, though that includes the serene rastafarians)

- 40,075.16 km (damn, I was close!) ; 148,300,000 km^2 (technically I was right, because the total is 510100000km^2) ; 9,161,923 km^2 (not even close! I should have known that..)

The final question is a little vague, depending on your driving habits, etc, so I won't bother googling it. Anyway, all of this goes to show you : 1. I'm not qualified to be President of the United States of America, and 2. I'm bored.

Adios,
AC

Re:An excellent idea

[Minna Kirai]

1. What is the price of a loaf of bread in your home city? Milk?

In the late 80s, reporters started springing these Qs onto candidates for fun. So today, their staff always reminds them the cost of bread, milk, and gas at the beginning of each new election. You'd have to be more creative to catch them. Try asking about a large pepperoni.

(Plus, on a smaller scale, the street price of milk is set by government regulation)

Re:An excellent idea

[drunkenbatman]

Funnily enough, you'd prolly have the most opposition to this from the teachers union. Teaching to the test and all.

quick summary for the impatient

[ghostlibrary]

For those who didn't RTFA, here's the answers:

Bush, questions 1-2, 4, 6-15: Yes, but no.
Kerry, questions 1, 6-15: Yes, but no.
Bush, questions 3, 5: No, but yes.
Kerry, questions 2-5: No, but yes. ... I can't believe I actually tallied these up.

Re:Religion

[Ignignot]

You are missing the point. Nobody is saying that science can replace religion. The previous poster's point was that the Christian faith in particular requires an attitude that is directly in opposition to the scientific process.

Only if you have to take the Bible literally. For example the Roman Catholic church reformed in the 60's to become much more liberal by normal Christian attitudes. Basically they say that if the Bible says "the Earth is flat" and then someone proves that it isn't, then the Bible was wrong. That's ok because it doesn't have to be taken for literal truth, or maybe someone messed up copying things along the way, or whatever. I have a fundamentalist geologist friend and he said "due to the abundance of evidence I can only say that the Earth is several billion years old." (I forget if it is billion or billions, sorry). Some religions and people are anti-science. But don't assume that Christians are all as shallow as you make them out to be. To semi-quote Neil Stephenson in Snowcrash - "Most smart people come to realize that 90% of the Bible is crap. The problem is they assume that the whole thing is crap, when that 10% is very important."

Re:Religeon

[Threni]

> Last I read the Bible it was a bit scant on information about quasars... but
> that isn't my point. I don't think they're turning to John Chapter III for
> guidance on where to point their telescopes. What you're saying is simply
> ridiculous.

What I said was that you can't use the bible to predict something. This is not a ridiculous statement.

> Why does faith exclude someone from a field that is largely based
> on hunches and guesswork?

Who's saying that faith excludes you from science? And hunches and guesswork may be ok (even required) for the early stages of the development of an idea, but then you have to use scientific tests to see if the idea can be made into a working theory, and it is for this part of the process that the bible is worthless.

GOP- The party of traitors and cowards!

[Anonymous Coward]

Only a traitor could still support AWOL Bush, the excuses Presidunce!

Re:GOP- The party of traitors and cowards!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice try. Before you start throwing the "traitor" and "coward" labels around, don't forget that Clinton avoided the military altogether.

No, a coward and a traitor would have caved in to the terrorist acts of 9/11. Instead, we have a President who led this country to liberate Afghanistan and Iraq. No, the job's not done, but the Democratic party has proven that for 8 years, they were more concerned with getting their willies waxed than protecting and ensuring the security of this country. The events of 9/11 didn't just miraculously happen once President Bush took office. This was an event that was planned for several years during the Clinton watch also.

And our involvement in Iraq is just as justified as WWII against Germany (they never attacked us), Korea (they never attacked us), Viet Nam (they never attacked us), and Bosnia (they never attacked us). Liberation has always been our premise for these wars.

And President Bush has put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and North Korea without firing a single shot. Somthing Clinton certainly didn't do. Clinton's inspection process was similar to the DEA calling up a drug dealer and saying "Hey, Mr. drug dealer, we're coming over next month to youe apartment to look for drugs. See you then." And then when they get there, they are stopped at the door by a guy saying "Um, you can't come in right now. Come back next week." And then they come back a week later to find a clean apartment. "Hmmm. No drugs here. He must not ne a drug dealer. Get on the phone and call that other drug dealer and let then know we'll be over next month..."

Re:GOP- The party of traitors and cowards!

[Anonymous Coward]

Before you start throwing the "traitor" and "coward" labels around, don't forget that Clinton avoided the military altogether.

Thats a real nice strawman you've got there, but in case it sliped your attention the candidates in the comming election are George W. Bush (R) and John Kerry (D), neither of which are Bill Clinton. What Clinton did or didn't do is irrelevent; the point matters in this election is that one candidate went to Vietnam and fought for his country alongside thousands of others, while the other stayed at home and went AWOL from his National Guard unit like the little coward he is.

Re:Religeon

[Keck]

Any president who reads the bible for help making presidential decisions cannot be pro-science,

As opposed to Kerry, who tries to affiliate himself with the Catholic Church to garner votes, only to be told by the Church itself to buzz off. Guess what? They're BOTH Politicians, and the parties really don't differ that much -- and the few things they differ on are divisive indeed. What they'd like you to ignore are all the similarities -- they're both plutocrats..

My point is, don't bank on a politician to be the source of change for the better. You can do more yourself, in a single day, to positively affect your own life and those around you than either Bush or Kerry can in 4 (or 8!) years.

you sir, are biased

[Anonymous Coward]

'The teacher associations are the single biggest democratic support = bias'

OH THANK YOU objective science republican, for telling us all the truth,based on your hard nosed research of the dirty facts. the 'single biggest democrat support' = 'teachers'. that '=' sign really makes it seem really really logical and scientific. wow thank you SOOOOO much. you genius objective truth man.

then of course there is 'accountability'. yes. like the multiple-trillion dollar national debt. i guess that is 'accountable' for republicans. oh wait its the democrats fault right? no, its not you dumb jerk-off. the republicans control congress too this time around so quit your stupid ass republican whining. and most of all,,,,

stop being a lying idiot

Re:Religeon

[Apreche]

Yes, that is because you are a wise person. However, most of the world is not as wise as you are. Some people, on both sides, believe religeon and science ARE mutually exclusive. There are people out there who think that their religeon is the truth of the world and that there was an Adam, an Eve, a great flood, a parted sea, etc. There are also some people who think that religeon is usless as a set of moral guidelines to live a better life because science is right, making religeon wrong.

I've never met him, but it appears to be that our current president is in the first category. That is the cause of much of the anger against him from the scientific community.

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, considering that he was an alchemist who also dabbled in natural philosophy, I guess you could be correct...

Re:Religeon

[stromthurman]

First, it's a Bush vs. Kerry piece on slashdot concerning science, a definite fire hazard. And to make the situation all the more flammable, the assertion is made that pro-science and pro-religion are mutually exclusive ideas.

Science and religion can co-exist, for evidence I submit Isaac Newton, as a classic example, and Dr. Donald Knuth, as a more modern one. Donald Knuth has written a number of papers and books on the topic of computer science, as well as having written "3:16", which offers analysis of Chatper 3, Verse 16 of every book in the bible.

One need not reject science to be religious, and one need not reject religion to be scientific.

Best episode ever

[caitsith01]

That episode is so funny, it was tempting to put the whole thing in. IMHO the funniest Simpsons ever...

Clinton Aide: People are becoming a bit confused by the way you and your opponent are... well... constantly holding hands.

Dole-alien: The politics of failure have failed. We must make them work again.

Bob Dole: What the hell is this? Some kind of tube?

Kodos: I am Clin-Ton. As overlord, all will kneel trembling before me and obey my brutal commands. End communication.
Marge: That's Slick Willy for you, always with the smooth talk.

Re:Best episode ever

[DaHat]

When quoting that episode we must not forget 2 important quotes:

"We must go forward, not backward. Upward, not forward, and always twirling, twirling towards freedom!"

Not to mention:

Kang: "Abortions for all!"
Crowd: *boos*
Kang: "Very well, Abortions for none!"
Crowd: *boos*
Kang: "Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!"
Crowd *cheers*

Re:Best episode ever

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Funny, maybe. So hurtfully true, it's scary.

Re:Best episode ever

[el-spectre]

So... is this like, meta-desperation or something?

Is this really Bush v Kerry? Implications of Q6.

[Mixel]

Question6, Bush: "a critically important experiment to test the feasibility of nuclear fusion as a source of electricity and hydrogen" July 13th 2004, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham: "a critically important experiment to test the feasibility of nuclear fusion as a source of electricity and hydrogen" Firstly, ITER as a source of hydrogen? I know ITER might spur the hydrogen producers, but then could this equally say ITER would be a source of deuterium (heavy hydrogen) and tritium (heavy-heavy hydrogen). Huh? Secondly, are these the words of our much loved Mr. Bush or did he just copy and paste some of Spencer Abraham's memos? This looks more like a 'whole party' thing.

Re:Religeon

[Weh]

If you study the enlightenment you will see that christianity has done much to further scientific thought. I am not implying in any way that christian religious organizations have never done anything to impede science btw. Contrary to your claims christianity is not incompatible with scientific thought.

Mr. Pres, how many times have you been arrested?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would love to see what the "excuses presidunce" has to say about that!

Printable Version

[Crouching Turbo]

PDF Version

It's a PDF, but it's much easier to read. I hate clicking a bunch of links to read a simple article.

Re:Religeon

[Nichen]

Any president who reads the bible for help making presidential decisions cannot be pro-science,

That's an incredibly closeminded opinion, even with the "president" distinction. I read the Bible as part of my faith, yet am still interested in science enough to have degrees in mechanical and petroleum engineering, and following a career using that knowledge. Look to morality if you want to blame religion for any hindering of science; cloning people falls into this category, whereas topics such as the Kyoto Treaty and greenhouse gas control are grounded in economic-political ideology, with adequate science backing both sides of the debate.

At any rate, all these answers look pretty canned. There's some differences in mostly environmental and nuclear arms issues, but both candidates are saying the same rhetoric. Besides, both candidates profess to be of the same religion, so I guess their opinions on science don't matter anyways.

Re:Religeon

[gowen]

they're both plutocrats.

Which is why most of us would be much happier if they were running for the presidency of Pluto.

Re:Religeon

[MCraigW]

The Bible is not self-consistent. The Bible makes claims that contradict observable phenomenon. The Christian faith requires people to make assumptions against available evidence. The Bible is inherently anti-science.

Can you give some specific examples? The Bible is interpreted in a large variety of ways by Christians. Some believe that the creation was in a literal, earth time, seven days. Others believe that the seven days are just figurative. In most any case where the Bible may seem to contradict science, it can be interpreted as being figurative, or poetic.

Personally, I'm an atheist, but I don't see religion or Christianity as standing in opposition to science.

Wasn't Einstein Jewish? Did't he believe in God?

Re:Religeon

[sgant]

I'm an athiest, yet I don't need a set of rules written down in a book to know what is right and wrong. My morals are consistent also.

I've heard this argument before, but I just don't get it. Do you honestly feel that an athiest is some kind of wild-man who runs around in a totally sociopathic way?

Come on...

getting rid of radio-activity instead of material?

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article linked to the story poster: Yucca Mountain as a possible repository for the nation's nuclear waste - but fierce disputes over whether the site might leak radioactive material have held up its construction ever since

I have a question that's so simplistic that I expect it's stupid. Admittedly I don't understand the facts about nuclear waste, but here goes ....

Can nuclear waste not be totally incinerated? I assume if this is possible then it will become carbon that is .... less radioactive?

Alternatively, is there no process that can change the structure of the atoms so they are not radio active anymore?

/me puts flame hat on ... and posts anonymously just to be safe.

Re:Religeon

[turgid]

1st Corollary : Any slashdotter who cannot spell Religion is unlikely to have informed, intelligen opinions on the subject.

With logic like that, you should vote Republican. Some dyslexics are highly intelligent and knowlegeable. Now I'm off to the warehouse to meet my lady for tonight.

Re:Religeon

[Linux is shit]

Religion and science are not mutually exclusive

On the contrary, they are mutually exclusive. Religion means building a view of the universe based on myths, old-wives tales and cult brainwashing. In religion, nothing can be questioned or challenged, for example Christians cannot challenge what is written in the Bible, even if it is obviously false. Religion tries to explain things by making up absurd stories about gods rather than looking for the simplest logical explanations. Even when these stories are found to be false, anyone claiming such is persecuted.

Science on the other hand builds a view of the universe by observing it and constructing logical theories to explain it. If a theory is shown to be false, it is changed, scientists seek a better theory rather than sticking to the old one even when it has been proven false.

This is why science and religion can never co-exist. Science means challenging long-held theories whereas religion means having 'faith' in them no matter what.

As elegant as science is, and as helpful as it has been to the world around us, it has no room for things like morality.

Neither does religion. Religions can't make people more moral, all they do is brainwash people in thinking certain actions are moral and certain actions are immoral. Whether they are or not is irrelevent, if that's what the old religious leaders who wrote the Bible, Koran etc. thought, that's what you have to think yourself if you follow the religion. There is no room for actually deciding whether something is moral or not, you just follow the dogma and persecute anyone who doesn't.

Religion and science are not mutually exclusive

[Anonymous Coward]

..unless you listen to republican propaganda.

You may be enlightened enough to realize that religion and science can "get along", but your statement about science "not having any room for morality" makes me think you are just posturing. Ever heard of Bertrand Russell? Religion doesn't have a monopoly on ethics or morals. It just acts like it.

Please don't take my lack of flaming you and your fellow theists as holier than thou ignoramouses as an indication that I don't feel that way.

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose Issac Newton is then disqualified as scientist. As well as Raymond Damadian, inventor if the MRI. And these others as well:

• Francis Bacon (1561-1626) Scientific method
• Johann Kepler (1571-1630) Scientific astronomy
• Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) Hydrostatics; Barometer
• Robert Boyle (1627-1691) Chemistry; Gas dynamics
• Isaac Barrow (1630-1677) Professor of Mathematics
• William Kirby (1759-1850) Entomologist
• Jedidiah Morse (1761-1826) Geographer
• Benjamin Barton (1766-1815) Botanist; Zoologist
• David Brewster (1781-1868) Optical mineralogy, kaleidoscope
• William Buckland (1784-1856) Geologist
• Michael Faraday (1791-1867) Electro magnetics; field theory, Generator
• Samuel F. B. Morse (1791-1872) Telegraph
• Charles Babbage (1792-1871) Operations research; Computer science; Ophthalmoscope
• Joseph Henry (1797-1878) Electric motor; Galvanometer
• James Glaisher (1809-1903) Meteorology
• Philip H. Gosse (1810-1888) Ornithologist; Zoology
• James Joule (1818-1889) Thermodynamics
• Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819-1900) Astronomy
• George Stokes (1819-1903) Fluid Mechanics
• Rudolph Virchow (1821-1902) Pathology
• Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) Genetics
• Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization
• Henri Fabre (1823-1915) Entomology of living insects
• William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824-1907) Energetics; Absolute temperatures; Atlantic cable
• William Huggins (1824-1910) Astral spectrometry
• Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866) Non-Euclidean geometries
• Joseph Lister (1827-1912) Antiseptic surgery
• James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) Electrodynamics; Statistical thermodynamics
• John Ambrose Fleming (1849-1945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic valve
• George Washington Carver (1864-1943) Inventor

Yep, looks like belief in the Bible certainly prevents one from make sound decisions.

Re:Is this really Bush v Kerry? Implications of Q6

[Mixel]

Talking to oneself ain't good, but so is the lack of line breaks...

On ITER:

Question6, Bush: "a critically important experiment to test the feasibility of nuclear fusion as a source of electricity and hydrogen"

July 13th 2004, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham [energy.gov]: "a critically important experiment to test the feasibility of nuclear fusion as a source of electricity and hydrogen"

Firstly, ITER as a source of hydrogen? I know ITER might spur the hydrogen producers, but then could this equally say ITER would be a source of deuterium (heavy hydrogen) and tritium (heavy-heavy hydrogen). Huh?

Secondly, are these the words of our much loved Mr. Bush or did he just copy and paste some of Spencer Abraham's memos? This looks more like a 'whole party' thing.

Re:Religeon

[pjt33]

I fear I may be getting into a flamewar, but if you're claiming that it's impossible to believe in a Creator God and miracles at the same time as valuing scientific research then you make myself and many I know out to be either non-existent or self-deluding.

Re:Religion

[Digz]

Not so. I am Catholic, and fairly well-versed on apologetics.

Vatican II changed nothing of the faith. It was a pastoral council that changed only the expression of liturgy and language used to make the Faith more understandable to the modern world. Nothing of the faith changed.

The Church has always realized that Sacred Scripture is not a science textbook. The Bible is the story of how God relates to man and man's response. Many literary devices are used that seem to be non-sensical in modern English, but are in harmony and make perfect sense when you understand Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek prophetic language.

A perfect example is the whole "Left Behind" group nowadays which states that Christ will come not two times but three. (When He comes back the second, He will only be "in the clouds", so that's not a "real" coming back). What they neglect to notice is that the phraseology of "coming on clouds" in the Bible represents God's judgement. Ergo, when Christ comes back the second time it will be as Judge.

Many things in scripture use Hebrew prophetic language, and you have to understand the culture to understand the message. The Bible was not written outside of its culture as a message only for those 2,000 - 6,000 years later. It had relevance to the people each part was written to at the time, and you have to know the background to get a true sense of what Scripture is saying.

If you are really interested in this, check out a book entitled "Making Sense Out Of Scripture" by Mark Shea.

Actually Bush stands to lose the "Christian Right"

[ShatteredDream]

By supporting Arlen Spectre over his challenger, Bush basically guaranteed that any of his allegedly anti-abortion judicial candidates would be "Borked" again. It was Spectre, a republican, that went off like a rabid attack dog on Bork when IIRC Bush senior was trying to get him approved. And do you know what the irony of it is? Bork is the kind of conservative that would have ripped Microsoft a new asshole on its anti-trust case if it had gone to the SCotUS.

Between his support for spectre, illegal alien amnesty, spending like a stripper with a stolen credit card, new entitlements and his equivocation on supporting Israel he stands to lose the Christian Right from the comments I've been reading on right-of-center sites. Most of them are not commentary sites either, but forums like FreeRepublic.

Unfortunately most of these guys will be deusch bags in 2004 and would stay home rather than vote for Petruka the Constitution Party candidate. Why? If it ain't the big guy, and it ain't their big guy, no point in voting. Most of them are probably working class or barely in the middle class because they cannot connect two simple facts: if they came out and voted LP or CP instead of voting for Bush, the minor parties would get so many votes that the RP would be howling in pain in 2004 and would be whoring itself out to the right to get its base back. But they won't do that, so why should the Republicans give a flying fuck about the Christian Right anymore?

As I have often quipped, we libertarians are the principled on the right, the "christian right" aren't principled, their voting habits show it. Rather they are merely the spoiled brats of the right.

This really bears repeating...

[gurutechanimal]

...but you cannot have a religious fundamentalist oil baron as president and expect him to respect pure science. I would take it a step further and say that you cannot have a truly religious person be impartial, unbiased, and untainted when making any type of policy-wide science-related decision. It's oil and water; religion and science just don't gel. Oh yeah, people say then can and do, but those people are usually of the religiously inclined, who are trying to stay true to their belief system without looking like a progress-hating ignoramous.

Slightly off-topic but relevant, I was having this discussion with a colleague. I posited that in a perfect political system, a politician would not be allowed to run for president; instead, we should only nominate and elect outgoing, well-versed, and apolitical scholars, with advanced degrees in areas pertinent to running a nation, such as economics, sociology, or whatnot. My colleagues rebuttal was that such people would not want the type of lifestyle that comes along with being El Presidente, thus would never even enter themselves in the running. Therefore, we continue to elect former actors, pure politicians, and shady businessmen to our highest office, thus perpetuating our current kakistocracy.

Suckage begets suckage.

Re:This really bears repeating...

[cascadingstylesheet]

I would take it a step further and say that you cannot have a truly religious person be impartial, unbiased, and untainted when making any type of policy-wide science-related decision. It's oil and water; religion and science just don't gel. Oh yeah, people say then can and do, but those people are usually of the religiously inclined, who are trying to stay true to their belief system without looking like a progress-hating ignoramous.

Another way of saying that is: If you are religiously inclined, you may not like being bashed, so you try to explain to the basher why he is wrong. If you are not religiously inclined, you can either just remain silent, or join in the bashing.

Re:This really bears repeating...

[cascadingstylesheet]

...but you cannot have a religious fundamentalist oil baron as president and expect him to respect pure science. I would take it a step further and say that you cannot have a truly religious person be impartial, unbiased, and untainted when making any type of policy-wide science-related decision. It's oil and water; religion and science just don't gel. Oh yeah, people say then can and do, but those people are usually of the religiously inclined, who are trying to stay true to their belief system without looking like a progress-hating ignoramous.

Sorry to reply twice, but this is a separate thought.

Does it really "bear repeating"? Is it like a new idea, completely unexplored by the news media and pop culture? Will we not hear this point of view if you don't repeat it?

Do you realize that this is the completely conventional, mainstream view of pop culture?

Re:This really bears repeating...

[Jesus IS the Devil]

In that case neither one should be president. In fact most if not ALL past presidents, according to you are unfit presidents. After all they all say they pray, and often talk about god to the American people.

Personally I don't think they're all religious. Many just pretend to be, in order to get the support of religious nuts. But that's politics.

I'd love to one day see a president hopeful openly declare that he is agnostic. Better yet declare he's Buddhist or some other non-Christian believer.

Re:This really bears repeating...

[rjstanford]

My colleagues rebuttal was that such people would not want the type of lifestyle that comes along with being El Presidente, thus would never even enter themselves in the running.

And that's the way it was at first. The reason that you don't have term limits, and that the jobs of President, Congresscritter, et cetera pay quite well is that when they were created, nobody really expected people to want to stay in them forever. It was a challenge to get good, qualified candidates.

Re:This really bears repeating...

[mikeee]

And I posit that in a perfect economic system, all my needs would be taken care of by magical singing rainbow ponies.

Who is going to decide who qualifies as 'outgoing, well-versed, and apolitical scholars, with advanced degrees'? You? Big Brother? The Council of Guardians?

Democracy is a bad system, but it is the best.

Re:This really bears repeating...

[sangdrax]

What bullshit. Religion and science can mix perfectly. If they wouldn't, why are so many of the great scientists of the past religious? They don't bite each other since they focus on different things. Its only when you let one dictate the other when things go wrong.

Re:This really bears repeating...

[sabinm]

but you cannot have a religious fundamentalist oil baron as president and expect him to respect pure science. I would take it a step further and say that you cannot have a truly religious person be impartial, unbiased, and untainted when making any type of policy-wide science-related decision.

Yes, because religous folk are the only ones who have biased opinions about things. The truth is, all people have a biased opinion about something. Most people support the science that supports them and ignore the science that doesn't support thier view of their universe. It's part of human behavior. It's insulting to nonreligious folk to say that they don't have a value or moral system. This value and moral system is just as powerful as a religous person's just different in many ways.

eg. How many atheist believe it is ok to steal, murder? How many atheists are for peace? Did they come to this reasoning by purely scientific measures? Do they themselves form a value system that based on their environment and behavior? if they do, then they basically believe the same things that religous folks do, just with different motivation. To say that that motivation is selfless and impartial is frighteningly blind. The best that we can do is choose who we feel will best fulfil the responsibility of the office and watch him/her whatever they may or may not believe and hold them accountable when they break faith with their madate from the electorate.

Re:This really bears repeating...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson

It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. -Thomas Jefferson

The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
-- John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity." --Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

Re:This really bears repeating...

[Anonymous Coward]

George Washington (1732-1799)
1st Elected President of the United States

"The United States is in no manner founded on Christian principle."

--Treaty of Tripoli

James Madison (1751-1836)
4th President of the United States

"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion to all other sects?"

-- A Memorial and Remonstrance addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785

"In the Papal System, Government and religion are in a manner consolidated, and that is found to be the worst of Government."

-- To Adams, 1832

Re:This really bears repeating...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's kind of hard to call Bush an oil baron. More like an oil baronet.

Re:This really bears repeating...

[Keck]

It's oil and water; religion and science just don't gel. Oh yeah, people say then can and do, but those people are usually of the religiously inclined, who are trying to stay true to their belief system without looking like a progress-hating ignoramous.

Wow, what staggering generalizations and overall ignorance. "religion and science don't gel" is simply too general of a statement to take seriously. Are you saying that people who say the two might be somewhat compatible are never the *scientifically inclined* who don't dismiss things out of hand without proper evidence? (I.e. like you probably are?) The truth is that science and religion occupy slightly different realms, and nothing precludes a person from participating fully in both at the same time. A person who completely excludes religion for nothing but science has made a religion of science, anyway.

we should only nominate and elect outgoing, well-versed, and apolitical scholars, with advanced degrees in areas pertinent to running a nation, such as economics, sociology, or whatnot.

Because nobody else exists or counts, right? Stop worshipping academia, lest it interfere with your education. Academia is as much of a Cathedral as the Catholic Church is, complete with sacred cows and scarlet letters. Hope you aren't fooling yourself about that. I also hope you don't belive that a "perfect political system" is achieveable. You only described your preferred political system. Also, please describe for me how an 'apolitical' person behaves. You clearly don't understand anything about human nature, politics, science, or religion, at any broad level. You sound like you might know more about some microcosm of science, but not in any larger sense.

Suckage begets suckage.

Which explains most of this thread..

Re:This really bears repeating...

[meringuoid]

Nobody who actually wants to rule people should be allowed to do so; their motives are inherently suspect.

We need a leader who does not know he is the leader. A solipsist in a shack somewhere with a cat, that's the ticket.

Re:This really bears repeating...

[Just Some Guy]

Also, please describe for me how an 'apolitical' person behaves.

Why, people just like me, of course! I and those like me think only of the general welfare of the world, while those who disagree are obviously close-minded bigots bent on creating a fascist state.

You've nailed the problem exactly. Everyone believe that they're acting on pure rationality while their opponents are idiots - if they weren't, after all, they'd see the world in the exact same way.

Apolitical indeed. If such a personal actually exists, then they're too sheltered to do the job. Just because Douglas Adams wrote a funny story about such a person doesn't make it a good idea.

Re:This really bears repeating...

[lowen]

Science is a religion.

As to a scholar being president; been there, done that. Got a World War out of it (I know that's a broad sweeping generalization, but, since Everything That Happens During a President's Term is His Fault (TM)....). Woodrow Wilson.

Re:This really bears repeating...

[maxpublic]

I don't think putting "well-versed" scholars in charge of the government would be a terribly wise move. Let's not forget that in the past these so-called scholars actively promoted beliefs like social darwinism, eugenics, forced sterilization of 'criminal elements', and other atrocities - all in the name of science.

I'd never in a million years put a sociologist or psychologist in a position of authority. Nor a Keynesian economist, for that matter. I'm not interested in groupthink or socialist economics, thanks.

If you want a truly representative government that owes no party affiliation, then do the following:

- make all congressional terms four years in length

- no one may serve more than one term

- pick all congressmen by lottery, just like jury duty. You can refuse, of course - but then you risk the possibility that someone with ideas contrary to your own will be next down on the list.

I really can't see how this system could be any worse than the one we have now. Even better, such a Congress probably wouldn't get a whole lot done, which means the rest of us would have little fear from government interference.

Max

Re:This really bears repeating...

[matrix0f8h]

You mean one can focus on two seperate things without them interfering with one another? So one would need to seperate their religious mind from their scientific mind.

They should make up a word for this situation.

Re:This really bears repeating...

[willjohnson]

Plato called this person the philosopher king.

Re:This really bears repeating...

[aardvarkjoe]

You, on the other hand, atheist_gospel@yahoo.com, are of course perfectly qualified to make "impartial, unbiased, and untainted" on the subject of religion and science.

Re:This really bears repeating...

[Anonymous Coward]

i often thought that i am actually the leader of a country or well a computer is reading my thoughts and then making policy for a country that exsists in the "real world". its actually a good idea to have random people in charge i think.

make the term one year and just pick names out of a hat to decide who gets elected. could be the christian fundementalist down the street, could be your mom.. who knows!! amerika is wacky like that!!

is what they will say

Re:This really bears repeating...

[Ibn al-Hazardous]

I would take it a step further and say that you cannot have a truly religious person be impartial, unbiased, and untainted when making any type of policy-wide science-related decision. It's oil and water; religion and science just don't gel.

Now, I would respect that as a scientific standpoint if you actually have a personal experience of a religious inclination. But then, I would still only view it as one standpoint, and gather a couple more equally well founded standpoints - and after that I would have a somewhat usefull standpoint. Until then, you're a troll - regardless of /. mod points.

But then again, I'm a religious green from Old Europe - who have been dabbling some in science, who have an atheistic scientist for a father, and who ended up a priest. So what do I know?

Re:Religeon

[thelaw]

With logic like that, you should vote Republican. Some dyslexics are highly intelligent and knowlegeable.

Like, for example, President George W. Bush. HBS doesn't hand out MBAs like candy, you know. In the 60's Yale didn't hand out A's in Japanese and History like candy, either, although they do now.

Jon

Re:Religeon

[TykeClone]

Science is man's attempt to determine the rules of nature set forth by God.

Re:Religeon

[hairykrishna]

I never got this. Many religious people have told me that science and religion are not mutually exclusive but it has always appeared to me that they fundamentally are. Can someone explain it?

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this post Insightful?

The parent doubts that George W. actually reads the Bible. Because the parent knows the President? Because the parent knows someone who knows the President? Because the parent has read a biography of the President? I doubt very much that the parent has any actual knowledge to support his uninformed attack. I doubt very much that the parent has actually read anything on the subject that constitutes legitimate news. I bet that the parent beats his wife. [Now, stop and consider the actual argument before you charge blindly at the large red cape.]

The parent won't list specifics because they just might make people consider equivocal "facts" that contradict his prejudices. For instance, embryonic stem cell research: nobody disputes that the cells exist, nobody disputes that the cells can be cultured, NOBODY disputes that there is no pratical application for the technology as of yet, and NOBODY disputes that the miracle treatments that are cited as a motivation for the research are speculative. The dispute is not over science, the dispute is over philosophy, specifically the branch of philosophy known as ethics. Science says that your second kidney is redundant and transplantable, ethics says that I can't toss you in an operating room and forcibly remove your kidney to transplant it into my wife.

The Presidents' views on ethics differ from yours. The President's priorities on present versus future issues differ from yours. These are hardly examples of "medieval views" on science. These are hardly examples of my views on any of these issues, but I will at least attempt to properly characterize the man's beliefs as I disagree with them.

I think...

[thegnu]

...you could make things less radioactive by EATING them.

Yup. That would do it

Re:err...

[Compact Dick]

You can make what you want of it, dear AC :-)

Re:Religeon

[Refrag]

it has no room for things like morality.

Neither does religion. Or are you forgetting the Crusades, Holocaust, and Jihad? I could go on and on, but these three should suffice to prove just how little religion has to say about morality.

Re:Religeon

[Linux is shit]

He's also pro-life AND pro-war, go figure.

There's nothing contradictory about that. He thinks that unborn feotuses shouldn't be aborted, and he thinks that some wars are justified, there is no contradiction there. You might have a point if he had a policy of deliberately killing random people, but it's not like he set out to kill as many Iraqi civilians as possible.

There are plenty of legitimate ways to criticise George Bush, you don't need to resort to cheap shots.

Re:getting rid of radio-activity instead of materi

[PoorLenore]

Radiation is a consequence of the instability of the nuclei of certain atoms. The process of burning only affects the bonds between atoms, not the nuclei of individual atoms. When you burn wood, the resulting by-products do contain carbon, it's true, but only because carbon atoms existed in the wood, to start with. If you burn magnesium, for example, you get oxides of magnesium, but no carbon, because there was no carbon to start with. There are processes which can change the nuclei of certain atoms, converting them to material which is 'less' radioactive before they're disposed of, but I'm afraid I don't have the details of them: anyone else care to contribute? As for being flamed for asking reasonable science questions: I would hope that the majority of readers would have more contempt for the flamer than the flamee.

Re:Religion

[sgant]

This is all very interesting...but the "Church" has nothing to do with Bush...as he's not even Catholic but adheres to a much more rigid form: Born-Again Christian. The Born-Again Christians whom I've met in person and have had many talks with belive that the Church is the spawn of Satan...I'm not making that up folks, no joke.

While being an athiest, I DO see where you're coming from and it would certainly be an interesting evening if you and I were to sit down and have a conversation...but I've yet to have an interesting one with a "born-again" who feels in the absolute truth and validity of the Bible and everything...EVERYTHING in it.

Re:Religeon

[DarkSarin]

First off, this is NOT insightful. What tripe!

I know a good many scientists who are very religious also. I may not agree with their particular views on religion, but there is nothing in them that makes them non-scientific or non-religious.

As far as I see it, religion and science are simply two different domains, as they are generally seen. Science is the rigorous search for facts. Religion is the rigorous search for hope, and probably even trying to be a better person.

That said, there are certain religions that violate this: my own religion, for instance, lays claim to all "truth", regardless of its source. That is, we accept as true, those scientific theories and laws which are reasonably well established.

As for reading the Bible (biblios in greek, I believe, which simply meant BOOK!) for help in making presidential decisions, I can only say that there are worse sources of information. After all, he could be reading hustler for advice, which seems to be what a certain other president was doing. (it's a joke).

The Bible has some really interesting insights into decision making and human interaction. Some of it is very old advice, and some of it seems contradictory, but I think many of Bush's detractors would agree that a little more of the "love your enemies" part of the Bible is not such a bad thing.

Sorry, being pro-science is not defined by your willingness to use the bible or not. That is the worst type of non-scientific illogical thinking.

As a side note, having Read the Fun Article, I am disturbed by the way they openly state that they edited Bush's comments, but in reading those comments there are no ellipses, nor other denotation that they eliminated any information. I expected more from a mag. like Nature, and am truly dissappointed. From the viewpoint of a graduate student working on a thesis, I would be ripped to shreds for that type of work. Editing comments should be avoided at all cost (after all, the site was equipped to deal with longer replies), but when necessary it should be obvious where and how.

Re:Religion

[TGK]

The Catholic Church (wow, I never thought I'd hear my self say this).... the Catholic Church has taken a surprisingly liberal view on the sciences recently, and has endured the wrath of the religious right in the United States because of it.

I'm not going to get into the whole abortion debate here, because fundamentally that's a personal decision and religion really should have nothing to do with it at the legislative/judicial level. Nonetheless, the Catholics while still endorsing "God Guided Evolution" (last I checked) also still buy into a number of other apocryphal stories in the Old Testament such as Noah and that guy who got eaten by the whale (Johna?).

What the Church needs to do is step back and say one way or the other "The Bible contains passages which may be metaphorical" or "The Bible should be taken literally at all times." If you're willing to admit the former, you need to be willing to allow the individual to judge what is Metaphorical and what is not for themselves. Obviously the Church has it within her power to take exception to this from time to time through the Pope's power of speaking Ex Cathedra.

Still, were the Church to view things in this way it would set a powerful precedent for the rest of the world and might just allow some of the Authoritarian Theocratic States (like the USA) to accomplish something in the sciences.

Obviously there are portions of the Bible that are important. That whole "love they neighbor" thing can make for a pretty decent place to live. But you can buy into that without agreeing with the bit about Adam living to be 900 or so.

summary of responses

[Anonymous Coward]

On most of the questions the responses from the candidates were equally uninformative. Overall I was impressed with the use of actual figures and specific plans in the Bush responses, versus the vague generalizations and even clearly ambiguous answers on questions like Mars and ballistic missile defenses that Kerry gave.

For the slightly interesting questions, here is the summary of responses(I am sure that Bush did not write his responses personally; for Kerry I am unsure, but I suspect that he didn't either):

Stem cell research: Bush quotes amounts of federal money given for stem cell research, whereas Kerry promises to allow federal funding of stem cell research on new lines. Scientists interested in stem cell research will all prefer Kerry's response.

Nuclear weapons: Bush promises to fund development of new types of nuclear weapons, Kerry promises not to.

Ballistic missile defense: Bush promises to deploy a system within the next two years, Kerry promises not to deploy the system Bush proposes for immediate deployment. No word on whether Kerry plans to continue funding research or eventually deploy a different system.

Greenhouse gas emmisions: Bush quotes previously announced goal of 18% reduction in US greenhouse gas emissions. Kerry promises to join Kyoto protocol.

Space science: Bush quotes Mars mission plan. Kerry promises that NASA will be given sufficient support for any future missions he proposes. No mention of any planned mission proposals, and it implies that he will can the Mars mission plan, although it doesn't say that explicitly.

Re:summary of responses

[Diplo]

Kerry promises to join Kyoto protocol.

Furthermore, a Kerry-Edwards administration will not sign up to the Kyoto Protocol, partly because the short-term goals are unfeasible, says Devona Dolliole, a spokeswoman for the campaign. She says that they want to develop an alternative to Kyoto with more achievable targets.

Climate Change Overview

Mod parent up!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is insightfull stuff here.

Re:Religeon

[Ender Ryan]

Isaac Newton could barely co-exist with himself. He is NOT a good example for your point.

OTOH, I do take your point, and I'll point out another person who I really admire, Larry Wall. Wall is a very unconventional computer scientist, but a great one, IMO. Perhaps he doesn't rank up there with Newton or Knuth, but I don't care.

But don't limit your selection to Christians. Einstein was an orthodox Jew, and is the most well known scientist of the last century.

Re:Religeon

[Digz]

If you really want a good expounding on this line of arguement, read "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. He gives a better presentation (although in somewhat dated language by this point) than most armchair theologians you'll hear.

It's a short book as well.

Both candidates prohibit some kinds of R&D

[peter303]

Bush wants to prohibit research on reproductive research- stems cells and sexual sociology. Kerry wants to prohibit R&D on next generation nuclear weapons and anti-missile technology. I think limiting R&D of most any kind is counter productive in the long term. Some other country will do it.

Re:Both candidates prohibit some kinds of R&D

[mrchaotica]

Does Kerry want to prohibit nuclear weapons research, or just not do it? By that I mean that Bush is prohibiting stem-cell research by cancelling funding for any institution that performs it, even their funding for other areas of reasearch. Would Kerry punish nuclear researchers the same way?

Re:getting rid of radio-activity instead of materi

[Tyndmyr]

Im no expert on the subject, but all the radioactive fuels I know of are heavy metals...certainly not flammable. I doubt excessive heat would accomplish anything except melting the waste into pretty shapes. Fumes would probably be lethal, too. Radioactice stuff will eventually decay, but I don't believe theres any practical way to make any signifigant quantity non-radioactive. Reprocessing used fuel to squeeze as much out of it as they can helps, but the problem still exists. Basically, the goal is to just contain it somewhere nobody cares about until it (eventually) gets relatively non-radioactive. To learn more about it, go google half-life & radioactive.

Re:Religeon

[FlimFlamboyant]

Any president who reads the bible for help making presidential decisions cannot be pro-science,

By implication, then, you're saying that anything that is pro-science is automatically anti-Bible. That's about as foolish as me saying that every "scientific" reference in the Quran is wrong, having never read it in it's entirety. For that matter, what many Bible-opposers latch on to as "science" today in fact is not science at all. Much of which is based not upon what we can observe, but by presumptions based upon the results of actions that supposedly took place X millions of years ago.

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

at least he wasn't a coward who hid behind an anonymous post.

He was insightful. Go pray to your invisible man.

COME ON moderators

Re:Religeon

[MCraigW]

Geez, I find myself defending religion when I'm an athiest...

http://www.makeitclear.org/edevotional1-1.htm is a web site that talks about the science of the Bible.

Personally, I believe that the Bible was the Encyclopedia Brittanica of it's day, the science of the time.

In every answer Kerry pledges spend more money.

[geremy]

In answer to just about every single question, Kerry pledges to do more, fund more, oversee more, and spend more.

Sure, that is all well and good, but if he is actually elected he will realize that it will surely be impossible to do all that he has pledged, even with all the increases in Taxes that he has planned.

I saw Bush's answers as much more definative and realistic.

Re:In every answer Kerry pledges spend more money.

[draxredd]

surely by cutting a good 200 Billions (Irak) in expenses should allow to invest in more productive and positive activities ?
don't you think ?

no... of course you don't

Re:In every answer Kerry pledges spend more money.

[geremy]

Maybe if that were Kerry's plan, but as we all know Kerry has no plan for Iraq. He nor his campaign have ever once mentioned pulling out of Iraq.

Re:In every answer Kerry pledges spend more money.

[marsu_k]

Given how GWB has managed to turn a decent budget surplus into a record-breaking deficit in just four years, I'd say he knows how to spend as well.

Re:In every answer Kerry pledges spend more money.

[HeghmoH]

Given the relatively amounts of money spent in science, all of Kerry's proposals could probably be paid for by simply rolling back half of Bush's massive defense spending increase.

Re:In every answer Kerry pledges spend more money.

[geremy]

Off topic:
The US has never maintained a balanced budget or budget surplus during a time of war.

While the budget is record-breaking in dollar amount, it is still under 2.9% GDP.

Reagan asserted that budget deficits don't harm the economy. Clinton proved it.

Re:In every answer Kerry pledges spend more money.

[mrchaotica]

Considering the tax cuts Bush is so interested in, is all the stuff he wants to do even possible?

Re:In every answer Kerry pledges spend more money.

[Ndog]

Kerry pledges more money, while Bush spends it.

The expansive agenda President Bush laid out at the Republican National Convention was missing a price tag, but administration figures show the total is likely to be well in excess of $3 trillion over a decade. A staple of Bush's stump speech is his claim that his Democratic challenger, John F. Kerry, has proposed $2 trillion in long-term spending, a figure the Massachusetts senator's campaign calls exaggerated. But the cost of the new tax breaks and spending outlined by Bush at the GOP convention far eclipses that of the Kerry plan.

Re:In every answer Kerry pledges spend more money.

[chitownIrish]

The US has never maintained a balanced budget or budget surplus during a time of war.

We also have never had a President insisting on tax cuts during a time of war. Dubya threatened to veto the $87 Billion last year if it rolled back any tax cuts.

While the budget is record-breaking in dollar amount, it is still under 2.9% GDP

The debt is growing with each annual deficit, and service on that debt is an increasing drag on the country. Last years service on the debt was over $300 Billion. And an increasing amount of that debt is owed to countries like China that may not always be dependable friends.

Reagan asserted that budget deficits don't harm the economy. Clinton proved it.

How, by eliminating the deficit?

Re:In every answer Kerry pledges spend more money.

[Shotgun]

The "decent budget surplus" was the figment of an accountants imagination, based on overly optimistic forcast grounded in a stock and technology bubble. The deficit was alway there, but was exacerbated by a recession and a defensive war (we were attacked first).

Or would you have our troops fight with spitballs.

I live in North Carolina. I love how John Edwards runs around telling everyone that Bush drove jobs away, and that as president he'll bring them back. My question is always, "So what did you do while you were in the SENATE!!"

Re:In every answer Kerry pledges spend more money.

[tommyServ0]

Yeah, it's almost like 9/11 and the Clinton Recession hurt our economy.

Oh wait, we're not supposed to take those into consideration. Carry on with the gratuitous back-patting, Bush haters. I'd hate to see you actually weigh every piece of the equation.

Re:In every answer Kerry pledges spend more money.

[Guuge]

Wrong. Kerry plans to pull the troops out of Iraq in his first term.

This is a presidential election, people! Take the time to do a little research on the candidates. A vote cast in ignorance is not a vote for democracy.

Re:In every answer Kerry pledges spend more money.

[marsu_k]

Or would you have our troops fight with spitballs.

As I'm not American myself, yes, I would ;-)

Re:In every answer Kerry pledges spend more money.

[geremy]

Not according to johnkerry.com

In fact Kerry plans to send more troops to Iraq if the military commanders request more, and his main plan is to convince NATO of its responsibility to send soldiers to Iraq to make the troop contingent a more internationaly led force.

There is no mention of bringing pulling US troops out of Iraq at all.

Do you have a source?

Re:In every answer Kerry pledges spend more money.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it isn't a record breaking deficit. The deficit itself is larger... but most of it was inherited from previous administrations.

How much did Slick Willy pay off on the deficit during his reign? All that prosperity, all those surpluses, and Slick Willy just spent, spent, spent.

Double standards don't work here. Record-breaking deficit is a misnomer by the left-leaning media. Besides, look at how much recovery we've had. I doubt we'll have a deficit for much longer.

Re:Religeon

[Disevidence]

Your claptrap was modded insightful? Sheesh.

I have an extremely consistent set of morals, and so do 99.9% of atheists. The only difference between Christians and Atheists is that Christians feel the (annoying) need to evangelize their "morals", while Atheists have their own inner guidance. And before some religious nut pipes up, Atheistism doesn't inherently mean moral relativity, actually quite the opposite.

Re:Religeon

[Keck]

Heh! You have a nice /. id# -- almost reminds me of 2^(1/2)...

Re:Religeon

[stromthurman]

I had actually planned to use Einstein as well, but the original poster specifically referenced the bible, so I wanted to stick with Christian figures.

It's a pity I did that though, since Einstein has the great quote of "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

And, also, you're right, Newton was probably not the strongest case builder, especially given his.. character (for more info, take a look at what he did to Leibniz, although it's important to note that the Leibniz's notation (dy/dx) is the one most commonly used today.)

Re:Religion

[Refrag]

To semi-quote Neil Stephenson in Snowcrash - "Most smart people come to realize that 90% of the Bible is crap. The problem is they assume that the whole thing is crap, when that 10% is very important."

Neil is wrong. If 90% of a source is crap but happens to be correct about 10% of its content, then clearly that source is a bad place to look for information about that remaining 10%. There is clearly a better place to look for information on that content.

Re:Religeon

[thelaw]

The Bible is not self-consistent. The Bible makes claims that contradict observable phenomenon. The Christian faith requires people to make assumptions against available evidence. The Bible is inherently anti-science.

Christians read the Bible as if it came from a teacher, not as a textbook. As a result, Christians differ over what parts they think refer to historical narrative, and which ones are meant to instruct philosophically or morally or theologically.

For example, no Christian reads the Hebrew Proverbs as if each one of the proverbs is always true in all circumstances, in all possible ways. Proverbs is a book of proverbial wisdom, that is, a book of instruction in how to live wisely. In general, following the proverbial wisdom will lead to a more prosperous life than living otherwise, and people understand that. The Gospel of Mark, however, is understood by all Christians to be a historical narrative. The book is clearly intended to be read that way, as it refers to specific people in specific places, many of which are historically verifiable. The book of Revelation, obviously, doesn't work quite that way.

The most-debated books with regard to historical narrativity are the first few chapters of Genesis, Job, Esther, and John. The rest are understood to be historical narrative. Whether or not you agree that it is true historical narrative, it is obvious that certain books are intended to be read that way (1/2 Kings, Exodus, Ruth, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts), and others not (Isaiah, Romans, Revelation, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon).

Despite your previous comments, the Old and New Testament Scriptures have shown themselves to be reliable in the vast majority of archaeological findings. Don't trust my judgment -- take a look at the Biblical Archaeology Society, hardly a bastion of evangelical fervor.

Jon

How do you know what 'sanity' is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did your High-Priest^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HSchool Psychologists teach you how to do a coffeeshop sanity evaluation, or something?

Anyone who assesses someone on the basis of 'sanity' is a pawn for the Holy Church of Psych. There are no authorities on sanity, fool!

Re:AWOL BUSH, THE EXCUSES PRESIDUNCE!

[monomakh]

That's easy: when the facts contradict the ideology, those unreliable, liberal-biased facts must go.

You mean he served in "Indochine"

[ianscot]

he's a haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat who, by the way, served in Vietnam.

Perhaps not coincidentally, the French also were involved in Vietnam, as its colonial power. Will John Kerry's nefarious weak-kneed continental foppishness never cease to disgust red-blooded Americans?

The "Wait a minute, don't you think he looks kind of... French...?" moment may have been as low a moment for the American electoral process as Karl Rove's South Carolina push polls implying John McCain had sired a mixed-race child out of wedlock. Hear all about it from McCain's own campaign people.

Not that the "Frenchie" thing was near as disturbing, as a tactic -- it didn't smack so outrageously of the most extreme possible "Southern Strategy." But it was if anything even more puerile, which has got to be a record.

Re:You mean he served in "Indochine"

[Eslyjah]

Good one -- Indochine. I may use that.

Yes, push polls are bad, and the SC ones were really bad. Both sides do it, though. Democratic ones in black districts are also particularly bad.

Re:You mean he served in "Indochine"

[Anonymous Coward]

The sad fact of the matter is that American national politics have devolved into a race for the Springer vote. It seems like the political tactics in play are designed to so disgust anyone with an IQ over 80 that they can't in good faith cast a vote for either major party candidate. This leaves the vast waves of malleable and mediocre Americans, who shun book lurnin and for whom Jerry Springer is a journalistic force, to elect the president. Welcome to the United States of Banality, Yeah!

Re:You mean he served in "Indochine"

[Anonymous Coward]

You mentioned Jerry Springer. Did you know that he started his career as a politican and may run for office again?

I found the following fascinating. After about a 5 minute intro they do a 30 minute story about Springer. If you have time, listen to it. It is much more interesting than you might think:

http://www.thislife.org/ra/258.ram

Re:You mean he served in "Indochine"

[Skjellifetti]

The "Wait a minute, don't you think he looks kind of... French...?" moment may have been as low a moment for the American electoral process as Karl Rove's South Carolina push polls implying John McCain had sired a mixed-race child out of wedlock. Hear all about it from McCain's own campaign people.

My wife and I adopted a daughter from S. Asia and this smear campaign is the reason that I will never, ever vote for W. Bush may have beat McCain, but there are in excess of 10K int'l adoptions in the US every year where the kid came from a 3rd world country. Hmmm. 10K kids @ 2 parents each x 4 years is maybe 80K votes that W's tactics could cost him (more if you add in those parents that adopted more than 4 years ago). He won FL by, what, 800 votes? The adoptive parents alone could cost him his job.

Re:You mean he served in "Indochine"

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the whole "French" thing with Kerry is nothing compared to the fact that the pummeling "McCain" took in the last election was only proof that the Bush administration are willing and will gladly "eat their own" to get a vote.

Re:Religeon

[pebs]

Says who? Religion and science are not mutually exclusive, although most slashdotters' simplistic attitudes fail to reflect this.

Well true, but... Christianity and science ARE mutually exclusive.

Take a look at Eastern philosophy and you will find much of it reflected in science and many areas where it overlaps. Not so with the closed-mindedness of Christianity.

Re:Religeon

[gowen]

HBS doesn't hand out MBAs like candy, you know.

How do we know this. GWB is from a highly influential (and wealthy family). Is there any evidence/transcripts that its intelligence rather than influence that saw GWB accepted at and graduated from these prestigious institutions?

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

At least a Christian has (ideally, I realize this is not always so) a somewhat consistent set of morals to base their decisions on.

The Bible doesn't offer anything of the sort. You really trust the Bible to give you a decent set of morals when it simultaneously tells you that a) God loves you and b) if you don't do what he says he will send you to a place where you will be tortured forever?

I would be fairly scared (regardless of the fact that I'm a christian) of someone in power who had no set of beliefs other than "Do what you can rationalize to yourself"

At least it's rational though! An irrational belief in a book that tells you that somebody who loved God tried to kill his own son and was rewarded for it is a scary thing.

Re:Religeon

[SomeoneGotMyNick]

And God/Religion started as archaic man's attempt to explain the magic of nature and science.

As Seen on TV

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually he read "My Pet Goat" to find decisions while the entire country was upside down on one fine day in September three years ago.

Call in the Expert!

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

I was going tow write a responce, but I'm not the most informed person on the subject. I'll let someone more knowledgeble than I make the point.

Re:Religeon

[roughshod_coder]

Aside, if by "invisible" you mean dead then Galileo must be an "invisible" man whose teachings drive your faith in science. Catholics follow the teachings of Christ who was as flesh and blood as Galileo. Please try to keep to the subject instead of quipping your profound and original witticisms about the Preisthood.

On subject, politics use the Bible as a scapegoat for their own needs. It is not to stifle science but as a re-election tool to garner votes from those who would like to stifle science with their beliefs.

Trust no one that puts all their faith in science and religion. Goodness knows scientific beliefs have as many factions as religions do and as rabid zealots as the religious purists. Trust those and please elect those who speak with wisdom and do not site their decisions based on talking to God or on unproven science.

And, please people try to be mature about the entire science/religion rift. Neither is ever going away so try to coexist and lose the egos whether for or against, b/c in too many cases both sides are wrong in many cases.

Re:Religeon

[NeoSkandranon]

All of them? No, and my apologies, I wasn't trying to make it seem as if all athiests thought along those lines.

Most of the athiests I've spoken with hold the other line of belief though--that within certain bounds, right and wrong can change (and 'right' is usually 'right for me') with the situation

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

Religion means building a view of the universe based on myths, old-wives tales and cult brainwashing.

Good to see that objectivity is alive and well in the scientific community!

Re:Religeon

[TGK]

I think you've got a good point here, but that you're being unnecessarily confrontational and that your point risks being lost in that.

Allow me to paraphrase:

Religion and Science are mutually exclusive because Science is built around the Scientific Process. Through this process of hypothesis and conclusion a theory can be disproved and shown to be wrong. Observable evidence from the physical world can be applied to a conjecture about the physical world and can be used to show that conjecture as true or false.

Religion does not have what are called "falsifiable" hypotheses. In other words, Religion puts forth explanations for which no evidence can be collected.

A Scientific Statement is one like "This ball drops to the floor because of a force called gravity which acts on all things."

A Religious Statement is one like "This ball drops to the floor because the Gods want it to and they reach out and pull it to the floor."

I can collect evidence for or against the Gravity hypothesis. We can argue over it and come to a meaningful conclusion. The Gods hypothesis is unfalsifiable because no matter what evidence I bring to the table you can say "The Gods didn't want your ball to fall" and that's the end of the discussion.

As elegant as science is, and as helpful as it has been to the world around us, it has no room for things like morality.

That's a bit misleading. It's not that Science doesn't have room for morality; it's that Science doesn't address the issue. I'm sure that somewhere someone has compiled a sociological study of what behaviors are required of the individual in a utopian society. These could be considered a scientific moral code if you wanted to think of them that way. Religion fuses moral judgments with an attempt to explain the world. These are better separated. If you have thoughts on how a person should treat another person or thing, those thoughts are your own. There is nothing unscientific about your willingness to live by those beliefs or to encourage others to live by them. We can even scientifically demonstrate which beliefs make the people around you happy and angry and by extension which are more suited to the social community we live in (a Scientific pursuit). What we can't do is say that behavior X is desirable because a deity requires it. Morality is about how you interact with yourself and your world. If you don't want to eat pork, fine, don't eat pork. Don't tell me it's because God doesn't like pork though. Even God's gotta have a reason not to like bacon.

Re:Religeon

[JollyFinn]

I must tell you few things. About mixing religion and science. When science becomes a religion and is taken as a religious stance WITHOUT significant backing in bible people get really wrong.

For instance. Flat world. That was SCIENCE stance long time ago. And catholic church made that part of the religion instead of taking what bible said. [Earth is ROUND. Without making stance weather its 2D round or 3D round, as we don't know if there is different word for each form of round at the ancient hebrew.] Now the religion took the issue that was not anyway in its domain and made it a static decision its this way period.

Plenty of scientists on several universities are christian fundamentalists and do a serious research.
Also there is plenty of scientists that have made their own view of the matter as strong religion to them and have strong believe in it even against facts.

If we would talk about evolution, as its the most common argument ground, most of what we call science in that part is mostly a gues work and trusting the deductions based on the quesses. Now people make observations then theories and if some observations fit the theory they deduce *ALL* the theory must be true. Instead of seeing that if some FAIL the theory then theory must have flaws.

How many generations early birds didn't breath because of LARGE change in the lungs with impossible to breath with out ALL the changes happening at same time on TWO birds one female and one male and they just happen to mate each other ?
There are plenty of symbiotic animals, which happened first, the symbiot found WHICH of the symbiots adapted to other first?
Now what started the big bang?
Where does the material and energy in big bang come from?

There are plenty of issues with the evolution and its a ONE belief system that just happens to be common. I believe in God who reused some code. Some believe everything is just a result from random factors. Not saying which one is true, everyone hope he/she is correct in his stance.

Re:Religeon

[sgant]

This is all fine and good, but why did you post as a Coward? If you really feel this way, sing it to the stars!

Also, my post was ment to be funny. Do I really think the President throws rocks at the sun?

But as for my statement about how I feel that he probably doesn't really read the bible? It's a guess, to be sure. But from what I know of the man and from his past actions, my informed "guess"...and yes, it's still a guess...is that his "born again" attitude and bible thumping is just for votes. Can I prove that? Of course not. I can't know what's in the man's heart.

But you know, I'd respect him more if it WAS an act and if he only did it for the votes.

FWIW

[ravenspear]

I consider myself a Christian and lean towards the right on most issues, and I will definitely NOT be voting for Bush in Nov.

Re:FWIW

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I am anti-Christian - not just atheist, but actually anti-Christian, as I actively promote a hatred of Christianity and Christians - and I won't be voting for him, either. Isn't it cool we're on the same side? :)

Re:Religeon

[genrader]

Uhhh because it is a moral thing that our country was founded upon? If it wasn't for the Bible, we probably wouldn't be here.

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

So when the universe eventually collapses you'll be forced to type in all caps?

Re:Religeon

[cluckshot]

Lets be a bit more practical here. I was raised Christian and as I grew up I began to realize that if the Christian belief statements were correct then what I was learning in Science Class was not correct. The issue wasn't the basic stuff but evolution, the age of the earth etc. Something there was quite incompatable. All due respect to my Catholic friends who believe in evolution but there is no point in any religion if you believe that you are the product of evolution.

Because science facts may be verified I began to undertake to check some of the assumptions of the evolution science teachings. Religion on the other hand may be taken on faith. I looked pretty deep. I could go into depths too far for a /. post but I began to find that Evolution Science was as full of holes as a swiss cheese. Then I began looking into its history and I learned that it was merely a competing religion to Christianity justifying some pretty bad behavior on the part of its followers.

In a more serious note: The religion of "Bush" is entirely for public consumption. He is more than willing to bed down with the worst thieves of corporate history and has no morals regards his comittments to his friends like keeping campaign promices. He shows no loyalty to the USA subjecting its people to a trade war by their own government and claiming that this piracy is good for the economy. He has repeatedly chosen to place our Congress and State Legislatures below the authority of the dictatorship in the WTO in Switzerland. At his direction we no longer have the authority to pass laws for our own health and safety without this shadow dictatorship being able to override them!

I have no doubt he prays, but when he gets up he preys on our freedom and prosperity. History is full of men who used religion to fool the populace but who themselves acted outside of any of the beliefs of that religion.

Special note to those who might be tempted to take this as a Pro Kerry statement. IT IS NOT! To evaluate one man honestly is not an evaluation of another. I merely report what is the condition of Mr. Bush(43) here. Mr. Kerry has his own problems with beliefs and facts.

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

unfortunately, lots of Christians use morality as a codeword for bigotry.

Bogus!

[beef3k]

This has got to be bogus.

I can actually read and understand Dubbyahs answers.

Re:Bogus!

[exspecto]

That's because he didn't write them.

Re:Religeon

[cyxxon]

I actually do not think that the parent is "Funny". While at first it seems so, for me as an atheist both the bible and LOTR are in essence stories, with the main difference that over one of these story books wars were fought.

I do realize that there are some truths in the bible (names, places, events, ...), but so are in other books which nobody with a sane mind would take as non-fiction (pick a random piece of literature).

My point now is that I find it highly dangerous when somebody with as much power as the president of the USA seeks truth in a book which might be "90% crap" (see above), and (ab)uses his power based on guidance based on this book. Is it based on the 90%? Or the 10%? Who decides what passages of the bible fall into which category? What about people in his influence that do not see the bible as binding or guiding?

Re:Religion

[li99sh79]

I had actually planned to use Einstein as well, but the original poster specifically referenced the bible, so I wanted to stick with Christian figures.

Darwin was a pretty devout Christian as I recall. And Copernicus and Gregor Mendol were both monks. In general Christianity and Science are most definately compatible. Evangelical, Fundamentalist Christianity is a different kettle of fish.

-sam

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

". Do you honestly feel that an athiest is some kind of wild-man who runs around in a totally sociopathic way?"

HaHaHa, ironically its typically religios folks, who tend to do this.

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there any evidence that the Illuminati weren't responsible for seeing that GWB was accepted at and graduated from these prestigious institutions?

None what so ever! I rest my case.

Re:Religeon

[cynic10508]

That's simply ridiculous to say. I'm not W lover, but c'mon. The Catholic church is doing some spectacular astronomy research; and last I checked they read the Bible for guidance in decisions. Religion and science don't have to be at odds.

Glad somebody pointed that out. The majority of what the Bible discusses is purely metaphysical, i.e. without the ability to prove it via science. Furthermore, the Bible also discusses ethics and the behaviors for living a good life. That's not science. That's philosophy, of which ethics is a necessary subset of any religion but can be regarded seperate of the metaphysical assertions of said religion.

One Republican response to magazines

[ianscot]

First of all, it is regularly pointed out [admittedly by Republicans] that Nature is politically far left.

I used to work in a series of book stores. (It was my job to set up "superstores" for one of the big chains, back when those were new and cool.) I'll never forget the indignant customer who approached me one day at the register to unload an accusation that our magazine rack was decidedly slanted to the left. This came as a mild surprise to me -- our magazine choices were extensive, you know how big those racks are, and I'd seen the inventory list many times in the process of setting up the stores without thinking I saw any particular bias. Was I simply sleepwalking past this problem?

So, good-natured service person that I was, I asked this customer to explain to me how we might correct the problem, and to maybe suggest alternative titles we could carry to make up the balance. Told her I'd send the suggestions in to the General Office.

She had plenty to say against basically every title on the shelf. Time Magazine? Newsweek? US News & World Report? The Economist? Completely liberal. Every news magazine we carried that wasn't edited by William F. Buckley was also ultra-liberal. That we even carried Columbia Journalism Review irked her -- that was for the media, itself horribly liberal.

She had one suggestion for an alternative title we could carry -- it was a niche political publication that didn't distribute to our area of the Midwest. Otherwise she wanted me to remove titles from the rack. Several titles.

There was only one magazine this woman had a dilemma over: "Girls and Guns" magazine. Guns she seemed to be okay with -- but she suspected there was something not quite right about "girls" that would buy it.

When you issue your little "wrong side of the river" fatwas against opposing opinions, you can count me out of the distribution list.

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

In.

Sure it has. You are more likely to survive if you work as a group.. those that are predisposed to work as a group will survive, the ones that don't die out... over thousands of years we get a natural "morality" learned as a species because certain things tend to piss others off and well, that makes the group a less functional unit.

How do you reconcile the fact that there are moral people that don't have or believe in any form of religion or higher power? Are they all without morals? Or do you refuse to believe that I or those like me exist? Those that have no religion, no god, no afterlife, yet continue to act more selflessly than those around us that have all of the above to believe in and look forward to?

Religion != Science

[rmdyer]

Religion is exactly 100 percent 180 degrees from science. Anyone who thinks otherwise is thinking wrong. Wrong as in "not correct". Wrong as in "untruthful". Wrong as in 1 = 2. Wrong as in black = white.

Anyone who states that religion isn't mutually exclusive from science believes in miracles and is most likely religious in the first place. I cannot even fathom the depths of illogic that goes on in thinking that way. Religion is about picking an idea about the way you think the world works and.....NEVER CHANGING IT. That is NOT the way science works. Science is about picking an idea about the way the world works and actually testing it to FIND OUT IF IT IS TRUE. True as in equal to reality. That is what truth means, an equivalence between the way you think the world works and the way it actually works.

The difference between those who truely believe in things and those who doubt is that those who doubt leave a wake of truths in their path.

I guess it isn't illogical that people who believe science isn't mutually exclusive from religion are themselves religious. Wake up.

Re:Religion != Science

[sadler121]

Religion is about picking an idea about the way you think the world works and.....NEVER CHANGING IT...

Funny, but I consider myself religious, and I constantly change my views, on everything. From the Nature of God, ( I don't even like the term "God"), to the true Nature of Jesus of Nazareth, (I don't like calling the man Jesus "Christ"). Those are just some that are off the top of my head.

Its funny that you say that religion traps you into only thinking one way, when, in fact I have always thought the opposite. Check out my post earlier, I mention that it is key to have an open mind as a requisite to acquiring ANY knowledge.

Jesus of Nazareth himself, as Joseph Smith puts it:

...received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness...

D&C 93: 13

Granted the thought that even Jesus of Nazareth sinned will start a Mormon crying blasphemy, still, I hold to the belief that we (inclusive of Jesus of Nazareth), are here on Earth are here to learn from our experiences, and better ourselves.

In many ways I am a Mormon Atheist, Deist. I see the terms "God", "Heavenly Father", and "Jesus Christ" as elitist references, and in believing whole heartedly that not only are with co-eternal with what we claim to be "God", we are also co-equal, (This one belief alone was the main reason the Jews wished to kill the man Jesus of Nazareth, because he claimed himself equal with "God").

For the most part I believe in the definition of a Deist, that "God", "...created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena...". Obviously I disagree with the last part that "God" gives "...no supernatural revelation."

Re:Religion != Science

[JimFromJersey]

Wrong as in 1 = 2

What about for very large values of 1

Re:Religion != Science

[Rei]

The thing is... Jesus *wasn't* of Nazareth. He was from Bethlahem. Perhaps Jesus the *Nazarene*, although that is certainly debatable.

Re:Religion != Science

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Your hypothesis has merit. We need to design an experiment that can falsify it, and then after many years of reproducing the results, it will become a foundational theory.

Here is my proposal for just such an experiment. We will need at least 5 different communities of random varieties of religious faith, and a control group of rabid atheists. Over a period of years, we will expose all of them to a random selection of scientific facts, unprovable pseudo-scientific factoids, moral proverbs, and prohibitions against certain behaviors.

Examples:

*Facts*
The speed of light in a vacuum is the absolute velocity possible under any concievable circumstance.
Earth-like planets are roughly spherical.

*Factoids*
Biological organisms evolve due to natural selection and mutations introduced by the occassional mutagenic radiation or chemical compoud.

*Moralisms*
Treat your fellow man as you yourself would wish to be treated.
It is a sin to murder.

*Prohibitions*
Do not steal.
Do not force others to do your bidding.

I theorize, that after a period of 10 years or less, we would begin to see striking statistical correlations in this experiment, the atheists would be more likely to reject the moralisms and the prohibitions, and the religious guinea pigs would reject things like gravity and microwave ovens.

This is only a preliminary proposal, feel free to submit modifications.

PS It is illogical to "guess" that people who believe (in the non-loaded sense of the word) that science isn't mutually exclusive from religion are religious. Logic dictates that you agree on a common set of definitions for these words not slanted to prove your point beforehand.

Re:Religion != Science

[sadler121]

The thing is... Jesus *wasn't* of Nazareth. He was from Bethlahem.

eh, it depends. Yeah he was born in Bethlehem, but he grew up in Nazareth. Jesus of Nazareth is how the Jews refer to him in the New Testament, (obviously overlooking his birth place).

Perhaps Jesus the *Nazarene*, although that is certainly debatable.

Its pretty well excepted that John the Baptist is considered a Nazarene, whether or not Jesus is, as you say, debatable, though if it was a debate I would also claim Jesus was an Essenes, just to raise the stakes a little ;-)

Completely off topic, but oh well...

Re:Religion != Science

[Anonymous Coward]

But you were not referred to by the city where you grew up in Hebrew tradition; you were referred to by the city in which you were born. He really should be "Jesus of Bethlehem", by tradition. Of course, some outright question whether he was from Bethlehem at all due to this - especially given that only two gospels mention the Bethlehem narrative.

Yeah, we're getting really off topic here ;)

uhhh, right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Manipulation of science: George Bush's presidency has suffered a rash of accusations that he is either ignoring or manipulating science.

This coming fom the community who have been backpeddling as fast as they can on "global warming" (because facts don't back it up) and now endlessly peddling their latest spin (drumroll please, are you ready?): "climate change". And that's just one of many, many... Funny, that.

(Score:-5, Rationalist)

Re:Religeon

[sgant]

"then Galileo must be an "invisible" man whose teachings drive your faith in science"

Nice...but at least Galileo's experiments and findings can all be reproduced and viewed in regards to the science in them. I have no "faith" in science as you tried in vain to turn it around. And of course, the jury is still out on if Christ existed as a flesh and blood person at all. So by "invisible" I mean myth, made up, story, fairy-tale etc etc. Did you really need me to point this out?

On subject, politics use the Bible as a scapegoat for their own needs. It is not to stifle science but as a re-election tool to garner votes from those who would like to stifle science with their beliefs.

Totally agree.

But you keep bringing up "faith" in science. I have no faith. I read what findings are or someones theory on something, digest them, and say "wow, that's interesting"...then move on with my life. I do agree though that there are many factions on both sides of the fence, including those that take science theory as science fact. ...please elect those who speak with wisdom and do not site their decisions based on talking to God or on unproven science.

Again, I totally agree.

Re:Religeon

[gowen]

President George W. Bush. HBS doesn't hand out MBAs like candy, you know

Lets look at some of the Business he's Administrated, shall we?

i) Arbusto Energy / Spectrum 7 (CEO, 1977-1986): Formed 1977, declared bankrupt, 1986.
ii) Harken Energy (director, 1986-1990) : GWB implicated for insider trading and accounting practices. 1992 SEC investigation still sealed. Made loss of over $20million.
iii) Texas Rangers baseball club (owner/managing partner, 1990-1994) : 383-379, for an entirely average .502 winning percentage.

So, that's two unmitigated financial disasters and a ballclub that defines "league average". If that's a model Harvard MBA student, perhaps they should consider tightening their syllabus up a little bit.

Re:Religeon

[Futurepower(R)]

You know even more that you have provoked people when far more famous bands campaign to get rid of you.

--
24 wars since WW2: Creating fear so rich people can profit.

Re:Religion

[mrchaotica]

...also still buy into a number of other apocryphal stories in the Old Testament such as Noah and that guy who got eaten by the whale (Johna?).

Actually, it's possible that Noah's flood actually happened. There's evidence of it in the stories of other cultures, notably the Mahabharata (Indian religious epic). Now, some of the details might be wrong (40 days and 40 nights, might have only been a regional flood, etc) and who knows about being commanded by God to build an ark, but the basic idea of "huge flood" is probably true.

Re:Religeon

[cynic10508]

Yes, that is because you are a wise person. However, most of the world is not as wise as you are. Some people, on both sides, believe religeon and science ARE mutually exclusive. There are people out there who think that their religeon is the truth of the world and that there was an Adam, an Eve, a great flood, a parted sea, etc. There are also some people who think that religeon is usless as a set of moral guidelines to live a better life because science is right, making religeon wrong. I've never met him, but it appears to be that our current president is in the first category. That is the cause of much of the anger against him from the scientific community.

This goes back to an argument by philosopher Peter Kreeft that I read in his book, A Refutation of Moral Relativism. We need to distinguish facts and beliefs. We can show that a certain person has a belief and that another person has the opposite. Now, we can't prove the fact behind the belief of something like, "God exists." But what we can say with certainty is that not both the person who believes in God and the person who doesn't believe God exists are correct because we can't prove that fact (although Descartes and Berkeley tried in their discussions on epistemology).

Re:Religeon

[MongooseKY]

Says who? Religion and science are not mutually exclusive, although most slashdotters' simplistic attitudes fail to reflect this. That's like saying that someone who enjoys music couldn't possibly be any good at nuclear physics.

That's not really a very good analogy, because I doubt you'll find many examples of music being used as a way to disprove nuclear physics, yet religion is oft used to try to debunk scientific ideas.

Re:Religeon

[Jack Pirate]

On the contrary, they are mutually exclusive. Religion means building a view of the universe based on myths, old-wives tales and cult brainwashing. In religion, nothing can be questioned or challenged, for example Christians cannot challenge what is written in the Bible, even if it is obviously false. Religion tries to explain things by making up absurd stories about gods rather than looking for the simplest logical explanations. Even when these stories are found to be false, anyone claiming such is persecuted.

Almost everything in the preceding paragraph goes against the typical modern Christian beliefs. First of all, contrary to popular belief, the Bible is almost entirely a collection of stories passed down from previous generations to make points about morality and God (especially the Old Testament). Very rarely does the Bible specifically say you should or should not behave a certain way without providing a story to demonstrate why following such a view will make you more spiritually "in tune" with God. Whether the minute details are historically accurate or not is irrelivant for this purpose.

As for the New Testament, whether you accept or deny Christ, the gospels are a collection of eye witness accounts of Jesus's miracles and messages. They should be read as such; it is the messages and trends that are important (of which I've never heard anyone claim inconsistencies), not the minute details (of which I've never found any inconsistencies).

Re:Religion

[LnxAddct]

Neil is wrong. If 90% of a source is crap but happens to be correct about 10% of its content, then clearly that source is a bad place to look for information about that remaining 10%. There is clearly a better place to look for information on that content.

Kinda like slashdot? :-)

Re:Religeon

[gfxguy]

I'm wondering how you fit the Holocaust into your list of evidence that religion has no morality... it wasn't like it was Christian fundamentalists that carried it out... the movement, if anything, was against religions... including Catholic and protestant clergy...

Overall, though, while you present a pretty valid argument, the problem is that there are power hungry people who simply use religion to recruit followers. When the people are ignorant, they will believe almost anything they are told by their leaders...

This accounts both for the inquisition AND the current Jihad... do you really think OBL is a true believer in the Koran? I don't. I think his followers are, but I think he's just a power hungry lunatic.... it happens all the time. Jim Jones, David Koresh, the puritan leaders and their short lived witch hunts... while some of these people might have been pretty psycho, the ultimate desire was power.

Certainly organized religion has butchered the teachings of the old writings, but that's besides the point... it's not a crusade against God you want, it's a crusade against those who use force in his name.

Yes, and...

[Anonymous Coward]

Einstein was an orthodox Jew, and is the most well known scientist of the last century.

It was Einstein who famously insisted that "God does not play dice" even when there was mounting evidence of the "truly random" effects in Quantum Mechanics. Just an example of someone's religion getting in the way of science.

Interesting Flash about 9/11 & Pentagon.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.nixtro.com/pentagon121.swf

Re:Interesting Flash about 9/11 & Pentagon.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, could you post where you got this vid, I'm intrested in doing more reading. Got more?

Re:Interesting Flash about 9/11 & Pentagon.

[toddestan]

Okay, this is getting offtopic. But anyway...

Along the same lines as the flash animation:
Hunt the Boeing!

Also, do a search for WTC 7, a building which "collapsed" hours after the Sept 11th attacks, under what most certainly was a controlled implosion.

Re:Mars.

[Anonymous Coward]

This was completely on topic, asshats. Someone mod this guy at least normal.

Re:Religeon

[kantai]

Wasn't Einstein Jewish? Did't he believe in God?

There is a distinct difference between a non-practicing Jewish scientist and a Christian leader that believes he rules by the word of God.

surely the best way...

[JaJ_D]

....to determine who wins is a no-holds barred, fight to the death. No problems with chad's, a brother's state, the man with the most number of votes losing, etc, etc..

Simply take both the candidates, lock them into a cage and have a gladitorial conflict to the death (or one quits).

I'm waiting for the Jessie/arnie showdown

with tongue firmly in cheek

Jaj

Obligatory SW quote

[Suit_N_Tie]

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Our Man Dubya

[Mark_MF-WN]

Dubya's reckless defecit spending has made the Canadian dollar strong again. If he gets to screw up the American economy for another fours years, Canadian may finally have a stronger dollar the US again! Mmmm, I can't wait to buy a cheap IPod. A vote for Dubya is a vote for all non-Americans (unless yer skin ain't white and yer sitting on a lot of oil).

Re:Our Man Dubya

[Obasan]

As a Canadian... don't be too happy about thing's going south, er, down south. Canada has had a trade surplus for many years now, for precisely one reason: the US buys lots, and lots of our stuff. (Particularly automobiles, our largest single export to the US.)

If their economy tanks, ours will follow shortly after. Without exports to the US we would have a VERY hefty export deficit. We're doing ok presently because the current state of the economy is "stall" not "plummet" and relatively responsible fiscal stewardship here (we're the only G7 nation with a budget surplus) has created a good environment for economic growth. That could change in a hurry if the primary buyer of our goods ends up mostly bankrupt.

Re:Our Man Dubya

[SuperCal]

I don't like the way the government is spending money either, but the devaluation of the dollar was a conscience decision. By lowering the value of a dollar, products produced in the US are cheaper on the world market. That protects US manufacturers/producers from imports and improves our ability to compete in global markets.

Because this plan makes imports more expensive, I think the plan would be more effective if we could develop some sort of energy policy that didn't evolve imported oil.

Of course, its only my take on things.

BTW I think the CDN is still weak. Compare it to the Euro and the rest of the world currency market, not just the US dollar... Of cource I did no fact checking, so I could be wrong here to.

What the...

[tgd]

I don't believe for a second that Bush could even successfully read his responses in there, much less understand what they mean.

Clearly the questions were provided in writing where others could answer, not verbally where they had to answer for themselves.

That makes both sets of answers largely meaningless.

Re:Religeon

[cynic10508]

On the contrary, they are mutually exclusive. Religion means building a view of the universe based on myths, old-wives tales and cult brainwashing. In religion, nothing can be questioned or challenged, for example Christians cannot challenge what is written in the Bible, even if it is obviously false. Religion tries to explain things by making up absurd stories about gods rather than looking for the simplest logical explanations. Even when these stories are found to be false, anyone claiming such is persecuted.

You speak of logic but seem to ignore every other area of philosophy, including metaphysics. Is metaphysics "old wives' tales" because it encompasses things we can't prove?

From a scientist: not just politics as usual

[DrRobin]

I rarely post here given signal-to-noise-ratio (and vehemence-to-knowledge-ratio) problems, but as an actual scientist and as someone who takes the responsibilities of citizenship seriously, I feel I should contribute to this thread in the faint hope of making some small difference.

I have been paying close attention to science policy since the Nixon years. Every administration, Republican and Democrat has had serious problems with its science policy, but in my opinion, and in the opinion of many of us old enough to have been there, there has never been an adminstration where Science was so badly distorted for ideological reasons. From climate change to missile defense to abortion to environmental toxins to the teaching of evolution, the Bush administration has made science subordinate to its ideological positions.

As others in this thread have noted, the actual printed responses in the Nature article are mostly unhelpful canned PR blurbs (and it is a scary sign of ideological polarization to see Nature, the world's most prestigious general scientific journal, described as "far left"), but it is important not to lose sight of the fact that this is not just politics as usual. There are plenty of conservatives and Republicans who are friends of good science, but there is nothing conservative about the Bush administration in this regard: they are radicals, in favor of science only when it supports their ideology.

This is terribly dangerous. To paraphrase the great physicist, Richard Feynman, (whom I first heard make statements like this when I was a student at Caltech): For any technological society to succeed, sound science must take precendence over ideological conviction, because nature cannot be fooled. In my opinion, the Bush administration's failure to understand this concept presents a grave danger to our country and to the world.

Re:From a scientist: not just politics as usual

[acroyear]

Feynman: For any technological society to succeed, sound science must take precendence over ideological conviction, because nature cannot be fooled.

Dr. Robin: In my opinion, the Bush administration's failure to understand this concept presents a grave danger to our country and to the world.

AH, but you missed something: The ultra-conservatives have long-since hijacked the phrase "Sound Science". They take advantage of the fact that most science is really just probabilities and management of uncertainties, to spread REAL uncertainty and doubt among the people. Thus, things that help the environment, based on "sound science", are really only happening because the damage has already been done (think Bush's recent grants to florida's everglades, prior to hurricane season).

Otherwise, they use "Sound Science" as an excuse to postpone ANY regulation of the environment (a-la the mountaintop-destroying mining going on in West Virginia right now, destroying millions of miles of rivers that will eventually have a direct impact on their own grand Potomac). Until is proven to be "Sound", it means nothing to them.

Re:From a scientist: not just politics as usual

[meringuoid]

For any technological society to succeed, sound science must take precendence over ideological conviction, because nature cannot be fooled.

For an example of this, read the unfortunate tale of Trofim Denisovich Lysenko. Soviet agriculture took decades to recover from this ideological distortion of science.

Re:From a scientist: not just politics as usual

[DrRobin]

I had not intended to reply to replies, but this post makes an important point that I think deserves emphasis in a more politically neutral fashion.

There exists a natural human tendency to apply flexible standards of evidence to emotionally charged topics: very lax standards for what is ideologically comforting but impossibly high standards of "proof" for hypotheses that are threatening to cherished beliefs. Though natural, when unchecked this process becomes terribly poisonous to reasoned debate in a democracy and it is incumbent upon citizens to push back against it, in ourselves as well as in others.

Strictly speaking, scientific theories are never proven true. Rather, scientific theories make specific falsifiable hypotheses that can be experimentally tested (though one has to avoid simplistic notions of what this entails). Reliable theories are those that have withstood many tests and have as yet failed to be falsified. Even more strictly, one can never absolutely even prove a scientific theory false; one can only force its adherents into ever more complex, tortured and ad hoc assertions in defense of the theory, trusting that as old adherents fade away and new minds view the data afresh, the implausibility of bad theories will eventually become apparent.

These notions are deep and subtle and I think honestly misunderstood by many otherwise reasonable people. Part of why the current administration is so bad with regard to science comes from the influence of those who understand the issues quite well, yet cynically use impossible demands for absolute proof as a way to block what they don't like (e.g. regulations on greenhouse gases), and absurdly low standards of evidence to promote what they want (e.g. the efficacy of of current anti-ballistic missile technology).

Part of the process of good science comes from clear and consistent definitions, so I think it is important to point out here the danger in the current vernacular use of conservative as synonomous with right-wing (and liberal with left-wing). One of the most dangerous aspects of the present administration is that policy is being shaped by right-wing radicals who are not at all conservative in the ordinary meaning of the term.

Re:From a scientist: not just politics as usual

[Sloppyjoes7]

"And because I am an 'actual scientist,' my opinions regarding science are obviously superior to those of any religious person.

After all, only agnostics or Atheists can be truly objective. All religious fanatics, Christians for example, filter science though their worldview, twisting science to fit their perspective. Rational people, like me, never let religious beliefs distract me. I am perfectly unbiased."

Or, could it be, that everyone is biased? That everyone filters evidence through their worldview? How else could two people look at the same information, and come to different conclusions?

It's because everyone has a different basis for belief. Scientists are as biased as pastors. Scientists often try and discredit religion, as they believe science is the end-all of everything there is. They think science caused everything, and absolutely everything can be explained through science. If that's not bias, what is?

Re:From a scientist: not just politics as usual

[mattkime]

Or, could it be, that everyone is biased?

No. When it comes to science, some people are right and some people are wrong. Its not like we're judging cheesecakes.

Re:From a scientist: not just politics as usual

[Sloppyjoes7]

Name one scientific law that cannot be broken.
And then state your proof that it has never been broken.

Re:From a scientist: not just politics as usual

[mattkime]

Name one scientific law that cannot be broken. And then state your proof that it has never been broken.

Gravity.The laws of gravity have never been broken. In the history of the physical interaction of objects, I can't find a case where its been broken.

Or would you like to submit evidence to the contrary?

Re:From a scientist: not just politics as usual

[Sloppyjoes7]

So, you have no evidence. It is your lack of evidence that proves your point.

Okay.

God. No one has ever disproven God. In the history of science and religion and experiments, no one has ever disproven his existence.

But, I guess I dodged your challenge. Evidence?
Okay.
Jesus walked on water. He broke the law of gravity.

But, you will probably instantly disregard this evidence. Why? Because you're biased against it. If you weren't biased, this evidence would be equal to anything Einstein or Newton did.

Re:From a scientist: not just politics as usual

[mattkime]

Are you serious man?

Based on that, you also can't disprove the existence of unicorns or that the center of the earth is inhabited by hitler imitating leprechauns. And apparently since we can't disprove that something exists, it does exist.

Also, I have a story about the leprechauns killing a unicorn. it happened because it says so in this book.

Don't agree with me about the unicorns and leprechauns? You're biased against it!

Re:From a scientist: not just politics as usual

[Sloppyjoes7]

Don't agree with me about the unicorns and leprechauns? You're biased against it!

Yes I am. I am biased against belief in leprechauns. Apparently you are too.
But the reason I stated that "God cannot be disproven; therefore he exists" theory, was to illustrate how outrageous such proof is. Saying "because I've never seen the law of gravity broken, gravity cannot be broken" is an equal fallacy.

Re:From a scientist: not just politics as usual

[firewrought]

Scientists are as biased as pastors.

I see two occupations. One group uses systematic processes. For their conclusions to be taken seriously, they must expose (1) assumptions, (2) observations, and (3) reasoning. In theory, and often in practice, anyone can come along behind them and retrace their footsteps to arrive at the same conclusion. Scientist, as it were, must play with their cards on the table.

The other group (pastors) do not operate with this constraint. Any idea can be presented so long as scripture is spinned correctly and the idea itself jives with the audience's expectations. Fringe represenatives of this group (witchdoctors, cult leaders, etc.) can claim Special Revelation from Above (or Below or Within) that nobody else has access to.

Maybe the pastor sees further than the scientist, but the latter seems to produce knowledge that is more strategic in the real world (viz., for winning wars, conquering disease, exploring space, bridging rivers, understanding weather, etc.).

Your point that "all are biased" is trivial. Knowledege is an extremely tricky and difficult terrain to navigate, but some biases are much more effective at boosting accurancy than others. At its core, science is just a process that tries to correct for known human tendencies; this process can and has been practiced by people of all religions and those of none.

Re:From a scientist: not just politics as usual

[acroyear]

preaching to the choir with me on the first few paragraphs (i started out as a physics major, and still regularly read sagan and feynman, among others.

As for the last, I understand the need for clear definitions, but I also understand the need to use semi-emotional connotative words, particularly when dealing with those who already do so. "Facts" only have a limited validity where strong emotion-grabbing words are used.

The current administration is best described as Reactionary, but nobody seems to use that term in common discussions or in the media anymore to the point that unlike "Liberal" or "Radical", its a word that lost meaning from disuse, as opposed to innappropriate overuse.

So no, the current administration isn't Radical (that's a term strictly used on the left side), its Reactionary. Their goal is a systematic restoration to the way things were (specifically, the 1870s when the Republican party had uncontested power, public morality was at a high point, corporations were unrestricted by most labor and anti-trust laws...and oddly enough government leaders were among the most corrupt in our history).

Radical to me means going to a state that has never existed before. In America, a Radical seeks to rewrite or disband entirely the existing constitution and/or economic structure. Reactionary just wants to go back to their interpretation of the constitution as being as it was in the past.

Re:From a scientist: not just politics as usual

[mattkime]

there is a difference between proving the existence of an object or entity and proving a law of physics.

a law of physics stands until a counter example is found, then it is revised.

to prove that something exists, you must present it, or its effects.

and on that basis, i'm sure we'd simply argue over what constitutes evidence of god and leprechauns. certainly, evidence of god is not as reliable and repeatable as evidence of light. repeatability is the main reason why no one has conclusively proved to the scientific community that god exists. i think there's a difference between having a rigid set of standards and having a bias. bias implies something a bit less logical

Re:From a scientist: not just politics as usual

[Anonymous Coward]

No one has ever disproven God. In the history of science and religion and experiments, no one has ever disproven his existence.

Can you prove that evidence disproving god does not exist?

I thought so.

Re:From a scientist: not just politics as usual

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you prove that evidence that disproves god does not exist?

Re:From a scientist: not just politics as usual

[Anonymous Coward]

It is NOT a fallacy. Every observation, experiment, and measurement of the interaction of physical objects ever done has shown them to obey the law of gravity, that is an overwhelming mountain of evidence in favor of it, and yet there has been found not a single whit of evidence against it.

Where's your measurement of God to balance the lack of evidence against it?

Proving that god does not exist is an attempt to prove a negative, which is impossible. What sort of "evidence" of its non existence could possibly exist? You can't measure, observe, or study something's non-existance. In stark contrast, proving that the law of gravity can be broken is an attempt to prove a positive -- i.e., this object under these forces disobeys the laws of physics. It can thus be *done*, so get to work, or else cease your groundless claims that all laws of science can be broken.

Re:From a scientist: not just politics as usual

[Anonymous Coward]

"so long as scripture is spinned correctly"

Most if not all of the Bible can be proven historically and verified through documentation dating from the period.

Re:From a scientist: not just politics as usual

[wwcohen]

Nature's quick blurb "Manipulation of Science" is in fact something we should all be concerned about. Yes, scientists have biases too - just as we all do - but the purpose of science is to look past preconceived notions, test them, and get at the facts, as much as is possible. So if you ask scientists to study a problem, like weather patterns, or the effectiveness of birth control methods, and then disregard the advice you get on the basis of prior, ideological/political considerations, there's something really wrong.

Sadly, the claim that Bush doesn't listen to scientists on scientific issues fits a pattern: he doesn't listen to economists on economic issues, and he doesn't listen to military professionals on military issues. I guess this is why the Republicans are selling him as "decisive", and avoiding any discussion of the actual outcomes of his decisions.

Re:Religeon

[NarrMaster]

Let me get this straight..... you do and don't do things based on christian morals, i.e. a big man in the sky says its good/bad. And you're the one that is scared? I have one question for you: What if God said murder was now ok? Would you:
1) Commit murder willfully, knowing that it is ok now and you won't be punished, in which case you're a psychopath regardless of your beliefs.
2) Not commit murder, because you feel it is wrong, in which case you just exercised moral reasoning independently, which means your a moral person regardless of your faith/lack of faith.
Think about it.

Re:getting rid of radio-activity instead of materi

[hashmap]

Yeah, let's turn the radioactive solid into radioactive fumes. Then we can reuse it by filling party baloons with them.

Re:getting rid of radio-activity instead of materi

[Anonymous Coward]

at sufficiently high temperatures, not only will atomic bonds be affected, but electrons can be stripped from their nuclei, causing a plasma to form. and then given sufficient pressures, you could trigger nuclear reactions. whether the results of these reactions are more or less radioactive than the original reactants, i'm not sure. it probably depends on the nature of the original reactants. and this whole process sounds incredibly unrealistic and impractical, so while what you suggested may be possible, i doubt it would be more practical than just burying the stuff at yucca mountain or even firing it into the sun.

Actually only 1/2 the non-voting public

[BoomerSooner]

Actually only 1/2 the non-voting public would need to vote to get a 3rd party candidate in office (since only 50% vote and roughly 1/2 go to one side and 1/2 go to the other).
25% of voting population to bush
25% of voting population to kerry
25% of voting population to 3rd Party Person
25% eating cornnuts not knowing there is an election going on.

Re:Actually only 1/2 the non-voting public

[MindStalker]

Nope, a 3 way tie, or just simply the 3rd party not winning 50 percent or electoral votes would end the election in the House of Representatives. And you know who they are voting for.

Re:Actually only 1/2 the non-voting public

[tsg]

I've done the math on this.

Even if every registered voter[1] who did not vote in the 2000 election voted for Nader, the leading third party candidate, he couldn't win.

Of the 51 states (including D.C.), Nader could not win 24 of them even if every registered voter who didn't vote, voted for him. Of the remaining 27, he would need to win 26 of them to win, and he wasn't even on the ballot in 3 of them.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say he was (if those people were going to vote for him he would likely be on the ballot). In the 26 states (the one he doesn't win necessarily being one of the eight that only has 3 electoral votes), there were 35 million registered voters who didn't vote. He would need 27 million of those votes (ideally proportioned among the states to give him just enough to win each state) to win the election. He only got 3 million total in the whole country. That's 9 times more than he actually got and assuming that these 27 million people would have voted only for him and no other third party candidate.

More realistically, of the 56 million[2] registered voters who did not vote, evenly proportioning them across the country percentage wise, he would have needed roughly 53 million votes in order to win. In other words, close to 18 times as many votes as he actually got with none of them going to any other candidate. Bush and Gore only got 50 million each.

So, even if you could convince those 56 million people to vote and to vote for a third party candidate, the vast majority would have to agree on a single third party candidate to even have a shot at getting one elected. This just isn't going to happen. If a third party candidate could get that many votes, he would most likely be running for one of the two majors.

[1] The reason I'm not counting unregistered voters is that the data includes a "significant number" of people above voting age but aren't eligible to vote. If you want to count non-registered voters too, it's possible, but extremely unlikely.

[2] North Dakota has no voter registration and Wisconsin has registration at the polls. In those cases I am using the number of people above voting age as the registered voters for that state.

Sources:
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm
http://www.fec.gov/pages/2000turnout/reg&to00. htm

Re:Actually only 1/2 the non-voting public

[3terrabyte]

Heheh, that's mostly right. Good point.

Bias?

[NoseSocks]

"the Bush administration has opposed the introduction of enforced cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions and has refused to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol."
Now to me, this is a way to show Bush in a bad light, because he won't sign the Kyoto Protocol; however,
"a Kerry-Edwards administration will not sign up to the Kyoto Protocol, partly because the short-term goals are unfeasible, says Devona Dolliole, a spokeswoman for the campaign."
So the difference is: Bush flatout won't sign up to the Kyoto Protocol while Kerry won't because it's not feasible. I don't see how this as "Contrasting" the two politicians.
Even funnier still is that people think these politicians will actually do what they say. Heck, for Bush (being his second term), he could say "I will sign up to the Kyoto Protocol and make it even more expensive for developed countries" without consequence (besides losing the funding of some oil companies and car manufacturers).

Emissions should be controlled at the state level first. California is taking new initiatives to make the emissions guidelines for automobiles even more stringent than they already are, affecting automobile manufacturing. As California takes the lead, other states can follow. It's like an Alpha phase, then a Beta, and finally all the states can adopt over time. Now I know Bush definitely did nothing to see if this was possible within states he had power, but does anyone know if Kerry did with Massachusetts? (I'm from MA and nothing comes to mind, but I could be wrong)If he didn't, I'll take his current stance as "what can I do to get more votes" and not "what I actually believe in"

NOTE: I am a fan of neither candidate. I would have much rather seen Nader's and Badnarik's comments next to these questions.

Re:Bias?

[Anonymous Coward]

He'd lose some voters by saying he'd sign as well. The general populace loves the idea of "saving the planet", but many people with a science/industry background are starting to realize a lot of what the politicians do in this direction is based on politics and pop science done with an agenda than the real thing. With the recession I imagine even more than the usual industry groups will start to feel man has a right to change his environment if it advances his cause.

Re:Bias?

[Anonymous Coward]

Emissions should be controlled at the state level first. California is taking new initiatives to make the emissions guidelines for automobiles even more stringent than they already are, affecting automobile manufacturing. As California takes the lead, other states can follow.

Not exactly. The federal government has been fighting California on this by claiming that states don't have the right to set their own emissions standards. I haven't heard anything about it recently, though.

Re:Bias?

[spitzak]

The second quote is clearly labelled as from a spokeswoman for the Kerry campaign. It is her job to spin things to sound as good for Kerry as possible. It is also the article writer's job to clearly label where the quote came from so the reader can take this into consideration. It seems like everybody is doing exactly what they should do here, I don't understand your complaint.

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course he can, just not all science.

1st Question

[Anonymous Coward]

By reading the first question's both answers as a citizen of the united states I guess I wouldn't feel bad. Maybe bush's answer was a bit harsher. However, both answers make 18 year olds that are not citizens of the united states scared that they won't be able to have free educational life there.

Every young adult wants to have a couple of his/her college/university years in a reality or illution of freedom. These answers just sloughter this feeling. Nobody reading them would choose UK or.. Hong Kong as better destinations.

However I understand the feeling of fear that covers the united states nowadays. It's the one and only super power in the meta-coldwar years therefore every terrorist's dream.

You have two choices for a better life. Either give up some of this power or its execution or be braver.

-someone

Re:Religeon

[geordie_loz]

I think that people here seem to forget that for many people Science is their religion, if we understand that religion proper is a set of beliefs not the flawed structures that often encompass it (I am a christian, but would dislike being thought of as religious - Christ Died One For All - that's all there is too it for me. Sadly people are flawed and put these human systems in place, which aren't right a lot of the time)... Wow I even managed to get off-topic in my own post...

So my point was, that a lot of scientists seems to disregard the "rules" of science anyway - like not dismissing a thoery without evidence, and not accepting a theory as face (i.e. evolution - taught as fact in schools).

You claim the bible is inconsistent with itself, yet provide no reliable evidence to back this up.

I believe that many things which science would claim as proving the bible wrong are by no means difinitive.

Walk with me a while:

God creates the heavens and the earth, and the garden of eden, with loads of nice big trees. Adam cuts down one of these trees with his scientific mind, to count the rings and see how old the tree is.. he gets 150 rings, so the tree is 150 years old.. only God made it the day before. God could make a tree fullgrown on the day he made it, and it would be "150 years old" but he still made it that day..

adam for example was probably a 30 year old male when he was made, not an embrio, so if you could meet him, you'd assume the world had to be around a long time before him for him to be his age.. but he wasn't.

God isn't limited by our physical boundaries, but he does work within them, if you see what I mean, the tree with no rings would not work.. a new born baby for adam would not work..

In other words, there is no reason I see why God couldn't make the world millions of years old on day one.. otherwise it might not have worked anyway..

So you see, there's nothing that science will show me that will remove my faith in God, because I know he's real.. I do know he, being God, knows a little bit more about how things work than we do.. so I'll trust him first.

Re:Religeon

[ThogScully]

So many replies to your post make the assumption that you mean science and religious beliefs are mutually exclusive.

Everyone who interpreted it that way, pay attention. Read it again. The parent isn't saying a religious person cannot make scientific decisions. In fact, I'd say it's important for a person's morals and ethics to be taken into account when making decisions of this nature and those are often derived from religion.

His complaint though is that the bible might be too strong a source for some of these decisions... or not necessarily the bible, but the current views of the Church in general are given too much weight.

A perfect example of this was given in the article where it mentioned the White House's push to get articles pertaining to safe sex removed from the CDC website in favor of articles about abstinence. That's obviously the Church's perspective that is specifically interfering with the CDC's purpose of preventing disease by providing information about it. Some would say the stem cell restrictions Bush has made also come from the anti-cloning perspective of the Church. I'm personally against outright cloning as well, but I think it's the Church's lack of understanding in the field that has made stem cell research the equivalent of cloning in the eyes of Bush.

Regardless, the parent is right. Decisions should come from science, not the bible. The decision makers can take into account the desires of those who are religious as well as those who aren't, but in matters of science, the scientific evidence is the most important factor. For the questions, science can't answer yet, certainly a president can go with his gut, his beliefs, etc.
-N

Re:Religeon

[GuyFawkes]

Religion and Science are BY DEFINITION mustually exclusive.

Religion = belief in something that cannot be proven empirically.

Science = belief only in that which can be proven empirically.

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes there is. It's called ethics. Philosophy is the foundation of all sciences, including Theology and the Philosophy of Religion (no, they're not the same). Ethics and morality are among the oldest subjects studied by philosophy. Morality has a scientific basis that follows cause and effect; it was not invented by any religion. To avoid punishment, the proper behavior that avoids punishment is desired. This places the importance of moral behavior within the context of the society in which the behavior is exhibited, and the burden of reward and punishment comes from society at large. This is true whether the society follows religious dogma or not. It could be Mayan, Hindu, or Muslim. It could be democratic, communist or fascist. Morality is universal (specifically for humanity), including where religion isn't. It has always been, and will always be so. The reason for this can be encapsulated in the Golden Rule, which is a philosophical construct that goes back thousands of years. It didn't need to be codified as we all know it instinctively, because it is merely common sense and is the basis of all civilized behavior. It is that which keeps civilization in continuance. The dogma may change, but the Golden Rule must remain intact. It is during the period when the Golden Rule is violated more than it is followed that civilizations change to accommodate corrections.

You're in high school, and believe yourself to be Christian. This places you in certain boundaries that you must obey in order to continue a happy existence. In high school, an institute created by the state (whether public or private), there are rules to follow to remain in good standing with the larger society. The same applies in the smaller Christian circle in which your behavior is also monitored by fellow members. The two environments are only different on the most superficial basis. One is mandatory, the other is voluntary. The rules of reward and punishment exist for both, but are not identical except that they provide incentives and deterrents.

Breaking a rule in high school can be embarrassing to you and your family, but it also comes with real world punishments that are universally understood to be punishments and would be avoided by anyone of any particular faith. Breaking a rule in Christian society could also be embarrassing to you, and potentially to your family if they are also Christians within your own circle, but the punishment that followed would not necessarily be something that could universally be understood by someone outside your particular sect or faith. However, to you, the Christian punishment could be very real (ostracism, hellfire, damnation...etc), but to a Buddhist, where there is no Satan, they may be puzzled by your concerns.

Morality might appear subjective, but only from the definition of what makes up each individual's universe. Psychologically speaking, a fervently devout believer in a particular religion lives in quite a different universe than I do. His views on my behavior are filtered through his accepted dogma. My views are filtered through my particular dogma. However, unless I allow his viewpoint to dominate, or he allows mine, then our continued happy existence depends on universally accepted protocols of behavior that don't require conversions of viewpoints. This calls for objectivism on both parties to come up with these rules of proper conduct, otherwise co-existence can become unbearable depending on how xenophobic the particular dogmas we follow are. Luckily, we already have a logical solution that is almost instinctive: The Golden Rule.

= 9J =

Who Cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush is going to win anyway.

Re:Religeon

[gfxguy]

I agree with you 100%... and for the record, I read the fine article, and Bush never once mentioned the Bible or reading it for guidance.

I suggest people read the article... I got several things from it: Bush talks about specific things he's done and plans to do. Kerry bashes Bush at every opportunity and talks about how he'll solve problems with the international community. Oh, and he always says "John Edwards and I..." where most of these plans must be formalised by Congress...

Kerry is not going to win on Bush bashing, he needs to stop the Bush bashing and stop talking about Vietnam and start talking specifics about what he's going to do as president.

It looks like he's trying to let Vietnam die as an issue, which is good, but I still need to find out more about his real plans. I read his editorial from the Wall Street Journal yesterday (a link ), but I wasn't impressed (and I think his numbers are not quite accurate, not that any politician uses accurate numbers).

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

You can do more yourself, in a single day, to positively affect your own life and those around you than either Bush or Kerry can in 4 (or 8!) years.

Yes and no.

I say yes because you're in charge of your own life and the decisions you make for yourself will make the greatest difference in your life and your family's lives.

I say no because politics *matter*.

There's no way a President Gore would've charged recklessly into Iraq like President Bush did. (Maybe you think it's good that President Bush charged recklessly into Iraq. Regardless, the difference is profound.)

20,000+ Iraqi civilians estimated dead.

7000+ American soldiers maimed, blinded, crippled, or otherwise severely wounded.

1000+ American soldiers dead.

It mattered who was in office to these people.

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

Now what started the big bang?
Where does the material and energy in big bang come from?

It depends. Plenty of people, myself included, believe in the "Infinite Universe, Infinite Time, Infinite Matter, Infinite Energy, Infinite Big Bangs" theory.

How many generations early birds didn't breath because of LARGE change in the lungs with impossible to breath with out ALL the changes happening at same time on TWO birds one female and one male and they just happen to mate each other ?

This right here just shows that you do not understand evolution, and you certainly do not understand quite how gradual a process evolution is. I'm not sure why so many people seem to have such a problem with the concept that E.g. mammals did not leap from the sea one day, fully formed and ready to colonise the land. Of course it didn't work that way, and no one but anti-evolutionists ever claim that it does.

Pretty disappointing really

[wcrowe]

Most of the questions were loaded, and the answers were predictable. Here is how I imagine the article would have been written if one of the topic areas was the color of the sky:

Nature: All scientists agree that the sky is green. What are you doing about it?

Bush: Er, umm. (Green?) Ahem. Yes, well, my administration, um, has made green sky policy a priority.

Kerry: As president I would support more (insert topic here) funding. Senator Edwards and I believe that we can grow the economy, while at the same time giving attention to the (insert topic here) issue.

ahem ... Re:Unfortunatly

[cascadingstylesheet]

Bush's supporters have been shown to vote for him soely on moral ground.

And? Why shouldn't somebody need to be moral to hold a position of great responsibility?

The poorest county in america voted more then 80% for Bush. Why you ask? Because Bush has the Christian Right, a sizeable population.

This is an odd argument. I hadn't noticed that the poor and uneducated of the inner cities, for example, were voting Republican. It's also a rather offensive, sneering argument that relieves you of the need to think, ironically.

Bush can screw the enviroment,

He has done no such thing.

tax people into the ground,

Um, he's the guy who cut taxes. Kerry wants to raise them, er, repeal the cuts, er, something, unless you actually ask him, or something.

reinstate the draft,

That is a Moore-ian fantasy.

declare war on canada and mexico

Are we into Saturday Night Live now, or what?

If people will wake up and realize that voting for Bush without understanding the issues is killing our country, then perhapse they will change... but until then bush can look forward to having all the bible thumpers under his belt, and abusing his power more and more. Ah well, personally, I think you should have to have a slashdot account to vote this year.

That this sort of bigotry is considered "insightful" is just pathetic.

Re:ahem ... Re:Unfortunatly

[tji]

> Um, he's the guy who cut taxes. Kerry wants to raise them, er, repeal the cuts, er, something, unless you actually ask him, or something.

The original poster was giving an "even if" argument, not saying he raised taxes.

But, yes.. Bush did the tax refund thing. Oh boy, that $300 check really made a big difference for me. That was certainly worth growing the deficit even further than it already was. It was also at a time after the economic bubble had burst, and everyone knew the budget surplus was long gone. But, the Bushies pushed ahead, defying all logic or facts (a precedent for their Iraq policy), and did the tax refund anyway.

To me, a $300 tax break is not worth plunging the country further into debt, making the prospect of social security for my generation even more tenuous.

Just because we survived Reaganomics once doesn't mean it's sound fiscal policy.

Re:ahem ... Re:Unfortunatly

[gfxguy]

Well, if it meant so little to you, why didn't you send it back?

That $300 was a rebate for taxes already paid after a retroactive tax cut was passed... that's right, GW signed it but YOUR elected officials passed it, and that $300 was coming your way either quickly or slowly.

Re:ahem ... Re:Unfortunatly

[Guuge]

Well, if it meant so little to you, why didn't you send it back?

We need it to help pay off the huge debt that Bush has racked up in our name.

And don't tell me that giving it back would encourage Bush to be fiscally responsible. The only solution to a spendthrift is to take away his credit card.

Re:ahem ... Re:Unfortunatly

[multimed]

The thing you're missing was that that was your f#cking $300. You paid taxes. At the time, the federal government was set to spend less than what we all paid in. It's really irrelavent that the bubble had burst because sitting on/saving the money was not an option. Had they not given the $300 back, they would have just spend it in typical, incredibly inefficient and wasteful fashion. An out of my ear guess is maybe 5% of our tax dollars actually reach the people and programs that deserve it. Our country is much better off if I give $10 to the local food shelter than the thousands of dollars I 'm force to give to in federal taxes which gets stolen by leeches at a hundred steps along they way to actually giving a dollar or two to some one on welfare.

argh

[jav1231]

I like how scientists are called "impartial" in this report. Bush is slammed for not signing the Kyoto Protocol, something many consider junk. Yet, it is typical for a group of scientists to consider their position as "the" position. Global Warming is a theory, and not a unanimous one. Yet, we would hold someone's feet to the fire on it? Puhleez.

Re:argh

[Anonymous Coward]

90% of the time, the people who are considered serious scientists are far more objective than people who refuse to consider science.

When it comes to science, people's beliefs don't have equal validity. The people who believe in science are more likely to be reasonably objective, and more likely to be correct than those who believe in their personal beliefs, or worse, in organized religion.

Re:argh

[jav1231]

Oddly enough, a study was done some years ago about this very idea. A group of scientists and a group of evangelists/religious teachers were given a set of exersizes to measure bais, presupposition, that sort of thing. The group of scientists were almost twice as more likely to try to apply a solution that they had already determined as faulty because it didn't comply with their preconceptions as did the clergy. Conversely, the clergy were more likely to drop a possible solution when the evidence directed them elsewhere. I wish I had a link to this study because it was very interesting.
It underscores that while science, in and of itself, shouldn't be influenced by religious or any other preconceptions, the scienTISTS usually are. It's no doubt a struggle for them just as it is for the rest of us. ie. they're human, dispite their best efforts. I've always said that "science" in the general sense that it's cultured as today is a system of faith. "Faith" isn't simply believing. It's a confidence in evidence. It doesn't matter if it's religious faith, or scientific faith.

Did anyone else spot this?

[merlin_jim]

Most of Bush's answers seem to not make much sense or have major terminology errors...

But in the answer to question 6... "ITER is a critically important experiment to test the feasibility of nuclear fusion as a source of electricity and hydrogen." (emphasis added)

Perhaps one of the many scientific reviewers that parsed his comments before sending them to nature should've let him know that fusion actually consumes hydrogen?

Oh and on question 3... is "fissile materials" really a word?

Re:Did anyone else spot this?

[magefile]

'Fissile materials' isn't a word, but it is a common phrase. I agree with you on the rest, though. No way Bush wrote that himself.

Re:Did anyone else spot this?

[morzel]

nuclear fusion as a source of electricity and hydrogen.

To create hydrogen to be used as fuel (i.e.: break up H20 into 2H2 + 02), you need (a lot of) electricity, which fusion would be able to supply big time.

Main Entry: fis-sile
Pronunciation: 'fi-s&l, 'fi-"sIl
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin fissilis, from findere
1 : capable of being split or divided in the direction of the grain or along natural planes of cleavage
2 : capable of undergoing fission

(Yup, it's a word).
Bush's campaing people know how to write...

Re:Did anyone else spot this?

[merlin_jim]

To create hydrogen to be used as fuel (i.e.: break up H20 into 2H2 + 02), you need (a lot of) electricity, which fusion would be able to supply big time.

Sorry I'm used to laws of conservation... at first I just thought "if you're burning hydrogen as fuel, there's no way the amount of electricty you generate would be enough to split the water to feed the process"

But of course the energy of fusion is more than enough to split apart a weak little water molecule... perhaps he should've expounded more on this just by giving up some of the strings of long important words he talked about in response to other questions?

Re:Did anyone else spot this?

[Anonymous Coward]

"... is "fissile materials" really a word?"

No, it's not. ...it's a goddamn PHRASE. I don't claim to know much about science, but I know a word when I see one.

- Scott

Re:Did anyone else spot this?

[Idarubicin]

... as a source of electricity and hydrogen.

It may well just be a typo. It's possible that the comment was supposed to be "...as a source of electricity from hydrogen." Alternately, other posters have noted that energy from fusion power could be used to liberate hydrogen from water (or elsewhere) to drive a hydrogen economy. Bush may be stupid, but his fact-checkers (and the ghostwriter who actually drafted his answers) aren't all that stupid. We don't even know for certain that an error wasn't inadvertently inserted by Nature during typesetting (less likely, but still possible.)

...is "fissile materials" really a word?

No. It's two words. 'Fissile' is a synonym for fissionable, and it is regularly used. Again, I have doubts that Bush would know or use it without professional assistance, but it is entirely legitimate and appropriate within its context.

Look, Bush is enough of an idiot that we don't need to take cheap shots at his real or imagined typos.

Re:Religeon

[BlackHawk-666]

In summary then, he believes an unborn US fetus has more right to life than an Iraqi child. It seems therefore that he is in favour of "justifiable" homicide.

Re:Religeon

[LnxAddct]

If I interpreted what you said correctly, you don't believe in evolution. Now I am a pretty faithful christian and there are plenty of ways that religion and evolution can co-exist. One of the more profound theories is that God in his infinite wisdom knew that ,starting with the big bang, setting particles up in the formation that he did would lead to our development. I.E. God set up the universe right before the big bang, he knew exactly how everything would turn out fom that point on. But slashdot is not about religion so I'll stop that. On to the science, evolution is clearly very viable, and most likely the correct theory. I mean its hardly even debated anymore amongst real scientists simply because it is the correct theory. If evolution didn't exist then sex would be non existant. When you were concieved by your parents, 23 chromosomes came from your dad and 23 chromosomes came from your mom. The idea is to take bits and pieces from two successful organisms(your parents), combine them, maybe throw a mutation in here or there, and hope the result is better then the parties involved in its production. If the resulting organism has a fatal flaw, or a mutation made it worse then better, well then it most likely dies or at least will not reproduce and spread that particular problem further (obviously exceptions apply, as with all things). If the new organism is created with equal qualities or better, then it will go on to produce. The exchange of DNA from two unrelated organisms(but still within the same species) is very important, thats why your supposed to mate outside the family. Your birth was the perfect example of evolution. If evolution didn't exist then noone would be born with deformities, and noone would be born with better characteristics. Evolution is responsible for even little things like some people having "hitchhiker's thumbs" or ear lobes attatched or detatched. The reason why you don't see more drastic changes from one generation to the next is simply because about 90% of all mutations are neutral. Thats why it took billions of years for us to evolve to our current form. Denying evolution is denying your very birth. And all this was proven without even getting into the historical evidence that has been found. Please don't close your eyes just because a book tells you to.
Regards,
Steve

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

For instance. Flat world. That was SCIENCE stance long time ago.

Yes, and no. I'll concede this for the time being as it illustrates my point quite nicely. Science is not infallible, and the scientific process explicitly allows for this.

Now the religion took the issue that was not anyway in its domain and made it a static decision its this way period.

Hence the problem. If your religion tells you "God says this is true", and it later turns out to be false, you are stuck. As you can see elsewhere in this thread, apologists try and squirm out of it by saying "well God didn't really mean it".

If science tells you "we think this is so", and it later turns out to be false, people update their theories, and carry on with the new knowledge. When something is found to work in a different way to established theories, it is a success of science.

If we would talk about evolution, as its the most common argument ground, most of what we call science in that part is mostly a gues work and trusting the deductions based on the quesses. Now people make observations then theories and if some observations fit the theory they deduce *ALL* the theory must be true. Instead of seeing that if some FAIL the theory then theory must have flaws.

You have a seriously warped view of the scientific process. It doesn't work like that. Any decent scientific experiment will look for evidence that the theory is false. Otherwise there is no point in doing the experiment, is there?

How many generations early birds didn't breath because of LARGE change in the lungs with impossible to breath with out ALL the changes happening at same time on TWO birds one female and one male and they just happen to mate each other ?

Evolution doesn't work like that either. Generally speaking, large "jumps" like that don't happen, and in cases where it would appear that it did, it has been observed that there is, in fact, a stepping-stone between the two states. I've not come across your example of birds breathing though, did you just make that up?

There are plenty of symbiotic animals, which happened first, the symbiot found WHICH of the symbiots adapted to other first?

If I am understanding your bad English correctly, you doubt that symbiotic organisms can arise in this way? It seems perfectly reasonable that one starts out as parasitic, but provides some benefit to the host so that it eventually becomes a symbiotic relationship. What is your basis for questioning this mechanism?

Now what started the big bang?

You seem to be confused. I am not claiming that science can explain everything, right now today. But I'd rather accept an answer of "we don't know" than "a giant pixie in the sky wanted it to happen, so it did". That is a child-like response.

There are plenty of issues with the evolution and its a ONE belief system that just happens to be common.

Typical creationist FUD. It's not a belief system. There is direct observable evidence, the algorithm can be simulated on computers and it is repeatable. The fact that we haven't progressed to the point where we have emulated an entire ecosystem up to sentience is irrelevent; it is a theory that makes sense, has abundant reasons for accepting it as fact, and is far more likely than a giant pixie in the sky making it all happen with a wave of his wand.

Re:Religeon

[dash2]

Ah, I love it when your .sig totally undermines your comment....

Hard Talk

[Archimonde]

Give them Tim Sebastian. That guy rocks big time!

the space angle

[kippy]

I follow space stuff pretty closely but I can't speak to the rest. Kerry's response is boilerplate stuff that he's said before. Bush's stance on space is flawed but a whole lot better than Kerry's in my opinion. From what I can tell Kerry thinks of space as a place to do international diplomacy publicity stunts, do drug research, and talk about how great it is. Not much more.

Not to hijack the topic but NASA has needed direction more than money and that's what Bush has given it. the engineers will fine tune the details like mission plans. the president's job is go give them broad-brushed policy. humans plus robots in space as appropriate is a-ok with me.

Re:Religeon

[mrchaotica]

I had actually planned to use Einstein as well, but the original poster specifically referenced the bible, so I wanted to stick with Christian figures.

Don't Jews believe in the Old Testament?

Re:Other candidates...a little OT

[Joey7F]

My comments about American Democracy (more specfically the 2 party system) are at the bottom*

Well, I think Badnarik could possibly take votes away from Bush. There are several Republicans that are mad at Bush for not controlling spending, I am willing to give him a small pass since we have had some unusual circumstances during his presidency.

Badnarik is just too extreme (I want an FDA thank you very much) for my tastes. If the Libertarians were more moderate they would be a good party,and would engender a great deal of support.

I am fiscally conservative and socially somewhat liberal. I just don't think the "social" issues have any chance of changing any time soon, plus I care less about them.

I do agree that a vote for Nader or McCobb is probably a vote for Bush. Although, if they weren't running many of their supporters may not vote at all so it is hard to say

Bush 50% Kerry 47% Nader 3%

Well, there you see, Kerry has a tie because you just add the 3 to 47!

I am looking forward to the election :)

--Joey

*In some ways our 2 party system works well, because picture that we had 10 (viable) parties, and let's say one of the parties was called the "Party of God" you could have people like Falwell controlling the all branches of government, because you only need 10% to win. It would give rise to extreme opinions because you have to find your niche. Even with our system, we still haven't had the winner of the last few elections grab more than 50% of the votes (I doubt this will be different).

Re:Religeon

[JuggleGeek]

Religion and science don't have to be at odds.

They always will be, because religions people will always believe in one or more supernatural beings. They will belive in life after death, and they will believe that God is Watching Over Them.

And they will do this with no evidence to support them, and despite any evidence that shows they are wrong. Shoot, many of them don't believe that Dinosours existed, and have gone to great lengths to come up with weird theories about how God created bones, skeletons, footprints, etc, so that man would eventually find them.

Science and religion will always be at odds. Religion wants you to take things on faith - just like tarot-card-readers, palm readers, and other astrologists do.

Religion is the ultimate con. It's big business, and it allows them to make tons of money, avoid paying taxes, ignore the law, and tell people what they have to do.

Re:Mr. Pres, how many times have you been arrested

[Anonymous Coward]

He was young and stupid, as pretty much all of us where (and if you're young enough - are). He's a changed man. Are you saying that if you do something stupid, you should never be able to live it down? Then perhaps you should lose your drivers license (assuming you have one) for your first speeding ticket?

Why don't you ask Kerry about shooting a fleeing wounded teenage enemy combatant IN THE BACK, in a war the he opposed? Wouldn't the 'right thing' to do be to allow the kid to get away?

I don't know why I'm even trying to debate this - the 'excuses President' is just the latest Kerry campaign tactic - the fact that you're using it shows where you are on the polictical spectrum, and leaves little chance that you're open to debate.

cultural inheritence

[cascadingstylesheet]

I've heard this argument before, but I just don't get it. Do you honestly feel that an athiest is some kind of wild-man who runs around in a totally sociopathic way?

No, but the athiest is somebody who has a cultural inheritence from societies who's morals were shaped by religion.

And you do see a drift, over time, towards that wild man thing. The 60's flower children had a huge cultural inheritence of religion-based stability, so they just assumed that if you did away with all that morality jazz we'd all just live in peace and free love harmony. Didn't quite work out that way, did it? And every generation since has less and less of that inheritence of morality.

Re:cultural inheritence

[sgant]

I don't see that at all. Also, we never really knew if throwing away all the morality jazz in the 60's would work because it wasn't thrown away. Oh sure, it was talked about, but nothing came of it.

Also, if every generation since has less and less inherited morality, then why is crime and violence DOWN? Why is crime and violence in schools down? Don't listen to the fear-mongers on the news, actually read the numbers. This is in the US mind you...your country of origin may have different trends.

You'd think with more people there would be more chance of adnormal behavior/sociopathic trends but the opposite is happening. Yes, there are some people who fall victim to violent crime...but 30 years ago it was worse than it is today. Things are improving.

Re:cultural inheritence

[RsG]

I've hears this argument before and I just don't buy it. First it contradicts socio-historic data from the last hundred years. The United States is more religious than that rest of the western world, yet it has one of the highest crime rates. Most western countries (Canada, UK, _Germany_ for crying out loud) have lower violent crime rates, and lower church attendance. Japan, which is essentially secular has an even lower crime rate (not strictly neo-european but hey). Where is the inherited religious morality?

If anything religion breeds violence. Look at the middle east and especially the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Look at the States' foreign policy under a born again christian. This is moral? There's a lot of nationalism involved too, but at some level it becomes impossible to disentangle the two.

My own experience (strong agnostic with atheist leanings, ex-anglican) has taught me that a strong moral compass is an innate aspect of the human psyche. The most moral christians I know (my mother and the people at the volunteer kitchen I worked at) are the ones who don't beleive in divine intervention, or hell. They are down to earth ethical people with a lot of common sense and _that_ is what makes them behave morally. Not fear of god, nor belief that it'll all work out if you do what the bible says.

My own ethics system is not inherited, nor is it cultural, it is _logical_. I think in terms of basic common sense stuff like "if I act this way, will it hurt anyone" not this frightening "what would jesus do" bullshit that Bush seems to like. If anything, being logical frees you from the contradictions espoused by scripture, you can then see the grey areas for what they are.

Religion does not have a patent on morality. Get over it.

Re:cultural inheritence

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but the athiest is somebody who has a cultural inheritence from societies who's morals were shaped by religion.

The theist is somebody who has a cultural inheritance from societies whose religion was shaped by morals.

Re:cultural inheritence

[Anonymous Coward]

If anything religion breeds violence.

Actually, religion breeds division, which breeds violence.

If you think of a society as a collection of memetic (like genetic) data, religion is the mechanism that stops it from freely intermingling too much with other cultures, and diluting itself.

Racism : Individuals :: Religion : Societies

Re:cultural inheritence

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, if every generation since has less and less inherited morality, then why is crime and violence DOWN?

Religionists will claim they're not down. They'll look at the total number of people killed in the 20th century and point out that it's much higher than anything ever before. (200 million) That neatly corresponds with the tremendous rise of secularism in the past 100 years.

That's not a valid interpretation, of course- because in previous centuries there were a whole lot fewer people total. (number killed 20th > number alive 19th !) But that's still the rebuttal you'll get.

Ha!

[Compact Dick]

Priceless :-)

Re:Religeon

[stromthurman]

And then some, but when the original poster used bible instead of say, Torah, I assumed he was referring to the Christian bible, including New Testament. Perhaps I was wrong in my thinking, and the original poster was taking issue with all bibles, not just those used in Christian practices.

Re:Bush couldn't have answered the questions.

[guru512]

some reasons why Bush isn't allowed to answer such questions by himself:

"Let me put it to you bluntly. In a changing world, we want more people to have control over your own life." --George W. Bush, Annandale, Va, Aug. 9, 2004

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

"I'm honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 25, 2004

"The march to war hurt the economy. Laura reminded me a while ago that remember what was on the TV screens -- she calls me, 'George W.' -- 'George W.' I call her, 'First Lady.' No, anyway -- she said, we said, march to war on our TV screen." --George W. Bush, Bay Shore, New York, Mar. 11, 2004

Re:Religion

[jsebrech]

but I've yet to have an interesting one with a "born-again" who feels in the absolute truth and validity of the Bible and everything...EVERYTHING in it.

It's called cognitive dissonance. If you come to believe something that is too far from reality to be reconcilable with it, your mind will choose to reject reality instead of rejecting existing knowledge. That is the essence of brainwashing: you fill a person's mind with so much disinformation they are unable to act outside the guidelines of what they already know.

When you talk to those people both of you are unable to reconcile what the other person is saying with what you already know, and you never reach a common ground to start a debate from. By wholly rejecting the other person based on what they are saying, it becomes impossible to hold a real conversation, which is why neither of you finds anything but affirmation of their existing beliefs in what little conversation that does ensue.

Re:Religeon

[192939495969798999]

You're right. The Bible caused our forefathers to flee their countries and move here, so they would be free from state-mandated religions. I'm guessing that's not what you meant, but that's what happened.

Re:Religeon

[JuggleGeek]

I must point out that looking to the bible for help does not necessarily indicate a person is not pro-science.

It means that they consider some hypothetical, supernatural being more important than evidence.

Bible IS NOT a reference or history!

[sciop101]

The Bible cannot be used as a reference or history!

The Bible has been translated through many languages/dialects to the present. Events relocated due to revised spelling/pronunciations.

Nothing was written down until 200AD.

deusch

[BoomerSooner]

deusch is not the word you're looking for it's douche (french not german).

Re:Religeon

[jbarr]

I do realize that there are some truths in the bible (names, places, events, ...), but so are in other books which nobody with a sane mind would take as non-fiction (pick a random piece of literature).

Though it admittedly does not necessarily "prove" the Bible's legitimacy, it cannot be denied that the Bible has undergone more literary and scientific scrutiny than any other literary work in history. Its historical accuracy and relevence continues to be demonstrated over and over.

My point now is that I find it highly dangerous when somebody with as much power as the president of the USA seeks truth in a book which might be "90% crap" (see above), and (ab)uses his power based on guidance based on this book. Is it based on the 90%? Or the 10%? Who decides what passages of the bible fall into which category? What about people in his influence that do not see the bible as binding or guiding?

First off, to say that 90% is crap is a bit ambitious (see above.)

Second, this country was born on principles "endowed by their Creator" and based on "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Though not exclusive, the majority of the Founding Fathers held "God-based" values--many of which were Christian--as the foundation of this country. The fact that the President follows God-based and Christian teachings is certainly consistent with history and the foundations of this country.

This country holds Democracy as its driving principle. Though many laws have been written to provide The Minority with a voice, the fact remains that according to the principles of Democracy, The Majority still rules. The problem is that The Minority clings to "equality" as their excuse to "override" The Majority's position. Unfortunatly, "equality" and Democracy are in conflict. And the current politically correct trend is to lower standards and ethics for sake of the "common denominator" in exclusion of The Majority which is findamentally contrary to Democratic principles. We have erroded fundamental values, ethics, and morals in favor of social relativism.

But what about the "all Men are created equal" line? Notice it states "created" not "evolved"--again, an example of the accepted God-based founding principles by The Majority. Also notice that though it states that we were created equal, it doesn't state that we will remain equal.

Short term thinking.

[glrotate]

Because as it has become apparent, it certainly had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, nor with 'liberating' the Iraqi people. Or if it did, it was executed so incompetently that claiming an ulterior motive is almost charitable.

You do realize that in the real world not everything is wrapped up in 30 minutes with a happy ending? Nobody knows how Iraq will turn out, however calling it a failure as the first free election in the craddle of civilization is about to occur this January seems a bit short sighted.

Re:Short term thinking.

[Fidgety Philip]

Good point. It might even turn out as well as Afghanistan has.

Re:Short term thinking.

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that in the real world not everything is wrapped up in 30 minutes with a happy ending? Nobody knows how Iraq will turn out, however calling it a failure as the first free election in the craddle of civilization is about to occur this January seems a bit short sighted.

Gosh, you're right! Let's invade some more countries for this reason or others and see how it turns out!

Re:Short term thinking.

[Jeremi]

Nobody knows how Iraq will turn out

It's true that nobody can predict the future 100%, but according to U.S. intelligence the prospects are pretty dim. Even Republicans are very concerned.

Re:Religeon

[JuggleGeek]

My point is, don't bank on a politician to be the source of change for the better. You can do more yourself, in a single day, to positively affect your own life and those around you than either Bush or Kerry can in 4 (or 8!) years.

Quite likely true. However, the enormous amount of harm they can do is just mind boggling....

Why God isn't scientifically proven

[CrazyJim1]

Just a few days ago I had a revelation why God never wants himself to be proven: Amazingly, this is really easy to answer. God wants to test our hearts. Our hearts aren't just an organ, it directly represents our desires. Everyone wants, desires, and even wishes for different things, what do you want? Now the key is,"Is what you want something God would find good?" Now If you could prove God existed, then he wouldn't get the chance to know the whole you. The whole culture would be skewed towards goodly living, so people born into the culture would be different. Think about it. Everyone would be doing good deeds just to show off to God, and not because their heart tells them but because they have to. They'd just be trying to score points in a game, it'd be just like money to them. So if someone's greedy and knew there was a God, he'd find it better to store treasures in heaven, so he'd give to the poor. Whereas, people not knowing if there is a God or not(people in our reality), if they're greedy, they just want money, a big house, good food, and other stupid luxuries for themself. God can watch this person and know him. Some will argue,"God knows everyone before they're even born.", to them I'd say,"Or as in covered in Job, maybe God already knows everyone, but just likes to show good examples off to the devil who doesn't have the vision God has." Anyway, I hope you can see why God hasn't let his presence be scientifically known. www.geocities.com/James_Sager_PA

Re:Why God isn't scientifically proven

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole culture would be skewed towards goodly living, so people born into the culture would be different. Think about it. Everyone would be doing good deeds just to show off to God, and not because their heart tells them but because they have to.

If your theory was correct, your god wouldn't have revealed himself at all, let alone let himself be scientifically proven. But there is a book claiming that he revealed himself, so your theory cannot be correct.

Of course, if you are a Christian, you should know better than to speculate on your god's reasoning; I thought "God's will" was supposed to be beyond our understanding?

Re:Why God isn't scientifically proven

[CrazyJim1]

"Of course, if you are a Christian, you should know better than to speculate on your god's reasoning; I thought "God's will" was supposed to be beyond our understanding? " No way. If you read Jesus's teachings, they should come off as truths to a thinking mind. They just make sense. God even encourages the "seeker", the one who scans all religions to find the right one. Now God's will is against the earthly logic. Most people want to horde money for their selves and personal security, while God says he'll provide for you if you put your faith in him. Sure you're supposed to get a job to fit into society, but money and glamour shouldn't be your focus. Yet it seems money and glamour is the way to go to pick up the women and impress people. "If your theory was correct, your god wouldn't have revealed himself at all, let alone let himself be scientifically proven. But there is a book claiming that he revealed himself, so your theory cannot be correct. " If you read my first 2 books, I was trying to find the ultimate way to achieve world peace. Is it to kill evil dictators, or just lead a life thats peaceful, etc? My heart was in the mood to really change things, I fathom God saw my struggling for the truth and he just tilted his hand. But I can't be certain why. Now the key is, just because I know, doesn't mean all of whole society knows. Nothing has changed, except my life. I encourage people to read the new testament to figure it out for themself. To someone with a true heart, they'll be enlightened. To someone with a corrupt heart, they'll reject God and what I say.

Re:Religion

[sgant]

Huh, I have no idea what you're trying to say so I'm going to just hold on to my ideas...

All kidding aside, this is very interesting. I'll have to read up on this aspect of things because so many times it get's bogged down into what is happening on Slashdot with this subject. I haven't seen so many Troll/Insightfull/Flamebait/Interesting/Overrated/ Funny moderations in a LONG time! It's like watching ping-pong.

Mean and std deviation of global temperature?

[glrotate]

I keep hearing about how the temperature is signifigantly higher than it used to be but never see it reported what the mean and standard deviation of what the global temperature actually is.

Re:Actually Bush stands to lose the "Christian Rig

[White Roses]

. . . spending like a stripper with a stolen credit card . . .

Hey now, let's not bring strippers down to Bush's level.

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course right and wrong can change. What society one day considers to be right can become wrong the next. Western countries no longer practice slavery or racial segregation. Women are allowed to own property, to vote and to serve in the military alongside men. You will not be arrested and forced to undergo "treatment" if you are gay. The list is long and varied, yet these are all things that were once considered "right" or "wrong" at one point.

Bush views on Evolution vs. Creation

[tji]

If you want insight into the candidate's views on science, you should look into views on basic issues, like Evolution.

Bush has made several comments supporting the teaching of creationism in public schools. But, given the radical religious beliefs permeating his administration, this is not really surprising.

Re:Bush views on Evolution vs. Creation

[thelizman]

I'm still not seeing the problem. Real scientists - as opposed to politically militant pseudoscientists - all acknowledge that creationism along with evolution are equally indisputable, as are more incredible theories such as astrogenisis. One also has to remember that creationism as depicted in Genesis does not outline the specific rise of life on our planet, nor does it rule out evolution as a post-creation process, nor does it rule out evolution as a mechanism of creation. All Bush has said according to the hacked-up quotes in this slate article is that he supports the teaching of creationism in schools should the local community want it. The part about morality - I don't even know how that is relevant to the issue of creationism.

I'm more interested on why people assume that it has to be creationism OR evolution. But then, the same people who hold that view are want to be oppositional for whatever reason, which is one of the driving forces behind Anti-Bushisms.

As for Bush's "radical religious beliefs", you need to get a new cliche. Most theologans agree Bush is far from a "radical", he is actually quite centrist. I think you confuse radicalism for integrity; most people who share Bush's beliefs aren't willing to risk any form of conflict to see them enacted.

Re:Bush views on Evolution vs. Creation

[pyro101]

Wouldn't the scientivic thing be to show both sides of the coin pro's and con's and allow the person to come come up with the answer? If evolution is on such solid ground then you should have no worries to present both next to each other. Remember that the vast majority of the world believe in some form of Creation, so to understand where they are coming from shouldn't you learn in it?

Re:Bush views on Evolution vs. Creation

[Anonymous Coward]

Both sides? Is that as in the Bush "you're on our side or the terrorists side" logic?? Several religions believe in the creationist theory (those that have Old Testament roots, Christianity, Islam, Judaism). But, there are plenty of other religions with different beliefs about the origin of the universe.

Absolutely they should cover competing scientific theories, but not scientific theories and equivalent mythologies.

Creationism should be covered in classes teaching the appropriate religions that subscribe to those theories, not science class.

Re:Bush views on Evolution vs. Creation

[LtOcelot]

If a scientific theory of creationism can be presented, then perhaps it should be included in science classes. Of course, for a theory to be scientific it must be falsifiable. I suspect that few advocates of creationism are willing to submit to this.

Non-scientific theories of creationism may be suitable for study due to their popularity, but this does not justify their inclusion in science classes.

Re:Bush views on Evolution vs. Creation

[haxor.dk]

Creationism is welcome for all I care - in religion classes. NOT in science classes.

Re:Bush views on Evolution vs. Creation

[pyro101]

Why are you afraid? If it is sham science then it will have no evidence and be obvious.

Re:Bush views on Evolution vs. Creation

[_newwave_]

...the radical religious beliefs...

So, it's so "radical" to believe in a god and believe that he created this world?

Re:Bush views on Evolution vs. Creation

[Red Herring]

Urmm... Creationism is a sham (not even a sham science), and it does not have any scientific evidence. Words in a book do not evidence make.

It is obvious.

Now get your pink unicorns out of my classroom.

Re:Bush views on Evolution vs. Creation

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm, considering there is not one iota of evidence for the existence of a 'god' I'd say blind faith in that assumption is pretty radical. But even if there is a 'god', there is no evidence that this 'god' created the world or the universe or anything else. And even if there was evidence that there was a 'god' and there was evidence that this 'god' created anything, there is still no evidence that this 'god' is the Bible-God of the Christians/Jews/Muslims (its the same guy you know)or that this 'god' still exists. For all you know, it was Vishnu all along or maybe we were belched out by a dead turtle.

So to hold that view is incredible "radical" and most certainly does not jive well with good science - you know, where you observe the world and draw conclusions to fit the evidence, not find evidence to fit your conclusion.

Philosophy - questions that may never be answered.
Religion - answers that may never be questioned.

Re:Bush views on Evolution vs. Creation

[DunbarTheInept]

vast majority of the world believe in some form of Creation, so to understand where they are coming from shouldn't you learn in it?


That is not what those pushing for teaching Creationism are asking for. They aren't asking for it to be taught as a cultural mythology, like the tales of the Greek gods often are, simply for the sake of understanding a culture. They are asking for it to be taught as truth.

Re:Bush views on Evolution vs. Creation

[commodoresloat]

If you want to teach creationism side by side with evolution in a theology or philosophy class, fine, but a science class is not the place for competing superstitions. "Creationism" is not a scientific theory. Evolution is. And to say it's a "theory" is not to say it is just as valid as any other theory -- it is a theory in the same way that gravity is a theory. It is, in fact, the foundation of modern biology.

Re:Bush views on Evolution vs. Creation

[Minna Kirai]

I wish threads like this didn't mod down to zero so quickly...

One also has to remember that creationism as depicted in Genesis does not outline the specific rise of life on our planet

Oh yes it does. Genesis states that for a few days the universe and world was made, and then for each following day a new category of life-forms was created.

nor does it rule out evolution as a post-creation process, nor does it rule out evolution as a mechanism of creation.

Yes it does. It states that human beings were artificially created by God a mere 24 hours after chimpanzees, but were not descended from apes in any way.

"Creationism" is not the belief that the universe, planet, or forms of life were artificially created by a deity. That's too general. "Creationism", as used by those who call themselves "creationists", is a belief in the literal accuracy of the book of Genesis.

It appears that several posters in this thread have made the mistake of confusing creationism with the belief that a God created the universe (and then prehaps stood back and let nature fill in the details). That's quite different.

I'm more interested on why people assume that it has to be creationism OR evolution.

Evolution: All known animals share a common ancestor species (or at most only a handful of different predecessors)

Creationism: All animals species were created in approximately their present form within the same week, all independently from each other. One week there was nothing, the next week the earth had a population of plants, animals, and exactly 2 humans (one of whom was a clone of the other)

Re:Bush views on Evolution vs. Creation

[Minna Kirai]

Why are you afraid? If it is sham science then it will have no evidence and be obvious.

Creationism, if handled honestly in a science class, will be absolutely demolished.

Therefore, requiring public school students to attend that class will consitute an infringment of their religious freedoms...

Re:Bush views on Evolution vs. Creation

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but it could be considered radical that someone in today's world, given all of our scientific knowledge, take creationism literally.

What is more radical about Bush is how he involves religion in his campaigning and his administration. For example: claiming that God wants him to be president. Tearing down the constitutional walls between church and state by funding "Faith based initiatives" via Presidential directive after Congress (with a Republican majority) denied them. Going on a personal crusage against homosexuals to "preserve the sanctity of marriage". etc.

Even comparing Bush to previous Republican administrations still makes him look like a religious radical. Hell, even compare him to his father's administration and the difference is huge.

Re:Bush views on Evolution vs. Creation

[Anonymous Coward]

Radical religious beliefs? What? Going to church on Sunday? Get a life. I think it's better than being an arrogant, single-minded heathen.

It's been done...

[Theaetetus]

Quick Google search.

In essence, an Irish reporter, Carole Coleman, was granted a sit-down interview with Bush a few weeks ago. She gave a BBC-style interview (in depth, follow-up questions), following which they White House lodged an official complaint with the Irish embassy.

That's the problem - any in depth interview like that, and you'll find your press pass revoked (and your visa, if you're an international journalist).

-T

Re:It's been done...

[Coryoth]

In essence, an Irish reporter, Carole Coleman, was granted a sit-down interview with Bush a few weeks ago. She gave a BBC-style interview (in depth, follow-up questions), following which they White House lodged an official complaint with the Irish embassy.

I just watched the interview, and it made for interesting viewing. There was definitely a clash of styles. Bush basically took each question as a chance to give a speech (which often ran off in different directions, and ended up talking about something else altogether), and was didn't take kindly to the interviewer trying to interject herself into some of his pauses as he ran off track.

It was clear that Coleman wanted to have a conversation and discuss the issues, while Bush merely wanted to make uninterrupted speeches. It began to feel as if many of Bushes answers were somewhat canned - he would launch of a question into a long anecdote or story that ended up with him making a point about somethign completely different. In turn, Coleman seemed very frustrated with this, and said several times somethign to the effect of "But moving on, about Iraq..." which was her attempt to steer things back after Bush had lead a trail away.

Certainly worth watching if you're interested in how such tings would pan out. The video is here. I guess I should go and google for anythign similar with Kerry - I suspect he would be just as uncomfortable with the interview style.

Jedidiah

Re:Religeon

[pocopoco]

If your words were true the majority of Christians would believe in the general concept of evolution and consider the biblical contradictions to it as merely part of a morality story. Evolution has a huge preponderance of evidence and is not questioned by any legitimate scientist, although the details of how it happens can be debated. Almost every single Christian I have ever met holds the complete opposite view, however.

I usually make it a point to see how well they are meshing their delusions with reality before considering furthering relations with them and so ask every one I meet. Almost without fail they immediately take the Creationist viewpoint. I'm sorry to say your little face saving theory above about how Christians can properly distance themselves from the parts of the bible that have been completely disproved by considering these parts to be morality stories is not evidenced at all.

Not Al Queda's MO

[TamMan2000]

I haven't seen US territory get hit with another major attack in the last three years.

Q: How long was is between the 9/11 and the previous AlQ ueda attack on US territory?

A: About 8 years.

Can we, from this data, conclude that Clinton was a great preventer of terrorism? After all he kept us from being attacked for 7 years...

Al Queda doesn't, and never has, attacked frequently; they attack grandly. The fact that 3 years have gone by since a major attack is meaningless. They probably wouldn't have attacked again by now even if we had been sitting on our thumbs.

Re:Not Al Queda's MO

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the embassy attacks in Africa in 1998? Embassies are considered US territory.

Re:Not Al Queda's MO

[TamMan2000]

What about the embassy attacks in Africa in 1998? Embassies are considered US territory.

still 3+ years between attacks

Re:Not Al Queda's MO

[Lars T.]

Al Queda doesn't, and never has, attacked frequently; they attack grandly.

They haven't before the War on Terror (TM). Not anymore? "Despite the U.S. "War on Terror," al-Qaeda continues to be a threat world-wide. There have been about a dozen major attacks by al-Qaeda terrorists since September 11, 2001."

As opposed to an unproven theory?

[TreadOnUS]

Are you saying global warming is a fact or is global warming caused by humans is a fact? I'm open to seeing any scientific proofs that you have that I am unaware of.

Discount it or not but there is disagreement about the causation of global warming. My own feeling is that there is a human factor to it but the quantitative proof has not been established.

In regards to the Kyoto treaty, the inequity in responsibility for relief was enough to kill it. That coupled with the unproven benefits to be realized meant that the treaty was more of a political and economic weapon than an environmentally sound policy.

Bush already did this, Kerry refuses.

[glrotate]

Bush sat down eith Tim Russert for an hour on Meet the Press. He met with Bob Woodward for several hours. Kerry is still trying to figure out why he's running so he hasn't taken questions from the press for over a month.

Re:Bush already did this, Kerry refuses.

[magefile]

And Russert's questions were all pre-approved. Giving Bush & Co. time to rehearse. I'm not sure about the Woodward thing.

Re:Please,.....we made our bed, but ....

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you say you guys butt out of our election?

I was in New Zealand during the 2000 USA election debacle and, as soon as anyone heard my USA accent, they invariably asked if we still felt justified messing with every other country's electoral process when we apparently couldn't run an honest internal election.

Every day, the USA election debacle was the front page of every NZ newspaper.

Every day there were jokes comparing us to a banana republic.

What was happening here? Well, we made our bed and now we have to lie in it. They will probably butt out of ours if we butt out of theirs, but that will be a cold day in hell.

Re:Religeon

[CrazyJim1]

I don't think religion is designed for "hope"

I found Christianity because I was looking for the ultimate way to achieve world peace. What do you do? Overthrow bad government? Create a philosophy that meshes the religious beliefs?

Then God spoke with me:
http://www.geocities.com/james_sager_pa/love3.html

Maybe you can't get everyone to act Christian, not strike back when struck, love your enemy, help the poor and oppressed, but its how everyones supposed to act.

Listed under science instead of politics?

[leinhos]

Mod me as a troll, but it seems to me that this should be listed under Politics rather than Science. The fact that most of the comments are about Bush vs. Kerry *Politics*, rather than anything about science.

Re:Religeon

[Watcher]

... Christians cannot challenge what is written in the Bible, even if it is obviously false.

There are plenty of examples of that. Way back when I was the church going type (instead of an agnostic), the minister would regularly have discussions about the contradictions in the Bible. Open discussion was encouraged. Not every Christian is a Bible tells all fundamentalist. Most of them readily acknowledge that most of it is parables and stories that were collected over the years. Whether there truly is a God, and Christ was his son, is a personal belief.

Re:Religeon

[thelaw]

I'll spare you a long list of failed HBS graduates, but there are a ton of HBS grads who fail in life or are unethical, just like any other school's alumni.
Jeff Skilling, former CEO of Enron, comes to mind.

I totally agree, though, that HBS graduates should be held to a higher ethical standard than others. They may be human, but to give them the street cred that comes with an HBS degree, they ought to show particular ethical rigor.

Jon

Say what they want to hear and hide the rest..

[pocopoco]

I'm really disappointed the answer to so many of these questions is "Oh, we'll spend more, of course". Kerry's speech at the DNC was much the same. There he started out saying he'll balance the budget and then 90% of his speech is what he'll spend more on. I didn't get to see Bush's speech, but I imagine it was much the same. If politicians weren't allowed to be such flim flams maybe we would start seeing actual solutions being proposed like ending the war on drugs, tossing out the nuke stockpile, breaking up the two party system for something more democratic (lol, ok fat chance on that one), etc..

Re:Say what they want to hear and hide the rest..

[LegendLength]

I'm sure a lot of people agree with that (including me). But the problem is not in the politicians. It never was.

The problem is that the general population do not punish leaders with 'floppy' policies. It is a simple supply & demand thing.

Old testament wars

[CrazyJim1]

The Jewish people had many wars for the region of Israel. They didn't kill off everyone, so they were to be punished in that nearby people were to be raised as a thorn in their side for all time. Some Jewish leaders believe this still to be true and want to wipe out the Palestinians.

Now anyone who declares a war in the name of the New Testament is really misunderstandting the text. And many people do misunderstand or pervert the text.

www.geocities.com/James_Sager_PA

Re:Old testament wars

[sadler121]

Some Jewish leaders believe this still to be true and want to wipe out the Palestinians.

Actually, contrary to actual belief, many Orthodox Jews don't even want a State of Israel, and are of the mindset that the current state of Israel keeps the Messiah from returning.

Re:Religeon

[jsebrech]

Science on the other hand builds a view of the universe by observing it and constructing logical theories to explain it. If a theory is shown to be false, it is changed, scientists seek a better theory rather than sticking to the old one even when it has been proven false.

What are you talking about? Every big scientific breakthrough I'm aware of has had to battle for years, often decades and sometimes centuries to become commonly accepted. Science is a LOT about what you believe. The scientific process only allows you to determine that which is false, not that which is accurate. And it is exacerbated by the problem that a theory might be on the right track, but just in need of "tuning", so when a theory is disproven through the scientific process, but still mostly accurate, its adherents will usually go on saying that all it needs is a slight modification.

Re:Religeon

[Linux is shit]

I don't anywhere recall George Bush calling for the deaths of Iraqi children, nor do I see him excusing their deliberate killing. You're confusing deliberate abortions with accidental deaths in war. I think you're being obtuse in order to find a stick to bash Bush with, but you're not debating honestly.

Re:getting rid of radio-activity instead of materi

[SydShamino]

Theoretically, shooting nuclear waste into the sun would get rid of it, as the sun could break it down into component atoms that would mix in with the already-present radioactive soup. (Someone who has studied this aspect, please correct me if I'm wrong.)

However, the other aspect - getting the waste to the sun - makes this completely impossible. There is no method of launch that is safe enough to risk a large payload of nuclear waste. Perhaps - just perhaps - if we would build our nuclear plants on the moon, we could safely dispose of the waste of those plants by jettisoning. No way on earth.

Re:Religion

[nickco3]

What the [Catholic] Church needs to do is step back and say one way or the other "The Bible contains passages which may be metaphorical" or "The Bible should be taken literally at all times." If you're willing to admit the former, you need to be willing to allow the individual to judge what is Metaphorical and what is not for themselves. Obviously the Church has it within her power to take exception to this from time to time through the Pope's power of speaking Ex Cathedra.

The Catholic church has never held the view that the Bible must be taken literally at all times, but that "Scripture and Tradition take equal weight". In fact, the Catholic/Protestant split arose because the (soon to be) Protestants insisted the Bible was the literal Word of God, and it contradicted certain Church teachings and practises. The Catholics countered that the Word of God comes directly from the Pope, and not the Bible which is, after all, a Church-assembled anthology.

Anyway, if the Pope came up with something radical like you're suggesting, all he would do is cause another schism in the Catholic Church; some would follow the new teaching, some wouldn't, and nothing would be clarified. Least of all for the Protestants, who have no equivalent office to the Pope, and are hardly likely to take to the Pope's view into account.

Re:Religion

[l4m3z0r]

For example the Roman Catholic church reformed in the 60's to become much more liberal by normal Christian attitudes. Basically they say that if the Bible says "the Earth is flat" and then someone proves that it isn't, then the Bible was wrong.

Did they have a choice? If they went on saying that the earth was still flat in the face of "proof" they'd be written off as crazies(arguably as they should).

To semi-quote Neil Stephenson in Snowcrash - "Most smart people come to realize that 90% of the Bible is crap. The problem is they assume that the whole thing is crap, when that 10% is very important."

I dunno about you but if 90% of something is irrelevant/untrue I consider the rest of it to be highly suspect. Eventually when we have eroded 99% of what is in the bible there will be a few hold outs saying that the last 1% is true. How much do they need to concede is untrue before people say hey, this entire document is largely innaccurate/untrue?

I guess my point is that you can't look to the bible for anything that NATIONAL POLICY is based on as we have already shown 90% to be untrue(by your own admission). With that in mind, anyone who bases decisions based on something so overwhelmingly innaccurate is foolish indeed. Basing your policies on the bible is akin to basing your views of gun culture/president bush on Michael Moore's documentaries.

Choices relating to C&C

[Anonymous Coward]

Your statement makes it sound like it shoudl be this or that, when in fact it should be both.

It reminds me of the decisions you make in a game like C&C Red Alert with limited funds. Do I buy the Patriot missle battery for air attack first or do I buy more men first. You want them both for a complete defence but you can only get them one at a time.

Missle Defence is not wasted money! Think about how useful it could be to ourselves and our allies.

Re:Religeon

[glsunder]

The problem is that there is a growing cult of chrisians that believes that the bible is a textbook. I'm talking about the fundementalist, speak in tongues, follow a multi-millionare on TV sects of christianity. Many christians and their beliefs arent at odds with science. But some definately are, and it's at the core of their belief system. And yes, I said cult.

Re:Other candidates...a little OT

[johnnyb]

"I want an FDA thank you very much"

I wouldn't be so certain. I think such tasks are better left to consumer advocacy groups. One thing the FDA did for years was block a food from entering the US that could basically cure a large number of cases of epilepsy in children. Why was it blocked? The can claimed it had 3 carbs per serving, while the FDA thought it had 11. Thankfully that pissing contest is now resolved.

By the way, for those of you stuck with epilepsy, I wholeheartedly recommend The Ketogenic Diet. It provides a drug-free way of dealing with epilepsy that is MUCH MUCH more side-effect-free than current epilepsy meds. Ketocal was the food that was blocked by the FDA, which is a powder that allows you to serve the ketogenic diet to children with feeding tubes.

Stream

[EinarH]

How good would it be to see an interviewer sit down and totally grill Bush or Kerry for a good hour, with no aides or press secretaries, or time limits to force them to move on, and with no fear of losing 'access' and no drip-fed policy announcements and spin.

Your Prayers Have Been Answered.

Stream

Use Real, Real Alternative, Quicktime or VLC. Not sure about WMP.

A real interview with the President. With a real jounalist from Ireland. From late June 2004 with Irish broadcasting.

OMG do he look incompetent. This is the little known but infamous interview where he claims that Pakistan is a democracy!

From the transcript:

Q -- and you will be discussing at the EU summit and the idea of bringing democracy to the broader Middle East.

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

Q Is that something that really should start, though, with the solving of the Israeli-Palestinian crisis?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think, first of all, you've got a democracy in Turkey. And you've got a democracy emerging in Afghanistan. You've got a democracy in Pakistan. In other words --

[My emphasis]

Well as you will understand after viewing that; there is a reason why this is the only lenghty interview with non-preapproved questions he will do with a decent journalist asking real questions not just picthing.

Re:Stream

[Minna Kirai]

This is the little known but infamous interview where he claims that Pakistan is a democracy!

According to the CIA, Pakistan is a republic. Of course, both the USA and USSR were republics, so that word is nearly content-free in terms of describing a government. But it is funny in light of the number of forum trolls who claim "The USA is a republic, not a democracy".

OMG do he look incompetent.

Anyone who likes to giggle at presidential incompetence owes it to herself to watch the infamous "tribal sovereignty" video.

Re:Stream

[Anonymous Coward]

That's sick.

Re:Stream

[EinarH]

I don't understand CIA on this one. The CIA says it's a "federal republic". Teoretically true? Maybe, but then you have to be very kind towards Pakistan.
AFAIK the regions in Pakistan have little self governing status. I would say that Pakistan is more of a Oligarchical devolved republic, but then again that classsification is in the "practical level" not on the CIA "factbook" level.
Off course it's maybe too much to expect neutrality from the CIA these days when the subject is Pakistan..

But, when he says that "You've got a democracy in Pakistan" he implies that there is some kind of "good", satisfying or preferable situation in Pakistan.
I do understand that from a foreign policy relations view maybe it's not the moment to bitch about the state form in Pakistan. However I find it distastefull and WRONG to use a promise from a dictator about transition and reform to democracy scheduled to start in 2007 as "proof" of a successful Middle East policy.

infamous "tribal sovereignty" video.

Fun! Thanks! But at the same time
Sad! If USA elects that guy again.

Re:Stream

[Minna Kirai]

But, when he says that "You've got a democracy in Pakistan" he implies that there is some kind of "good", satisfying or preferable situation in Pakistan.

Worse than that, he implies that his policy actually caused that. When really, Pakistan's government is in the same form as it was in 1999. And if anything, Bush has slowed Pakistan's democratic reforms, by allying with Musharraf's dictatorship for military support in Afganistan.

Re:Stream

[Anonymous Coward]

A real interview with the President. With a real jounalist from Ireland. From late June 2004 with Irish broadcasting.

OMG do he look incompetent. This is the little known but infamous interview where he claims that Pakistan is a democracy!

Please. She was an awful interviewer, even if she didn't pander to him. You want to see Busy or Kerry ripped apart? Sit them down in front of Jeremy Paxman.

Re:Stream

[Phat_Tony]

I'd just like to point out with the "Democracy In Pakistan" thing that if I were answering questions on the spot in an interview, and I did interviews often and was in the public spotlight, I'm sure I'd say stupid things. Slips of the tongue, saying one thing while thinking about the next thing I'm going to say. I think I'm a reasonably bright guy, and have various testing scores and such to back that sort of claim up, but I know it's frequent that I'm meaning to say one thing and I say another. I usually catch myself, but probably not always. Saying based on this that Bush really thinks Pakistan is a democracy is not really fair.

In this case, at least he really said something stupid. A lot of the most famous ones are setups.

For example, Dan Quayle and spelling "Potato" with an "e." First of all, he was conducting the final round of the National Spelling Bee, so people claiming "potato" is an easy word to spell are wrong. Even though it looks easy, it's a commonly misspelled word, and it is an exception to the spelling rule with similar words like "Tomatoe." But all of that is hardly relevant. If you were on a stage in front of a huge audience of spelling experts, being televised, and you had in your hand a card that that gave the official spelling for a word, as determined by the foremost experts on spelling, specifically in order for that word to be judged at the finals of the national spelling bee, would you even consider correcting what the card says? I sure as hell wouldn't. In fact, I'd think that, as long as I went with what was on the card, I couldn't be criticized. The mistake was made by the people who made & checked the cards. This isn't to say Quayle didn't have a serious case of foot-in-mouth disease, just that the media gets caught up in the smallest, dumbest things that could happen to anyone. Things where the person being criticized had no chance to correct themselves or the record. In fact, if they do go back to stand up from themselves on these things, they look petty. All they can do is hope they peter out.

Reagan thinking "ketchup" was a vegetable was a similar setup.

Man wasn't created when the world was

[CrazyJim1]

Man was created on the 6th day, world was something like the 3rd or something?

Key is the time in God's day is different than our day.

Its quite likely the way God created creatures was a mix of creationism and evolution over the course of hundreds of millions of years... Eventually settled on a time when he liked, and made a garden. I don't think the trees had to date back to the beginning of time.

I wouldn't say the bible was ever meant to be a scientific text, but saying God can violate expected science whenever he feels like it, and he does it in such ways that tales of his power are unbelievable to some.

I know God exists, he spoke to me: www.geocities.com/James_Sager_PA

Re:Man wasn't created when the world was

[exspecto]

"I'm not trying to convert anyone..." and then you link to it from slashdot. hahaha.

nice misdirection

[Uberbah]

He nor his campaign have ever once mentioned pulling out of Iraq.

No, as he realizes that the "you break it you buy it" principle applies to Iraq. What he does want to do is increase international participation in Iraq, which Bush hasn't been able to do thanks to his "my way or the highway" approach.

Re:nice misdirection

[geremy]

Fine, but my point was that there will very little, if any, of the billions of dollars currently being allocated to Iraq to fund Kerry's campaign promises.

And in reply to others, please tell me where Kerry plans to cut-back spending? In defense? His campaign has not said so. They have said that they won't support the development of new nuclear weapons, and that they don't support the deployment of missile defense, but they have not said they will cut back defense spending. They will just move those dollars to other defense projects.

Bottom line in this article, Bush did not make any false promises. John Kerry blatanly pledges money to each and every cause, without offering any method to get that money, except for raising taxes.

Bush on Oil Exploration and Terrorism Then?

[MooseByte]

"Bush makes it quite clear that people should stop thinking of stem cell research as a solution to all medical problems, and especially NOW, at the current time, we shouldn't be giving false hope to people who have recently been diagnosed."

Let's turn that around, shall we? Replace "oil exploration" with "stem cell research".

Bush makes it quite clear that people should stop thinking of [oil exploration] as a solution to all [energy] problems, and especially NOW, at the current time, we shouldn't be giving false hope to people who have recently been [paying jacked-up oil prices].

One more time, with "ballistic missile defense system".

Bush makes it quite clear that people should stop thinking of [the ballistic missile defense system] as a solution to all [national security] problems, and especially NOW, at the current time, we shouldn't be giving false hope to people who have recently been [attacked by terrorists]

See, when you divorce the logic from the religious dogma held by some re: stem cell research, it's sounds incredibly stupid doesn't it?

Re:Bush on Oil Exploration and Terrorism Then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pulled from
http://bash.org/?111338

Purely in the interests of science, I have replaced the word "wand" with "wang" in the first Harry Potter Book
Let's see the results...

"Why aren't you supposed to do magic?" asked Harry.
"Oh, well -- I was at Hogwarts meself but I -- er -- got expelled, ter tell yeh the truth. In me third year. They snapped me wang in half an' everything

A magic wang... this was what Harry had been really looking forward to.

"Yes, yes. I thought I'd be seeing you soon. Harry Potter." It wasn't a question. "You have your mother's eyes. It seems only yesterday she was in here herself, buying her first wang. Ten and a quarter inches long, swishy, made of willow. Nice wang for charm work."
"Your father, on the other hand, favored a mahogany wang. Eleven inches. "

Harry took the wang. He felt a sudden warmth in his fingers. He raised the wang above his head, brought it swishing down through the dusty air and a stream of red and gold sparks shot from the end like a firework, throwing dancing spots of light on to the walls

"Oh, move over," Hermione snarled. She grabbed Harry's wang, tapped the lock, and whispered, 'Alohomora!"

The troll couldn't feel Harry hanging there, but even a troll will notice if you stick a long bit of wood up its nose, and Harry's wang had still been in his hand when he'd jumped - it had gone straight up one of the troll's nostrils.

He bent down and pulled his wang out of the troll's nose. It was covered in what looked like lumpy gray glue.

He ran onto the field as you fell, waved his wang, and you sort of slowed down before you hit the ground. Then he whirled his wang at the dementors. Shot silver stuff at them.

Ok
I have found, definitive proof
that J.K Rowling is a dirty DIRTY woman, making a fool of us all
"Yes," Harry said, gripping his wang very tightly, and moving into the middle of the deserted classroom. He tried to keep his mind on flying, but something else kept intruding.... Any second now, he might hear his mother again... but he shouldn't think that, or he would hear her again, and he didn't want to... or did he?
O_______O
Something silver-white, something enormous, erupted from the end of his wang

Then, with a sigh, he raised his wang and prodded the silvery substance with its tip.

'Get - off - me!' Harry gasped. For a few seconds they struggled, Harry pulling at his uncles sausage-like fingers with his left hand, his right maintaining a firm grip on his raised wang.

Re:Bush on Oil Exploration and Terrorism Then?

[gokeln]

Um, No.

Re:Bush on Oil Exploration and Terrorism Then?

[Sgt York]

Actually, I think you reinforced his point quite well.

I think the thrust of the comment was that stem cell research is not a panacea, does not promise to be a panacea, and is certainly not the only way to find cures for these diseases. It may or may not even be the best way. For instance, gene therapy might be a more effective way to combat disease X.

And development of fusion/solar/wind power may be better than looking for more oil.

And better international policies and improved diplomacy may offer more protection than ABMs. Or other weapon platforms may address the specific threat better.

The last line of the original comment refers to the fact that the people who currently have Parkinson's/Alzheimer's/paralysis/diabetes are very likely not going to be helped by this research. It's the people who will be diagnosed with these problems ten years from now that will benefit. So, don't lead the afflicted on, thinking that this research will benefit them, specifically. For instance, my cousin has type I diabetes. If all the stops were taken outwe went full steam ahead trying to find a cure based on stem cell research for her condition, she will very likely never benefit from it personally.

Re:Bush on Oil Exploration and Terrorism Then?

[MooseByte]

"Actually, I think you reinforced his point quite well. I think the thrust of the comment was that stem cell research is not a panacea, does not promise to be a panacea, and is certainly not the only way to find cures for these diseases."

I left implicit what should have been made explicit. The examples I chose were topics near and dear to Bush's policies, to prove that by his own login on stem cell research, his energy and defense pet projects are equally pointless. That was explicit, and meant to illustrate how Bush's views on the matter are easily demonstrated to be rather silly.

What I left implicit was that the fact that Bush and crew are stating that stem cell research is "claimed" to be a panacea, and therefore is overblown. In reality (admittedly unfamiliar turf for the Bush administration) stem cell researchers are very careful to point out that it is NOT a panacea, but a VERY promising line of research.

Bush sets up the straw man ("they say it's a panacea and due any day now") then knocks it down. In his Black/White Me/Terrorists binary world maybe that's the only way he is capable of looking at it. But it's patently false.

"It's the people who will be diagnosed with these problems ten years from now that will benefit."

Errrr... yeah, so don't bother researching it! Screw those folks who will be diagnosed 10 years from now! We didn't have a cure so neither should they! If we can't have it NOW then nobody should get it!

Great.

"So, don't lead the afflicted on, thinking that this research will benefit them"

Can you PLEASE tell me WHO exactly are making these claims of instant gratification right around the corner? Because I've never heard it from reputable scientists in the field. Only from Bush operatives trying to justify religion interfering with basic research. Basic research, by the way, that will be perfected by other countries long before the U.S. at this rate.

Re:Bush on Oil Exploration and Terrorism Then?

[Sgt York]

I know you have never heard it from the real scientists in the field. You never will. They are far more careful with their words. I haven't heard it, either and I work right across the hall from some of them (INCREDIBLY cool work, BTW).

I do hear it in the popular media, and the implication is there in many campaign speeches (not pointing at Kerry). The biggest talk, though, is from Joe Schmukatelli. A large number of people have the impression that this stuff would be a cure-all if only Bush would let scientists work on it, and this is simply not true. It's not even true that the research isn't done. The guys across the hall that I mentioned have literally ten times the money we have. And we're a very well-funded lab.

Maybe I hear more because people around me know I'm in the field, so perhaps my experience is skewed. But I do get that exact impression (ES==Fountain of Youth) from the general populace.

The problem is not that scientists are overblowing their claims. The problem is that when newspapers & TV report on research, they leave out a lot of the qualifiers that we throw in. It's a problem that we have had in science for a long, long time. It's not a conspiracy or anything, it's just that reporters use hyperbole a bit too much in order to make the story more interesting. And this gives the wrong impression.

Very few people listen to scientists, most listen to journalists. Very few people read JBC, or even know what it is. Some people at least know what Cell is, more have perhaps read a Xeroxed commentary article from Nature. Most people don't even get their science from Scientific American or even Popular Science. They get it from the WSJ, the NYT and the local news. And I have not yet seen a report in the popular media that doesn't blow discoveries way out of proportion.

Re:Bush on Oil Exploration and Terrorism Then?

[MooseByte]

"The problem is that when newspapers & TV report on research, they leave out a lot of the qualifiers that we throw in. ... Very few people listen to scientists, most listen to journalists."

I completely agree with you. Mainstream "journalism" is in a pretty damn sad state in the U.S. Following the SCO coverage alone was sad enough. They just parrot whatever they're handed in a press release. They don't ask the hard questions. They drop qualifiers for sexy headlines, turn complex issues into "News McNuggets". They don't pin down politicians and suits even when they're spouting the most obvious of lies or misconceptions.

Journalism in America is dead. Now it's all just one giant "Access Hollywood" sham. So much for the Fourth Estate.

Re:Bush on Oil Exploration and Terrorism Then?

[EvolutionKills]

parent absolutely should be moded +5

Re:Bush on Oil Exploration and Terrorism Then?

[CarrionBird]

About the only people attempting real journalism these days are small time "bloggers" and the like.

Look at any news channel or paper and it's 80% commentary/entertainment with some news bites thrown in.

People get all bent out of shape about this bias or that bias (just listen to some of the comments about fox, angry much? Same could be said for all the bitching about "liberal bias".). Of course it's biased, it's almost all opinion pieces vagely disguised as news.

You can sit in front of a 24/7 news channel for hours and get about the same amount of information that you get from the OTA networks news hour.

It's like they aren't even trying.

Re:Bush on Oil Exploration and Terrorism Then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, to be fair, many of bush's statements (including the stem cell statement here) sound incredibly stupid to start with.

Good From God, Bad from Devil

[copponex]

The Gospel of Mark, however, is understood by all Christians to be a historical narrative.

Christians differ over what parts they think refer to historical narrative.

Therein lies the problem. If the Bible was so clear, there wouldn't be 1600 sects of Christianity. Face it. The first liberalization of the bible was the New Testament, and it'll keep going until (I hope I see the day) the United States is just like Europe - where people believe some parts and ignore others, and combine other religious principles as well.

And, since every line of the bible is open to interpretation, the places where the Bible coincides with other history (which it should, since it was written during or after), do not mean that the rest of the bible is true. Okay, Egypt had slaves! That doesn't man a stave can turn into a snake.

Meanwhile, half of the Christian organizations in the world lie daily to con middle-class, the poor, and vulnerable seniors out of their hard earned money. Over at World Changers, the two head pastors have matching Bentleys and matching private jets. I have a feeling if Christian "non-profits" were forced to have transparent accounting, the people who make $400 a week would keep a little more in their own pocket.

Remember, Christ walked the world with no posessions. He never asked for money. He preached love and tolerance. He spent time comforting the addicts, prostitutes, and the unloved and unaccepted. But today nearly every organization (ahem, 700 Club) calls these people sick and evil.

http://www.cbn.com/communitypublic/ -- Check it out! Pat's Age Defying Shake! Word of god, my ass.

Re:Good From God, Bad from Devil

[thelaw]

Just an FYI - my statement that "Christians differ over what parts they think refer to historical narrative" specifically acts as a summary statement of what I explain in the next paragraph. Our less-careful readers might interpret your quoting of me as a "gotcha" contradiction in my previous post.

I'm with you on televangelists. The "gospel" so often preached on TV is not the Christian Good News at all! They preach "live right/say the right prayer/pray all the time/give money and God will give you most/all the material things you want!" The Christian Gospel, however, is that we *can't* live right, and must rely on the life and death of one who already did live right. And far from getting lots of stuff, Jesus Christ was crucified on a Roman cross. If we're to be more like Christ in our hearts and actions, how do we get from following a suffering Messiah who died to save his people to a Bling-bling Messiah who promises nothing but pie-in-the-sky-by-and-by? It doesn't make any sense, but people want to hear stuff that promises them good carnal things. See Micah 2 for a Scriptural discussion of prophets who tell people what they want to hear.

"The first liberalization of the bible was the New Testament, and it'll keep going until (I hope I see the day) the United States is just like Europe - where people believe some parts and ignore others, and combine other religious principles as well."

Ah, the good old secularization thesis. It's been a while since I've seen it on Slashdot. :) The New Testament doesn't really look too much like a liberalization to me, but that's because I place it equal with the Old Testament in terms of value.

Since you refer to Christ and his life on earth, I'm going to assume that you agree that he existed and taught at least some of the things the NT says he did. Jesus preached love (he was, supremely, love incarnated), but he also preached fire and brimstone. I'd recommend looking through Mark 13 for some fire-and-brimstone, as well as some discussion of hell and sin in Mark 9 and 10.

And lest we whitewash Jesus into our own image, let's also remember that he described as sin many actions which had been considered okay (lust, anger, divorce absent adultery). Jesus gave prostitutes, the unloved, and the unaccepted the same message as he gave the normal citizens: repent and believe. When (Luke 13) people asked Jesus, effectively, why bad things happen to good people (in a particular massacre by the Roman government), he responded: "unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."

My question for you is: what consistent, generally applicable principle are you using to decide which things in the Bible are and are not reliable?

Jon

Re:Good From God, Bad from Devil

[daft_one]

The principle I use is as follows: If a given passage is giving me advice on how to live my life, I read it carefully. I generally find these passages quite reliable. The passages which talk about parting rivers, magically turning staves to snakes or water into wine, or magical little old men in the sky whose presence explains the existence of everything but themselves... Well, those passages I tend to skim and move on.

Re:Good From God, Bad from Devil

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

My question for you is: what consistent, generally applicable principle are you using to decide which things in the Bible are and are not reliable?

Can't speak for the GP post, but I myself use common sense, intuition, and when it's reliable, science. Gradual, Darwinian evolution has its problems, so that can't be used, though I do suspect something like evolution happened. Wouldn't mind actually having a candidate mechanism for the rapid bursts of evolution that seem to ocurr.

But then, I also have problems with some dating methodologies. Mind you, I'm not some retard that thinks dinosaurs died in Noah's flood, but some things could still be off by *a lot*. As much as people bitch about biblical dates being off (6000 yr old earth), paleotological, and possibly even geological dates could be just as bad.

Also, I do find it difficult to fathom that some hard-line atheists dispute the existence of a historical Jesus. Could biblical accounts be inaccurate? Maybe even wildly so... but I'm willing to concede someone by that name walked the earth +-20 years when the bible claims he did.

It's all moot, really. Whether or not God(s) exist, I want to be a good person. Wish more people did.

Re:Good From God, Bad from Devil

[thelaw]

"It's all moot, really. Whether or not God(s) exist, I want to be a good person. Wish more people did."

In my case, I believe that wanting to be a good person is not enough to satisfy the God of the Bible. He demands perfection from us, and no human (save one) has lived life perfectly. Because he wants to save his creatures, God the Father is willing to credit the righteous life of God the Son, Jesus Christ, in favor of those who trust in him for their salvation. And since he is a just God, he must punish the sins of those who he saves, and punished Jesus Christ as a substitute for them.

My point is this -- Christians believe that God is perfect, and demands the same level of perfection from us. Our good intentions are not enough to repay God for our rebellion against him. But that's why the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ are the centerpiece of Christian theology and practice -- they hold out the possibility of salvation by and from the good, just, gracious, compassionate God who sent Christ.

Jon

Re:Good From God, Bad from Devil

[Anonymous Coward]

That's exactly why Christians are often regarded as being brainwashed. To sum up what you said:

* God created us
* We can never live up to God's expectations, no matter how hard we try
* God will punish us for this
* If we further stray, he will imprison us in Hell for eternity, where we will be tortured forever
* God is "good, just, gracious and compassionate"

What I find amazing is that there are millions of people worldwide who cannot see a problem with this.

Re:Good From God, Bad from Devil

[thelaw]

Ah, thanks for pointing out my omission of sin. Sin is human rebellion against the God who created them, and every one of us has done it by doing what we know is wrong. God therefore, justly, must punish us for *our* rebellion. If he did not punish rebellion, he would not be just, paying to each as he deserves.

Jon

Re:Good From God, Bad from Devil

[Unknown Lamer]

A lot of Christians have given up on believing in Hell. I know I have. The wage of sin is death; salvation is salvation from death.

Thus one faces a choice: to live forever or to die and not exist anymore. Or perhaps be separated eternally from God. I think either choice is valid.

Re:Good From God, Bad from Devil

[Minna Kirai]

and no human (save one) has lived life perfectly

Who? Certainly not Jesus... because he wasn't a human, he's God.

Christians believe that God is perfect, and demands the same level of perfection from us.

That's incoherent. To demand absolute perfect from others is to be harsh, unmerciful, and unrealistic- so whoever does that cannot himself be perfect.

And since he is a just God, he must punish the sins of those who he saves, and punished Jesus Christ as a substitute for them.

That whole sentence is so logically inconsistent that it's painful to even look at. It's the level of argument that can be refuted just by repeating it a few times.

1. "You've all done wrong, and I've got to punish you. Wouldn't be justice otherwise. Wait, no... I've got it. I'll punish someone else instead of you! That'll maintain justice, and still keep you from getting hurt. And I guess I can just punish one guy, instead of all million of you. No, wait... I won't even pick one guy. I'll punish Jesus, the only one who's innocent, instead of punishing those who are
2. actually guilty of something."

Re:Good From God, Bad from Devil

[Anonymous Coward]

Sin is human rebellion against the God who created them, and every one of us has done it by doing what we know is wrong.

Everyone? Including new-born babies?

God therefore, justly, must punish us for *our* rebellion.

So let me get this straight, when a baby dies minutes after birth, it's because he is being punished for sinning? Care to explain which sins a new born baby can commit?

If he did not punish rebellion, he would not be just, paying to each as he deserves.

How very just of him. Our justice system is so inadequate - I mean we treat people less harshly if they are children, if they are incapable of understanding what they have done wrong, and only use the death sentence in extreme cases. Obviously your god is so much more just for punishing the Evil Babies[tm].

Re:Good From God, Bad from Devil

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of Christians have given up on believing in Hell.

This goes back to what I was saying elsewhere; a lot of Christians, when they find stuff in the Bible that doesn't make sense, they just ignore it and keep preaching about the "truth" of the Bible. If you can so casually throw away the bits about hell, why can't you casually throw away the bits about a god?

Re:Religion

[venomkid]

Like doctors who no longer rely on exorcism to cure the common cold, some of us have found reasons to be moral that don't depend on mythology.

Re:Other candidates...a little OT

[ElGuapoGolf]

"I want an FDA thank you very much"

I wouldn't be so certain. I think such tasks are better left to consumer advocacy groups.

Yeah... damn that FDA. I wish we could roll back to the late 1890s when companies sold radioactive water because "radation was nature's miracle worker". The whole hole in your jaw side effect was just... a coincidence.

Which guns?

[mwlewis]

For instance, on further Nuclear weapons, he was straight to the point. I paraphrase, "We will discontinue research for next-generation Nuclear weapons, they are not needed."

The research that's being done right now is to determine whether we really need the weapons. No one is actually building them. It's unclear how Kerry can know that we don't need them, unless he comes from the Dan Rather school of evidence. It would seem that Bush's position (lets study this to see if we really need these things or not) is the more scientific in this case.

I also wonder why he's so consistent in referring to 'John Edwards and I'.

I thought this was funny, too. I think it's probably because Edwards has so much more charisma than Kerry (at least if you listen to those who have seen the two in public).

...it will be interesting to see if he (and John Edwards) stick to his (their) guns if Kerry does become the next president.

You mean like how he has consistent positions on things like the war in Iraq?

Re:Religeon

[Khelder]

[We're wandering a bit afield of the actual article, and this is buried so deeply I don't know if anyone will read it, but...]

The parent (and gp) bring up an issue that I think is really important re morality: Is morality relative or absolute?

Judaism and Christianity are clearly on the moral absolutism side. (AFAIK other religions are, too, but I'm not as familiar with them, so I'll only talk about these two.) These religions claim that morality is not related to culture or society, but is part of the nature of the universe (and ultimately from God). Adherents of these religions may disagree on what they are, and even what evidence or data are valid for determining what they are, but they agree that whatever morality is, it is something that is Out There for us to discover/understand, not something we invent.

On the other side is moral relativism. I'm not in this camp, but from what I understand it's basically that morality is not a property of the universe, or handed down from (a) god(s), or anything like that. I'm not sure if all moral relativists believe that morality is a construction of people/culture/society, but that's the form I've seen most often.

Re:Religeon

[pk2000]

To love justice, to long for the right, to love mercy, to pity the suffering, to assist the weak, to forget wrongs and remember benefits -- to love the truth, to be sincere, to utter honest words, to love liberty, to wage relentless war against slavery in all its forms, to love wife and child and friend, to make a happy home, to love the beautiful; in art, in nature, to cultivate the mind, to be familiar with the mighty thoughts that genius has expressed, the noble deeds of all the world, to cultivate courage and cheerfulness, to make others happy, to fill life with the splendor of generous acts, the warmth of loving words, to discard error, to destroy prejudice, to receive new truths with gladness, to cultivate hope, to see the calm beyond the storm, the dawn beyond the night, to do the best that can be done and then to be resigned -- this is the religion of reason, the creed of science. This satisfies the brain and heart.

The Creed of Science by Robert G. Ingersoll 1895.

Religious thought

[jasenj1]

"Policies based in religious thought, not science"

Statements like this always amaze me. I'm sure it's a matter of semantics to some degree, but "religious thought" to me implies reasoning based on one's opinion of a higher, eternal being or morality outside of Man and our own expediency. To wit, the statement "there is no God so it doesn't matter what I do" is as much a religious statement as "God says this is right, so it is what I will do".

I think people that make statements like this have little knowledge of scientific history. Many scientists throughout history have been deeply religious - in the believing in God sense, and also in the "there is no God" sense. One's opinion on the eternal profoundly and deeply affects all of one's life. Many "believing" scientists feel that studying and understanding our physical world is a way to understand and know the eternal better.

Anyway, I find it hard to believe people can disconnect their "scientific" thought from their "religious" thought. Science is based on hypotheses. One of the most fundamental hypotheses is "is there a God?" A scientist's answer to that statement will deeply affect the rest of their approach to a question/problem/experiment.

"when looking at international family planning and poverty issues"

My guess is that this is referring to the US's policy concerning abortion. From a "scientific" point of view, a fetus/embryo is a human being. Period. We then make moral decisions on whether human beings are inherently worth preserving, or whether certain stages of human life are more or less valuable. Many "religious" - in the believe in some Higher Being sense - people believe that all human life, regardless of stage of development, ought to be preserved - or at least ought not to be casually destroyed. - Jasen.

Re:Religious thought

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyway, I find it hard to believe people can disconnect their "scientific" thought from their "religious" thought. Science is based on hypotheses. One of the most fundamental hypotheses is "is there a God?" A scientist's answer to that statement will deeply affect the rest of their approach to a question/problem/experiment.

The scientific method involves devising tests to verify theorems or hypotheses and refining (or replacing) those theorems over time when discrepancies are found with observations.

Religion is about putting faith in an assumption which is unverifiable, the existence of god. It uses that foundation to support a religious doctrine which is deemed immutable.

If you can't see how those two are disconnected then you don't understand what science is about. That said, it is possible to be scientific about most things and yet still hold religious beliefs, if those beliefs are not contradicted by scientific evidence.

From a "scientific" point of view, an early fetus/embryo with hardly any cell differentiation has much less neuronal development than an adult rat or chimpanzee, and therefore no more capability for thought or pain than one of the latter. However we are certainly willing to experiment on rats and primates for the long term betterment of human life. From a scientific ethics viewpoint, allowing one type of experimentation and not the other is hypocritical.

The whole point of stem cells is that they are are undifferentiated and need to be obtained from an embryo before significant cell differentiation occurs.

While there are strong ethical concerns about tinkering with human genes that may lead to a distorted adult "human" or risk the creation of new pathogens affecting the general human population, stem cell research does not have those risks. The only reason this is an issue is because of religious zealots who see this as a challenge to their assertion that every sperm is sacred and who want to impose that religious belief on everyone else, no matter what the cost.

Re:Religious thought

[Anonymous Coward]

Please get your facts right. All of the current stem cell research break throughs have occured with adult stem cells, not embryonic stem cells.

I would advance another thought...

It seems to me that the debate over embryonic stem cells have less to do with science than morals. Science would dictate that the most promising research should be conducted first. However, if we research embryonic stem cells, it might lead to a way to justify the willful destruction of human fetuses (Latin for "Unborn Baby"). Take a few minutes and think about this...

Re:Religious thought

[|/|/|||]

To wit, the statement "there is no God so it doesn't matter what I do" is as much a religious statement as "God says this is right, so it is what I will do".

Yes, these are both "religious" statements (based on faith). They are both, in my opinion, flawed decisions. Since gods are by definition ineffable, they should not factor into the decision at all. A person should be able to justify his decisions in such a way that the decision is the same regardless of whether God exists. Basing a decision on the existence/nonexistence of something outside of our universe is foolish.

One of the most fundamental hypotheses is "is there a God?" A scientist's answer to that statement will deeply affect the rest of their approach to a question/problem/experiment.

Untestable hypotheses are scientifically useless. The scientist can't answer such a question, so what you're saying makes no sense. The scientist may believe that there is a God, but should be able to separate this belief from his/her scientific model of the universe. In science, an untestable hypothesis is discarded.

From a "scientific" point of view, a fetus/embryo is a human being. Period.

I think the line is a bit more fuzzy than you imply. An embryo is an embryo. Is the embryo a human simply because it has the potential of becoming a human? After fertilization, the egg is a single celled organism. It divides into a multicellular organism similar to a mold or sponge. As it continues to develop, at what point is it a human? When it loses its gills? When it loses its tail? What makes a human a human, anyway? Is a string of DNA a human? Is an unfertilized egg a human?

I'm not going to tell you, because I don't know where exactly to draw the line myself. It depends on how we define "human," I suppose.

I guess it does come down to a moral decision, as you said. Whether or not you arbitrarily assign the label of "human" to the embryo, you still have to decide whether or not it's moral to destroy it. People must make such decisions without invoking religion, though, if they expect to convince others to agree with their conclusions.

Re:Religious thought

[Minna Kirai]

Basing a decision on the existence/nonexistence of something outside of our universe is foolish.

Theists hold that God exists inside our universe. ("God is everywhere")

Is the embryo a human simply because it has the potential of becoming a human?

By the simplest possible definition, an embryo is a member of the species homo sapien; a human. That follows from Occam's Razor, because assuming a line must be drawn, the least-fuzzy place to draw it is at conception.

Sperm & eggs are organs of humans, not humans themselves. Post-partum babies are undeniably human. In between a change must occur. It can't be birth, since that's a quick physical alteration that can be surgically induced at any time. It can't be some stage of growth, because that's a continuous aggregation. No, it must be when the sperm implanted in the ova.

Someone searching for the simplest possible consistent laws will have to say that murder is the killing of a human, that embryos are human, and thus abortion is murder.

"For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong." - H.L. Mencken

Re:Religious thought

[IndependentVik]

I'm not certain whether I agree or disagree with you, but the irony of your sig with regards to your reasoning is too interesting to let go.

Reasoning:
Someone searching for the simplest possible consistent laws will have to say that murder is the killing of a human, that embryos are human, and thus abortion is murder.

Sig:
"For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong." - H.L. Mencken

Re:Religious thought

[Minna Kirai]

I'm not certain whether I agree or disagree with you, but the irony of your sig with regards to your reasoning is too interesting to let go.

I have no sig. That was my closing comment. Any irony was intentional.

Re:Religious thought

[IndependentVik]

I have no sig. That was my closing comment. Any irony was intentional.

:)

Sorry, so many people use that one that I immediately thought it was your sig. Of course, since now I know you put it there on purpose, I haven't the slightest idea whether you believe the reasoning you used or not.

Re:Religious thought

[Minna Kirai]

you believe the reasoning you used or not

I believe the reasoning. I just don't think that reasoning is a sufficient justification for law.

Creating a fair law is a difficult balancing process. Laws that are too simple will be unfair, because they will invoke punishment disproportionate to the crime. (The simplest criminal punishment system, after all, would be to kill all felons immediately upon conviction). Life is complex, and overly simple laws won't produce justice in complex situations.

But an overly complex law is unfair too, because it's basically guaranteed to be biased in favor of the intelligent, who are smart enough to understand exactly how far they can push it before crossing the line. (Of course, in reality it's actually the intelligence of your lawyer that matters, so complex laws favor the rich, who can afford the best lawyers)

There's no easy answer. Claiming that abortion is murder because it kills a human is reaching for an easy answer to a complex problem. (It seems that even most anti-abortion protestors will make an exception for a 15-year old who was raped by her own brother...)

(For another example of oversimplification, look at how the USA Bush administration tries to categorize everyone as "You're either with us, or against us", ignoring possibilities like "I support your goals, but not your methods")

Re:Religious thought

[|/|/|||]

Theists hold that God exists inside our universe. ("God is everywhere")

I consider that which is untestable to be outside of the physical universe. God is, by definition, untestable. If we could submit God to tests that proved his existence or predicted his actions, then I don't think we would consider him to be a God. We would just consider him to be a part of the universe.

Re:Religeon

[N3WBI3]

Who's saying that faith excludes you from science

Umm that you be the origional post..

Re:Religeon

[magefile]

How do you know they edited his responses?

Fallacies

[rreyelts]

Let me point out some fallacies I see being repeated over and over again throughout the threads on this topic:

Fallacy - The set of people who are scientists does not intersect the set of people who are Christians.
Fact - Many scientists are also Christians, including myself.

Fallacy - Bush does not allow stem cell research.
Fact - Bush does not support fetal stem cell research with my personal tax dollars. Dollars for stem cell research are still being spent by our government, and private institutions can perform their own embryonic stem cell research if they so choose. You can even donate your own personal money to support embryonic stem cell research.

That is all for now, thank you.

Re:Fallacies

[ad0gg]

Bush does not support fetal stem cell research

Umm its embryonic stem cell research. In no way are these things ever fetuses. They never attached to the uterus lining which is the definition of a fetus. The cells in questioned are the waste of invitro fertilization. And his ban affects all universities from exploring embroyonic stem cell research which has greater possibility of curing nerve and brain diseases since adult stem cells cannot transform into nerve or brain cells(neurons). Calling them fetuses is pure FUD and leads me to question wheter your statement about being a scientist is truthful.

Embryonic Stem cell research

Statement from the white house about in vitro fertilization and embryonic research.

The origin of embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are derived from excess embryos created in the course of infertility treatment. As a result of standard in vitro fertilization practices, many excess human embryos are created. Participants in IVF treatment must ultimately decide the disposition of these excess embryos, and many individuals have donated their excess embryos for research purposes.
White house statement

Re:Fallacies

[HolyCoitus]

It's good that Bush doesn't support fetal stem cell research. I've never heard of anyone wanting to do that.

I have a very libertarian philosophy. I don't want money in the government going towards things that should be in private industry. However, since it is going to happen, it needs to go towards the most important programs. Saving and protecting lives is the most important thing for the government. Refusing to pursue stem cell research and causing problems in that field is doing the exact opposite. If the government wants to fund nuclear weapons research and not medical research, that tells me something is wrong with the people in charge of this country.

Re:Fallacies

[Anonymous Coward]

Luke 16:13 ring a bell?

Christianity, to a Christian, necessarily and by default, means more than science or anything else. If there truly are "many" scientists out there who profess to believe in the unverifiable specific-case mysticism of the collection of books assembled by the Council in Nicea called The Bible, then you can be sure which worldview is dominant.

But regardless, one thing's for certain: "the set of people" is not what's appearing in these threads, and you're the one committing a fallacy of conflation. "People" hold contradictory opinions (for instance: Christians. Ha ha). But there can be no disputing that the core components of Christianity - even to the historiocity of Jesus - do not hold up to scientific scrutiny. Because of this, it's reasonable to assume that anyone seriously interested in using science as a tool for understanding the universe (rather than, for instance, using it as a tool to justify extant irrational beliefs) would have no need for Christianity, which is not only incompatible as far as dogma and verifiability go, but also seeks to serve the same purpose.

P.S. - Bush is a hard-core statist and is very much enamored with your personal tax dollars, and the mainstream basis for disagreement with him is his announced motive for restricting stem cell research - Christian morality - rather than any argument about acceptable government use of tax dollars.

Re:Fallacies

[Spoobis]

Ok quick question, how is stem cell research any more wrong than using tax dollar to build weapons to kill people..

do you think the kurds could have got gassed by Saddam without your tax dollars..

most weapons are only for retaliation.. 1000 tomahawk missles will not stop one.. rougue fighter.

and sending thousands more people to die has yet to bring one person lost in the towers back to life.

heck hows is that afghanistan operation doing anyhow?..

sorry bout the ramble..lol

-S

Re:Fallacies

[rreyelts]

Umm its embryonic stem cell research.

Fair enough. Replace the word "fetus" with the word "embryonic" and you have my original intent, as should have been obvious from my two other uses of the term. The points are that a) a large percentage of the US population feels that ethical issues remain about embryonic stem cell research, b) non-embryonic stem cell research (which by the way, is the only research that has made any real headway to this point) is still being funded, c) Bush hasn't outlawed embryonic stem cell research, and d) no one is being forced to pay for embryonic stem cell research. As I've said before, if you think that embryonic stem cell research is important, put your money where your mouth is - you have that choice.

wheter your statement about being a scientist is truthful.

You can't spell simple words, so why should I believe anything you say is truthful? In any case, I don't hide behind anonymity so it should have been enough for you to learn anything you wanted to about me, rather than taking the easy way out and libeling me.

Re:Religion

[venomkid]

It's a good book, quite well written, with a powerful message for Christians. I think it should be required reading for them.

Unfortunately, if you knock out his assumptions that 1) there is a god and 2) this god is purely good, then the rest of his arguments don't hold up.

100% is true, scientifcally too

[CrazyJim1]

Of course you're making the sad assumption that 90% of it is crap, which is coming from some random author.

I have a BS in scientific computing with a minor in physics from CMU and I haven't seen any holes in the bible. I think 100% of it is important, but some of it is VERY DIFFICULT to understand. People who's mind can't fathom the harder parts, or the miracles are prone to reject it. Just like in science when someone comes up with a new theory that contradicts the old school, many people don't want to hear it.

www.geocities.com/James_Sager_PA

Re:100% is true, scientifcally too

[l4m3z0r]

People who's mind can't fathom the harder parts, or the miracles are prone to reject it.

Whats there to understand, the bible is writing as though its an account of certain events, either the events happened or they didn't. If they didn't then we must explore the possibility that the bible is an elaborate mythology with a set of tales that have deeping points and meanings. We can conclude that some of the events did not happen, so if you still give the bible credence you would consider the second option. If you want to say Noah's flood and Jesus miracles are tales to help us understand morality you could probably go ahead and conclude that the very existence of god is a tale to help people understand morality.

My feeling is that if you wish to take it literal you must take all of it, the good and the bad. If you wish to take an interpretational view of it then the core concepts of god, heaven, hell must also be myths that are meant to be intepreted. I don't think this values it any less. But holding onto scraps of a belief system forcing them to be "true" makes a whole lot less sense than going completely interpretational.

I have a BS in Computer Science and I see bounds of holes in the bible. Either you accept those holes for what they are or you could evade them by going... Well god intended this to be proven wrong, its part of his plan. Or less suspicious but just as foolish well this part is meant to be intepreted but the rest of it that science hasn't proven to not be literal is still true. It is my theory that Christianity is no different that greek mythology. The way in which a group of people explain the unknown, using engaging human themes in order to pass along moral advice to a new generation. Both Greek mythology and christianity have their purpose but its gotten out of control when people actually believe in the existence of heaven and hell. Its just painfully obvious how this is nothing but symbolism and a way in which we can socialize our children.

Re:100% is true, scientifcally too

[Dyolf Knip]

I haven't seen any holes in the bible

You must have missed the part where it declares the value of pi to be 3, and the bit about earth being flat and there being a mountaintop from which you can see the whole thing, and also the whole physical impossibility of the flood and Noah's ark saving every species on the planet, and so forth and so on. In fact, you must not have actually read the bible because you'll hit unsubstantiated claims and statements with big, gaping, asteroid-sized holes in them on page one, and it doesn't really improve after that.

Do people dislike letting go of ideas they previously held to be true? Sure, even the best scientist, atheist, or general skeptic does. But at least they make a point of _trying_ to only accept as true things which had the pesky qualities of evidence and proof. Virtually no religion has an acceptable amount, and christianity is pretty far down the list.

I think 100% of it is important

Really? Does that include the advice on how to sell your children into slavery? The proper way to commit genocide? The god-given command to execute children for not listening to mom & pop, no exceptions? The ban on eating shellfish, also punishable by death? You consider all that crap to be meaningful and of great importance to Real Life?

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

"So what's wrong with reading a book while looking for a little help/inspiration/whatever?"

Nothing, but there are better books than the Bible for that purpose. Alice in Wonderland for example.

My money's on. . .

[Excen]

My money's on them both failing miserably. I'd handicap Kerry as having the better advantage, but they'd both suck gigantic monkey nuts at any sort of trivia game.

Re:My money's on. . .

[multimed]

I don't know. Trivia for the most part is memorizing facts. I think to be a successful politician, especially one for the office of President, those guys are really good at memorizing facts. Some one asks a question, and they typically have a great recall for spouting canned answers very often with many statistics that prepared by their advisors. Now if the questions were beyond the realm of what they'd prepared for, I guess I'd agree.

Personally I don't care all that much if my President can spout off statistics or not. I would like to see them answer questions like, "on this particular issue, what person or people would you rely on most to help you make the right decision." I'd rather have a visionary, with integrity who has smart friends and knows where to go for help.

Originally, I was optimistic at Bush having very smart, experienced friends--his cabinet & advisors looked so good on paper. I've been more disappointed by them than him.

Well, it's two words

[cascadingstylesheet]

Oh and on question 3... is "fissile materials" really a word?

Well, it's two words, but yes, it is a normal term ... or sounds normal to this former Navy nuke.

The whole "Bush is dumb" thing gets really boring ... neither of them is a scientist, nor does either of them study router tables or web server logs. So?

Re:Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

"Most smart people come to realize that 90% of the Bible is crap. The problem is they assume that the whole thing is crap, when that 10% is very important."

That's a very intersting view point.

Just this week, I chose to live my entire life by the moral leadership of a foreign book written in a different country thousands of years ago. Boy, how superior I now feel.

Re:Religeon

[Keck]

Quite likely true. However, the enormous amount of harm they can do is just mind boggling....

Like The Onion said, "Many Americans Still Unsure Who to Vote Against".. People (mostly liberals) talk about all the irreparable harm Bush has done, but I think the idea that Democrats do less harm is quite debateable.. In that both parties are very similar, they are both going to do similar damage in certain ways (mostly economic).

Re:LIBS- The party of traitors and cowards!

[Anonymous Coward]

alongside thousands of others

Alongside a few others for a clear political agenda to document and film for political gain and to rip apart the VERY TROOPS he "fought alongside".

Kerry was a rather significant contributor to the low morale of Vietnam.

The AWOL you refer to is a forgery or do you not read?

not really accurate

[Trepidity]

Most research money does not come from federal grants. Federal grants pale in comparison to what a single "blockbuster" drug such as Prozac or Viagra makes. That's the money that funds most of these companies.

The reason the drugs cost so much has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of marketing. It is almost entirely due to the cost of research and development, which costs many billions of dollars and results in only a tiny percentage of successful drugs. Generics are produced by companies that merely copy already-successful drugs, and so obviously have no research and development costs. That is why they are cheaper.

Re:not really accurate

[orac2]

Most research money does not come from federal grants....The reason the drugs cost so much has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of marketing. It is almost entirely due to the cost of research and developmen

Care to back that statement up with some numbers? Because Marcia Angell, who was editor of The New England Journal of Medicine for twenty years, disagrees with you and agrees with the poster. She's just published The Truth About Drug Companies . The core thesis of this book is that Currently Americans spend a staggering $200 billion each year on prescription drugs. As Dr. Angell powerfully demonstrates, claims that high drug prices are necessary to fund research and development are unfounded: The truth is that drug companies funnel the bulk of their resources into the marketing of products of dubious benefit. Meanwhile, as profits soar, the companies brazenly use their wealth and power to push their agenda through Congress, the FDA, and academic medical centers...Drug companies, she shows, routinely rely on publicly funded institutions for their basic research; they rig clinical trials to make their products look better than they are; and they use their legions of lawyers to stretch out government-granted exclusive marketing rights for years. They also flood the market with copycat drugs that cost a lot more than the drugs they mimic but are no more effective.

If you're looking for more than the book blurb, The New York Review of Books has a footnooted, condensed version of the book's argument, noting:

In the past two years, we have started to see, for the first time, the beginnings of public resistance to rapacious pricing and other dubious practices of th e pharmaceutical industry. It is mainly because of this resistance that drug companies are now blanketing us with public relations messages. And the magic words, repeated over and over like an incantation, are research, innovation, and American. Research. Innovation. American. It makes a great story.

But while the rhetoric is stirring, it has very little to do with reality. First, research and development (R&D) is a relatively small part of the budgets of the big drug companies--dwarfed by their vast expenditures on marketing and administration, and smaller even than profits. In fact, year after year, for over two decades, this industry has been far and away the most profitable in the United States. (In 2003, for the first time, the industry lost its first-place position, coming in third, behind "mining, crude oil production," and "commercial banks.") The prices drug companies charge have little relationship to the costs of making the drugs and could be cut dramatically without coming anywhere close to threatening R&D.

Second, the pharmaceutical industry is not especially innovative. As hard as it is to believe, only a handful of truly important drugs have been brought to market in recent years, and they were mostly based on taxpayer-funded research at academic institutions, small biotechnology companies, or the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

and

At least a third of drugs marketed by the major drug companies are now licensed from universities or small biotech companies, and these tend to be the most innovative ones.

Eve...

[davidsyes]

Was FRAMED!

I saw that on a bumper sticker in Hillsboro/Portland, Oregon in 2002.

"Eve Was Framed"

Yesterday, in SF, I saw two funny bumper stickers:

"Support Our Troops: Bring'em Home ALIVE"

"Defend America, Defeat Bush"

A few months ago, on a vehicle on the freeway, I saw "More Trees, Less Bush"

I wonder how the two contestants would respond to those...

David Syes

so

[Trepidity]

I suppose Donald Knuth being devoutly religious means he's not a real scientist after all?

Re:Religeon

[thelaw]

"If your words were true the majority of Christians would believe in the general concept of evolution"

My comments don't imply that at all. I did say, however, that the historical narrativity (is that a word?) of Genesis and Job is disputed. It is thoroughly possible for sincere Christians to disagree reasonably about these readings of the Bible, and yet still be Christians. Nowhere in my comments, however, is there a discussion of majority or minority views in Christian communities, only disputes.

Evolution, as a scientific theory, is interesting and credible. But I, unlike you, am unwilling to elevate science to supreme status among the knowledge disciplines. It is impossible to start reasoning about the world without holding presuppositions about the nature of that world, and my presuppositions are fundamentally different from those of the secular scientist. If we assume that most Christians have the same presuppositions as I do, then I cannot and will not dismiss the Creationist viewpoint out of hand.

You make the point that the Christians you've met fail to "properly distance themselves from the parts of the bible that have been completely disproved." If, as is indicated by the context of your remarks, you are saying that the evolutionary principle has "completely disproved" Genesis 1 and 2, then I'm afraid I must disagree.

Jon

Re:Religeon

[fakeplasticusername]

I would argue that science circumvents morality to some extent. Why risk reproach by having slaves when I can build a robot to do my work. Why fight a war over a non-abundant energy source when i can design my own energy source using abundant materials and new scientific discoveries. I would argue that an eventual utopia will be reached not because of a maturation of societal attitudes, but because the science will make our arguments irrelavant.

slips people make under pressure can be revealing

[real_smiff]

I was thinking of Hard Talk aswell. It can be entertaining and revealing (sometimes both), but i actually find Tim Sebastian irritating when he seems to be trying to antagonise his guest for the sake of it. A typical Hard Talk will end something like "(Tim:) that's not true, but didn't you say, stop lying, (sudden change of expression) thanks very much for coming on Hard Talk!". So it's an act, but irritating your guest and trying to get them to say something stupid isn't always the best idea imho. i think you'd never see a democratic head of state on that program, they'd have to be insane.

Please don't attack aliens with nukes

[Anonymous Coward]

There is anecdotal evidence (look for "Caller" inthe text) that aliens are more interested in preventing the use of nuclear weapons than in provoking their use.

If they wanted to destroy us, assuming they've had centuries more time to develop technologically, wouldn't this be easy for them to do?

Re:Religeon

[dasmegabyte]

Really? What can I do in a single day to impress upon foreign nations critical of our government's activities my own innocence in said policies, so terrorists will say "We must bring down America -- except dasmegabyte, who proved to use that one day he's pretty cool."

What can I do, in one day, to get GE to clean the Hudson River of the chemicals they dumped into it that prevent me from eating the beautiful but deadly catfish I pull out of it?

What can I do, in one day, to ensure that the thousands of dollars I have taken out of my paycheck every year for Social Security will come back to me when I'm old enough to collect it?

What can I do, in one day, to protect the brother the Air Force sent to Qatar, or the four friends I have getting shelled in the desert of Iraq?

And what can I do, in one day, to ensure that my government isn't using old superstitions and skewed information to make policy decisions that effect my access to possibly beneficial treatments and my protection from dangerous environmental hazards?

Shit, man. We don't vote for a president to do shit we can do ourselves. We vote for one for stuff we can't do a damn thing about on our own.

Re:Religeon

[SatanicPuppy]

3rd Corollary: If someone who misspells religion cannot have intelligent ideas about religion, then what about someone who misspells intelligent?

Re:Religeon

[DarkSarin]

Did you read the article? They openly state that they did.

Wow

[hey!]

"My administration is now well along in implementing a comprehensive climate change to advance the science, expand the use of transformational energy and carbon sequestration technologies, and mitigate the growth of greenhouse-gas emissions in the United States and in partnership with other nations."

Wow! That's a mouthful. I didn't know Dubya could talk like that.

He sounds almost like... like...

Al Gore.

Re:Wow

[LPetrazickis]

Ergo, Bush and Gore are identical. Vote Nader.;)

like Bush has anything to fear from Russert

[Uberbah]

Common now. Remember how Russert sneered at Dean for not knowing exactly how many troops are in the U.S. military? Remember how he moved right on to the next question when he asked Bush a similar question in 2000?

And besides, this is irrelevant to the poster's point, as Bush only does interviews with pre-approved questions. The Ireland interview was like that too - it just never occured to Bush's handlers that the interviewer would actually challenge Bush on his prepared answers.

Re:like Bush has anything to fear from Russert

[glrotate]

You didn't address Woodward, that's fine. The point remains that Kerry has avoided the press for over a month. That's quite odd, and should make anyone interested in his positions suspicious.

Re:like Bush has anything to fear from Russert

[Moofie]

Kerry has positions? I wish...then I might be able to vote for him in good conscience.

Re:like Bush has anything to fear from Russert

[Minna Kirai]

You didn't address Woodward, that's fine.

Woodward interviewed Bush privately. No transcript was released, and there certainly wasn't any video.

The point remains that Kerry has avoided the press for over a month.

Wha? He gives unsolicited speeches anytime he wants. Neither of them is avoiding reporters.

Besides, the topic is about seeing the candidates in unscripted settings, like debates. Kerry is really pushing for weekly debates, and Bush is evading the challenge.

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

WHY WAIT UNTIL THEN??? l;amene;s fi'ltear ene23cour3nter3d

Not Hitler

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah it's silly to call Bush a Hitler. He's clearly more a Mussolini type.

Bush's response on stem cell more thoughtful

[SuperKendall]

Bush's response here was pretty well balanced I thought - saying that he wanted to balance use of embrionic stem cells in an ethical manner, which continuing funding but also support adult stem cell research. Also he said it was dangerous to bring false hope to those with very serious illnesses that only embrionic stem cells will bring the cure they seek.

I thought Kerry's response was rather more loose, and actually stregthened Bush's point - Kerry said "We must increase embrionic stem cell research now to find a cure for cancer!". He did add "In an ethical manner" at the end though.

Altogether, I would say just about all the answered were just about the same but Bush is expressing a slightly clearer direction on most points - going to the moon again vs "increase in funding for NASA". A targeted 18% decrease in greenhouse gas vs "sign Kyoto and look to American Inginuity to make it work out". Keeping scientists in poor areas employed and key components out of the hands of people who should have them vs. forming an international comittee and oversight of biomedical research.

Re:Bush's response on stem cell more thoughtful

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush is anti-science if it conflicts with his hard-core religious beliefs. There is nothing wrong with embryonic stem cell research, but oh no, it's "killing babies", aaaaaah!

Bush is a born-again Christian bully, and all the "Bush is pretty well balanced, and look, what a thoughtful guy he is!" talk won't change that. The world will be a much better place without him and his God-fearin' cronies.

The Problem(s) Here is...

[thelizman]

For starters, we are not getting the Bush vs. Kerry debate here, we are getting the Bush Campaign vs. the Kerry Campaign debate. I'd be suprised if either candidate even signed off on these personally.

The second problem is that we have Kerry - who has no official administrative record what-so-ever, claiming he'll do something, but knowing full well he may or may not have the power to do that once in the White House. It's easy to make promises, its quite another to actually stick by them. One t hing we can trust Kerry with is that he will be on whatever side of the issue his audience is on. He'll vote for it before he votes against it, he'll support it, then he'll oppose it, he'll throw the bill over the wall, then he'll say he threw the pen over the wall, then he'll say that pens and bills are interchangable, then he'll attack Bush's record through his surrogate 527 cohorts.

Then, we have Bush's record, which is much more solid so its easier to point at failures of his policy (that is, wherein as far as the /. is concerned) as opposed to successes of his policy. If the current media is any indication, you won't even hear about things like the largest spending on AIDS programs in Africa ever, or the billions of dollars of support directed at developing alternate energy, or even the Bush Energy plan which would have reduced our dependance on foreign oil by 2% by now if it had been passed way back when. And of course, Bush will let 527s supporting him go off on Kerry for a while before asking them to stop, in which case they ignore him and keep right on hammering Kerry.

Lastly, neither one gives specifics. Bush can point to what he's done, which is all good and fine, and Kerry can claim what he will do, but either way these one liners are useless.

Missing Questions...

[taradfong]

None had an industrial spin. I guess it's 'gauche' to talk about using science to make ourselves more successful in industry.

1) What will you do to help make American students interested in math & science again?

2) What will you do to help entrepeneurs wanting to start companies that apply science? Our economy has become such that only hugely profitable 'googles' are worth starting anymore.

3) Do you recognize that we're becoming a nation that does little but sell, market and consume products designed and built by others? How long do you think this can continue?

4) Why are we simultaneously becoming politically similar to China, in locking people into state dependence, and economically unlike China by creating a climate where designing and building things is a losing battle given taxes, entitlements, regulations and a useless, pampered, lawsuit-hungry, unqualified workforce coming out of politically-correct, declining, anti-science, anti-God and anti-industry schools?

Re:Missing Questions...

[Anonymous Coward]

1) What will you do to help make American students interested in math & science again?

At 27 years old, and having devoted the last 11 years of my life to Science and Math (B.S. in EE, M.S. in CS, 2-years work, now on PhD track), I sure wish I could go back and tell my 18-year old self to get a business or law degree.

Re:Religeon

[roughshod_coder]

To clarify. What I mean by faith : "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing." -Dictionary.com

Since theory is used to understand more complex problems and systems one has to have the faith that the theories they use do not break down in the form of special cases. This is not a vain effort to use "doublespeak" (ex. "Religion is Science" vis-a-vis, reference to 1984). I am using the definition of faith as above. You on the other hand seem to take faith as meaning purely "religious". Not my intention. I am trying to say that not all science and religion is true and to believe something that may or may not be true is faith. People seem to think that it is a "bad word" to use when talking science; however, they would have to prove my intentions wrong based on my concrete definition of the word :)

Have to disagree on whether Jesus existed, though I may be bias. I believe even the Jewish sects believe he existed and that speaks volumes. Not proven, but enough documentation recorded about his life, even outside of the Bible, makes me believe he is not a "...myth, made up, story, fairy-tale...".

Glad to see there is agreement. "It's such a fine line between stupid, and clever. "

- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap

And my rebuttal to your colleague:

[mrchaotica]

My colleagues rebuttal was that such people would not want the type of lifestyle that comes along with being El Presidente, thus would never even enter themselves in the running.

Exactly. This is why they shouldn't get a choice: we force them to do it anyway. Think of it as the "community service political draft" or something like that.

Bush is more akin to Milosevic than Hitler

[FreeUser]

So there are very good reasons why people outside the US have a very low opinion of Bush. Calling him a modern Hitler is hyperbole, but such low opinion of him is not unfounded.

Calling Bush Hitler is not only Hyperbole, it is also a disservice. Differences between Bush and Hitler abound, including but not limited to Hitlers legitimate election vs. Bush's coup d'etat of 2000, Hitler's staging of a terrorist attack vs. Bush's exploitation of a real attack, Hitlers murder of millions vs. Bush's murder of tens of thousands, Hitlers antisemetism vs. Bush's uncritical support of Sharon, and Hitlers devout Catholocism vs. Bush's devout Methodist(ism).

Bush is far more comparable to Milosevic. A toxic leader, with a toxic idealogy and a toxic agenda, who has no compunction about starting wars in smaller countries he ultimately cannot win, perpetuating atrocities on a relatively minor scale (Abu Ghraib, Gitmo), disregarding international law and norms to the point of alienating an ever dwindling number of friends and allies, stripping his own people of what civil rights and priveleges they once had in the name of "defending against [insert threat here]", leaving his own soldiers to die by the hundreds (or thousands) for no other purpose than to delay the inevitable defeat a timely amount (say, until after the November elections, or in Milosevic's case, until the end of negotiations), and ultimately leaving his country destitute and discredited in the world, to the point where its own citizens become reluctant to admit to their citizenship while travelling abroad.

Bush Junior isn't a Hitler. He is a Milosevic couched in a slightly different rhetoric, and he is in the process of teaching complacent Americans the same ugly lessons that Milosevic taught the Serbs a decade ago.

What is really depressing is how the Bush's and the Republicans have maneuvered themselves into a win-win situation with respect to the fiasco in Iraq through their delaying tactics in keeping Americans unaware of the ugly fact that we have already lost the war. [Yes, I know you folks in most of the rest of the world already know this, but keep in mind that our media is actively downplaying the fact that we're losing the war: most people here aren't even aware that most of Iraq, including most of its major cities, are in insurgent hands, and our troups virtually holed up in their bases under siege. One has to go to the German, French, Russian (thank you babelfish!), and other foreign media to get any inkling as to what is really going on over there ... or listen to off-the-record commentary by friends and acquaintances stationed there (none of the folks I know actively serving in the miliarty ... admittedly the several I do know are not a statistical universe, but nevertheless ... will be voting for Bush)].

Delay Americans' realization that Bush started a war he lost until after the November elections. If Bush wins, they win the presidency and can withdraw, with four years to get the American people to forget about what he has done (probably by starting a whole new mess we'll be concerned about instead). If he loses, he leaves Kerry with an untenable situation, Kerry pulls out, and the Republicans can spin it as "weak Democrats who didn't see it through."

The only cost are a few hundred American lives, and a few thousand Iraqis ... a price the Bush's and the Republicans are only too happy to pay.

I would weep for the future of this country, if there were one. I fear it resembles that of Yugoslavia only too closely.

Re:Bush is more akin to Milosevic than Hitler

[master2b]

Hitler's staging of a terrorist attack vs. Bush's exploitation of a real attack

Members of his administration might have helped engineer the attacks see Crossing the Rubicon. If even 10% of what ruppert talks about is true the implications are overwhelming.

Re:Bush is more akin to Milosevic than Hitler

[ccp]

Calling Bush Hitler is not only Hyperbole, it is also a disservice.

A disservice to Hitler, who, even if being a monster, was at least intelligent.

Re:Bush is more akin to Milosevic than Hitler

[Anonymous Coward]

I made up a bunch of shit too, and if only 10% of it is true the implications are overwhelming!

Re:Bush is more akin to Milosevic than Hitler

[Java Ape]

Well said.

Freedom in America
1776 - 2004
R.I.P.
You'll be Missed

Re:Bush is more akin to Milosevic than Hitler

[FreeUser]

Members of his administration might have helped engineer the attacks see Crossing the Rubicon. If even 10% of what ruppert talks about is true the implications are overwhelming.

I don't buy it.

Now granted, I am dismissing the possibility out of hand. Indeed, the premise seems so absurd to me that I can't even bring myself to read the guy's arguments, which is as much or more of an emotional response than a rational one I suppose.

Which means if it, by some bizarr twisted turn of fate, is (or contains) truth, the act is so obscene, so unthinkable, that they'll get away with it completely.

Analogous to how no one believed Germany was murdering millions of people, despite all the information and evidence available to the world at that time.

If, ten or twenty years from now, this is vindicated, then I will concede that comparing Bush/Cheney to Hitler is more appropriate than to Milosevic.

But really, I find the allegations being made in that book to be unbelievable in the extreme, to the point of absurdity.

Re:LIBS- The party of traitors and cowards!

[Anonymous Coward]

Alongside a few others for a clear political agenda to document and film for political gain and to rip apart the VERY TROOPS he "fought alongside".

Bzzt! Did American troops commit attrocities? Of course they did, its an undisupted fact. He wasn't bashing bashing everyone in the military by talking about it, he was using it as another reason why we should have gotten the fuck out of Vietnam.

But please, feel free to spin the facts any way you want. Its never stopped neocons before.

Stem Cells : debate may be moot

[Anonymous Coward]

A company called TriStem claims to be able to produce stem cells from a patients own blood.

http://www.tristemcorp.com/faq.htm
http://www.n ewswise.com/articles/view/502153/

"A small company in London, called TriStem, claims to be able to turn human blood cells into cells capable of regenerating worn out, damaged or diseased tissues including heart, nerve, muscle and bone. If TriStem's method really can produce such a wide range of cells, its potential would be huge and could revolutionise medicine. The company has so far provided proof that it can turn white blood cells into the blood-generating stem cells found in bone marrow. Yet, their astounding claims have been met with disbelief by researchers and experts."

Re:Stem Cells : debate may be moot

[Anonymous Coward]

A company called TriStem claims to be able to produce stem cells from a patients own blood.

Doesn't matter. The reason Bush wanted to ban stem cell research had nothing to do with ethics or morality. It's entirely about money.

Stem cells have too much potential to cure thousands of life-threatening diseases. Diseases for which the only current treatments are expensive drugs. If stem cell research really takes off, too many diseases will be cured and the pharmaceutical companies will have a much reduced market.

So, expect to see bans on the use of patient-originated stem cells, as well.

Missile defense is not to help US

[SuperKendall]

The question was a little more general than Star Wars, really about missle defense altogether.

I think the primary point of funding something like this is that you want to have these things deployed not so much for the US - but for allies or even just to various people to keep situations stable. You could even see the US giving missle defense systems to both sides of a conflict to make it less likley the would go for a first-strike kind of war.

No weither you think missle defense systems work, that's another matter. I believe there is some percentage of success where the probably become worthwhile - what that is I'm not sure.

Re:Missile defense is not to help US

[danudwary]

But the logic is flawed. The easiest way to counter a missile defense is to build more missiles and overwhelm the defense. It's logically going to lead to proliferation, not deterrence. It's retarded.

apples and oranges

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice try. Before you start throwing the "traitor" and "coward" labels around, don't forget that Clinton avoided the military altogether.

Bullshit. Clinton didn't spend his entire political career claiming he met his sworn military agreements when in fact he did not. Clinton did not have surrogats attacking the military service of Herbert Walker Bush or Bob Dole in 1992 or 1996. Clinton did not rush off to war ignoring the advice of those who did serve in the military.

Re:Religeon

[Keck]

You're absolutely right -- and our political process sucks, and it's not because of people's failure to be involved and voice their opinion, but because of PAC's ability to drown out normal constituents' voices with their dollars. I was a McCain supporter all the way, even in 1999/2000, not because he's a republican, or a moderate, but because he was the first I've seen to champion *real* Campaign Finance Reform. He didn't get it of course, but I see that as one of the biggest bottlenecks in the political process right now. And as long as that cork is in the stopper, you won't have a candidate with a shot at winning who will help achieve any of those things you listed. Why? Because either party would crucify the person who tries, like they have quietly done with McCain. With the status quo, both republicans and democrats are essentially plutocrats; to the detriment of anyone who wants to rock the boat. This obviously also applies at all other governmental levels as well.

So, forgive me if my post made it sound like "it doesn't matter who you vote for", I guess it did. I was just pointing out that many people ask the government to fix problems in their own lives that they have power over themselves..

How useful would that be?

[SuperKendall]

How good would it be to see an interviewer sit down and totally grill Bush or Kerry for a good hour, with no aides or press secretaries, or time limits to force them to move on, and with no fear of losing 'access' and no drip-fed policy announcements and spin.

You know what, if you had someone do that to the president of my company, and start grilling him on how the hell we have architected IT, he would come up pretty short.

I'm not sure what use proving each candidate has weak areas of knowledge would prove. Regardless of Kerry or Bush, either one is going to have a lot of advisers feeding him information to make choices on.

I think this interview is the closest we can probably get to an answer from them, since presumably they would be using some of the same sources to answer this they would to make actual decsions... though of course the results are rather muffled by the not-so subtle point of an oncoming election day close at hand!

Re:How useful would that be?

[danila]

I'm not sure what use proving each candidate has weak areas of knowledge would prove.

You don't have to accept that for the position of a single most powerful person on the planet! There are brilliant people in the world, politicians with powerful minds, rational, capable of perceiving the whole systems at once, with erudition to rival the Library of Congress, with personal integrity, courage, honesty, the desire to change the world for the better, a vision for the future and the ability to motivate people. And you settle for a choice between a functionally illiterate retard and a boring guy, whose redeeming qualities are that he married a ketchup queen and won a purple heart thrice, and who is only marginally better.

This is stupid, really stupid. Heck, I am sure if you asked Fidel Castro or Saddam Hussein whether Pakistan is a democracy, what language do they speak in Mexico or how many US troops are stationed somewhere, they will have boatloads more clue. Say what you want about their political ideas and management style, but at least they are competent.

Space Aliens Support Bush

[Izaak]

The candidate that will advance our understanding of the universe is obvious... only one them is being supported by space aliens!

Cheers.

Re:Religion

[filtur]

Most smart people come to realize that 90% of the Bible is crap. The problem is they assume that the whole thing is crap, when that 10% is very important."

Are you sure he wasn't talking about slashdot?

Who is who?

[danila]

It would be pretty hard to distinguish these two guys without the clues like "John Edwards" or "current administration's mishandling of the problem".

I think both candidates are pretty clueless in science, surely neither is as smart and erudite as Clinton was (who, among other things, admitted in 1999 the possibility of human immortality and stated that it should be our goal).

The questions by Nature weren't too interesting either. The only thing that we can learn from this article is that both candidates have good support stuff who can bullshit people very well.

Re:Religion

[ajs318]

The Bible says Jonah was eaten by a large fish. Everybody knows whales are mammals.

Beside which, the ark thing [Ge 6 et seq] is quite obviously fabrication. The ark is "300 cubits long x 50 cubits wide x 30 cubits high". A cubit is reckoned to be about 50cm. in modern measurements, so we're saying 150m. by 25m. by 15m. Which is big for a wooden ship, especially without metal reinforcement; but not very big for all the world's animal species. Getting the logistics to work, just so this boatload of people and animals could survive a massive wave of indiscriminate killing, would have required a whole lot more effort than just a simple targeted eradication. And then, after saving just two of each of those animals, he goes and sacrifices a bunch of them [Ge 8:20-21]. Also, before the flood there must have been no such thing as refraction [Ge 9:12-15]. (And after all this was over, Noah got pissed and fell asleep naked. His kids put a blanket over him and they ended up getting the blame).

Basically it reads like one of those awful, cheap movies where five minutes after watching it you realise it was based on a totally impossible premise. [If you managed to drill right to the centre of the Earth, gravity would be working against you between there and Australia. Molten gold solidifies from the bottom upwards, not from the top down. Objects made smaller by squashing matter into the empty space it contains would still weigh the same. A motion sensor held in the hand gives false positives. Et cetera ad nauseam.] Good enough fairy tale, if you can read it quickly without questioning {and some authors manage to inject enough pace into their work that you're too busy concentrating on the action to notice some quite blatant errors}; but too many reasons why it wouldn't work like that in real life. Of course, if you strip away the embroidery, you get "Some guy built himself a boat, then it started to piss down with rain; so he got in the boat with his family and all their animals. The water got deep enough for the boat to float, and it moved." That's believable.

Remember, kids, the Bible has three strands deftly interwoven: a historical account of life up to 6000 years ago; a fanciful mythology complete with plenty of sex and violence; and a sales pitch for the Jewish faith. It can be very hard to pick these strands apart; especially where a piece of mythology based on real fact is used as an advert for God.

Religion

[jacoby]

I don't know that your argument supports your statement. First, building robots is more technology than science, but that's a minor quibble. And that moral position can be reversed: Why employ people to do something, allowing them to feed themselves and their families, when you can build a robot to do it? And why not stop wars by building and using a new, abundant energy supply to turn their armies (and everyone else) into dark spots in the wreckage?

If you look into the history of famine and you'll find that famine comes not when the land won't grow things but when people decide to starve other people. Our farms are more productive than ever. Our airplanes and cargo ships can move vast amounts of supplies to the ends of the earth with astounding speed. That science hasn't stopped governments from starving their people. When you have no choices, you need no morality. When you are given a vast number of choices, choices advances in science and technology can give us, that is when you need morality.

Re:Religion

[Just Some Guy]

Only if you have to take the Bible literally.

And not even then. I am a Southern Baptist who believes in the literal truth of the Bible. I also believe that phrases like "a thousand thousand angels" means "more people than I've seen in one place during my life in a sparsely-populated desert region", and "a thousand years" means "a period of time longer than my cultural upbringing has prepared me to comprehend".

Put another way: suppose God spoke to me and said "here is the timeline of Creation. See that dot? That's you. See that dot? That's the end of the Universe as you understand it. Go tell people.". Say I was a shepherd that had never heard of a number larger than "one thousand", and that was referring to a flock of sheep large enough to really impress me that "thousand" means "a whole lot". I'd probably come back with something like "the Universe will end after thousands of thousands of years". I would be speaking the literal truth within my ability to express the concepts that I had never encountered before.

When someone tells me that it's 10:45 AM, I don't think that it's really 104500.000000UTC. Why people assign arbitrarily precise values to bits of information that are inherently imprecise, either to prove that their interpretation of the Bible is The One True Way or that the Bible is a self-contradictory load of BS, is completely beyond me.

Re:Religion

[mrchaotica]

Oh, undoubtedly lots of the details were fabricated, or at least greatly exaggerated -- I have no argument with you there! In fact, I'm an agnostic. My point, though, was that dispite the "fanciful mythology" and "sales pitch for the Jewish faith" parts, one shouldn't discount the "historical account of life" part entirely. In other words, instead of saying "the [biblical] Flood didn't happen," say "the flood wasn't all it was cracked up to be."

By the way, it's also possible that they're talking about the rise in sea level after the last Ice Age, 12,000 years ago -- although the bible only goes back 6000 years by the numbers, they didn't seem particularly concerned with accuracy.

Oh, and one more thing:

The Bible says Jonah was eaten by a large fish. Everybody knows whales are mammals.

Cut them some slack! Sure, everyone knows now that whales are mammals, but this was written thousands of years before even Aristotle's rudimentary attempts at classification.

Re:Religion

[pclminion]

Basically they say that if the Bible says "the Earth is flat" and then someone proves that it isn't, then the Bible was wrong.

Umm. You are talking about a religion which believes that the capybara, the largest rodent in the world, is actually a fish.

So, yeah. I'd say the Catholic church is able to "redefine" itself as necessary. If by that you mean, redefine reality so that they can eat meat on Fridays...

Re:Religion

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Cubit measurement is wrong, probably more useful to figure the biggest wooden ship plausible.

Animal species as we know them today... too damn many. More practically, it's probably intended that Noah took all the various livestock species common to his culture. I also think "two of each" is mistranslated. Wouldn't be suprised if it were "enough of each" or similar.

Not saying it happened, but there can be alot of truth in these things. Just need to understand how translation and lack of cultural reference points can confuse things...

Re:Religion

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Wish more people could talk about this (especially southern baptists; most don't seem pleased to explore it quite so reasonably).

Any other good examples of this thinking?

Re:Religion

[E_elven]

I am a Southern Baptist who believes in the literal truth of the Bible.

Um, no, you're not. If you believed in the literal truth then you'd have to take each word, well, literally.

So you simply believe that the Bible is fundamentally correct.

Re:Religion

[Just Some Guy]

The only other specific example off the top of my head is in I Kings 7:23-26, where the author mentions a bathtub that's 10 cubits across and 30 cubits around. One group of people will use this as "proof" that pi = 30/10 = 3. Another group of people will use this as "proof" that the Bible is inaccurate. Both sets ignore the simplest explanation: someone looked at the tub and said "that there tub looks to be about 10 cubits across, don'tcha reckon, Jocephus?"

If the measurements were listed as multiples of a wavelength of a particular shade of red light, then there would be ample room for argument; either the ratio really would work out to a good approximation of pi, or the naysayers would have a legitimate point to harp on. However, the numbers weren't particularly precise and now there's plenty of wiggle room on both sides.

I think the account was true, in that the tub was roughly 10 cubits across and 30 around. I'm not sure why people feel the need to get hung up on the details and overlook the fact that Solomon built a temple with a pretty big hot tub in the middle of it. That's more interesting to me than whether a historical record gave a good approximation of an irrational number.

Re:Religion

[Just Some Guy]

So you simply believe that the Bible is fundamentally correct.

You might be right. On the other hand, most other people I know who profess a belief in the literal truth of the Bible think the same way if you ask them about the details. I guess it's a matter of whether you define "literal" in this context to mean "exactly, precisely true" or "as accurate as the author was able to convey".

Of course, then you can decide whether my non-literal interpretation of "literal" is paradoxical and probably make a strong case that I'm in over my head, theologically speaking. :)

Re:Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a Southern Baptist who believes in the literal truth of the Bible.

What does "literal truth" mean? Clearly you don't mean that all of it is true by a strictly literal interpretation, which is what I would expect from such a phrase.

The grandparent seems to imply that you either believe that every word in the Bible is to be taken as literal truth, or not to be believed at all. It looks like you were caught by this false dilemma. There are portions of the book that, assuming they are true, must clearly not be literal. (The pharoah's dreams that Joseph relayed him interpretation for were clearly not literal. Jesus' parable about Lazarus and the rich man is not literal. The Psalms can not be entirely literal.)

I also believe that phrases like "a thousand thousand angels" means "more people than I've seen in one place during my life in a sparsely-populated desert region"

See, that right there is not literal. You're saying that "a thousand thousand" is not literally "a thousand thousand."

I'd probably come back with something like "the Universe will end after thousands of thousands of years". I would be speaking the literal truth within my ability to express the concepts that I had never encountered before.

So what you're saying is that it was all true in a literal sense at the time that it was written, but is not today because of shifted perspectives? That's interesting, but it doesn't really answer, eg, the creation question. The time from Adam to the flood can be summed from much shorter time spans given in Genesis. How long do you think man has been on this planet?

Re:Religion

[fakeplasticusername]

Why employ people to do something, allowing them to feed themselves and their families, when you can build a robot to do it?

But if i don't need to hire someone to make car doors in my factory, they could do another job, possibly a designer of car-door manufacturing robots. I'm not sure what you're trying to imply here.

And why not stop wars by building and using a new, abundant energy supply to turn their armies (and everyone else) into dark spots in the wreckage?

By building a fusion power generator we are endangering other countries how? I assume that you are arguing that by devolping advanced technologies we will destroy anyone who doesn't have an advanced technology? Maybe you can clarify.

What you are saying towards the end is true, but if you look at which countries are floundering and which are thriving, you'll notice a stunning correlation between those that excell in science and those that are successful. Maybe I just don't understand your argument?

Re:Religion

[Just Some Guy]

The pharoah's dreams that Joseph relayed him interpretation for were clearly not literal. Jesus' parable about Lazarus and the rich man is not literal. The Psalms can not be entirely literal.

Clearly. I think the truth isn't that the pharoah's dreams were real, but that he really had them and someone wrote down a reasonable accurate transcription of them.

See, that right there is not literal. You're saying that "a thousand thousand" is not literally "a thousand thousand."

You might be right, and I don't have a great counter-argument. See, even some of us Southern Baptists aren't really as bullheaded as we're made out to be. :)

The time from Adam to the flood can be summed from much shorter time spans given in Genesis. How long do you think man has been on this planet?

Science says roughly several tens of thousands of years (I'm not current on anthropology, so I'd have to hedge and say "whatever the experts are saying these days"). The God I learned about in church was too busy inventing things to really screw with our heads, like general relativity and quantum mechanics, to run around sticking fake animal bones in the ground, so I'd have to say that the evolutionary tree of homo sapiens goes back a while. I don't know, to be honest; maybe Adam was the first of a long line of proto-hominids to have the special something we call "humanity"? I'm not a Biblical scholar, so I can't give a solid answer.

Re:Religion

[d34thm0nk3y]

I am a Southern Baptist who believes in the literal truth of the Bible. I also believe that phrases like "a thousand thousand angels" means "more people than I've seen in one place during my life in a sparsely-populated desert region"

What????? Dude....If you believed in the literal truth of the bible then BY DEFINITION you must believe that a thousand thousand angels means A THOUSAND THOUSAND ANGELS!

Re:Religion

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

The problem is that ancient peoples saw no need to make a standard reference unit out of non-rusting metals. I don't claim to know the origins of the cubit, but possibly 2 or more ancient units are being confused as one, or even that in the beginning that cubits were much more general in nature, and not a unit of measurement as we understand today.

If Gribnik the caveman says "that cavehorse is 12 cubits high" and didn't bother to paint the hieroglyphs that explain he then gives the cubit-stick to Grabnok, so that he can measure another horse... and that everyone has their own, different cubit-stick.

How many people of that era would fail to understand our system of time? Noon is, after all, the point in the day when the sun is at it's highest...

Re:Religion

[jacoby]

Taking the last point first, I agree with science=success at a general level, because that truth is fairly self-evident. The decision to allow science to benefit the whole of society rather than just a part of society is a moral decision. Progress begets progress in a free society, so it's also an economic decision, so there is overlap. You were arguing that we're advancing away from morality, but I believe that advancement increases the necessity of morality. I used the other examples to flesh out my position, showing cases where technical and scientific advances don't necessarily lead to Utopia.

In the specific cases, I live in a town with a factory that builds cars and and a factory that builds semi trailers. For years, the factory would have ads that said "We're $COMPANY, which has never had a job layoff, and we're hiring. Come to $COMPANY. We've never had a job layoff. Did I mention that we've never had a job layoff?" I got so annoyed at those ads, until they had a job layoff. Robot designers are experienced and educated. I've known some. The university I attended for my CS has a Robot Vision Lab, and one of the grad students showed off to my LUG. The people who make semi-trailers may have graduated high school. They might have graduated college. It's about the same for the automobile assembly line. I used to park cars at one of those lines for like $6/hour or so. I was a graduate with a journalism degree and the people working with me were high school grads. One or two were taking a semester off from college to make some money. The most skill you need is driving a stick-shift. These people are not up to the task of designing car-door robots. (I play guitar with a guy who works on the line at the car plant. I know music theory far more than him, but on all other measures, he's much better than me. I'm not trying to dehumanize any of those people. Just making that point.) You have jobs that are unionized, so those people on the line are making a fair amount per hour, which they use to support families. You replace that job with a robot, then the person doing that job now has to look for other work.

Of course, that person has no right to that job. That's what the Right would say. You've still messed with his life. That's what the left would say, and they would point out that, between the modern invention of car-door robots and the modern invention of huge cargo ships, big cargo planes, big trucks and pervasive computer networks, I can design my car-door robot here and have the load-bearing parts cast in Pakistan and the circuitry built in Brazil and assemble the whole thing in Mexico to be placed into same factory, and even transporting the pieces all around God's green earth it costs less than giving that factory worker a job with benefits. All those decisions have moral aspects to them. By employing Pakistanis to build your stuff, you might be proving him with the funds to support his family, or you might be sticking him into a dark, satanic mill (that's a reference), which gives WTO protestors and Osama bin Laden ample reason to hate you. Or both. 50 years ago, you couldn't have built the car without that worker and still got it to an American market, so issues of robots, transportation and telecomunication have given you a multitude of questions, each of which has a moral dimension. It is one of Kerry's core issues, saying that he'll make it so that we'll gain manufacturing jobs, somehow making a $bignum-per-hour American look like a better choice than a $smallnum-per-hour worker in India or a large-initial-cost but low-recurring-cost car-door robot. But that's talking politics, not morality.

I was referencing fission technologies specifically, but a fusion-powered death ray could be placed into the metaphor. Both represent an advance in technology from what existed before. Scientific progress won't necessarily get us into Utopia; there were some pretty interesting networking and AI tricks, from voice recogition to automatic text generation to the many-to-one aspects of a television that wa

Re:Religion

[glitchvern]

A google search for "President bush denomination" reveals some interesting information, most of it from the 2000 election. These three links where the first to jump out to me as interesting.
Bush was raised in Presbyterian and Episcopalian churches which are certainly not on the born again side of the christian theological spectrum. He had a conversion experience in 1985 when he quit drinking and has been an active United Methodist ever since. The term born-again Christian is more often associated with Baptist and non-denominational Baptist like groups than it is with United Methodist who tend to use the term conversion. President Bush is in disagreement with the official position of the United Methodists Church on many issues including but not limited to the death penalty, abortion, gays in the military, affirmitive action, and the 2nd amendment right to bear arms. The United Methodist Church allows and encourages a person's own consceince to determine what is right and thus has a membership with diverse views often in disagreement with the clergey and/or official heirarchy. They are not the sort of denomination that excumminicates or kicks people out for that sort of thing.
Politics make strange bedfellows, and President Bush finds himself agreeing with the Baptist position on public policy issues more often than he does his own church and certainly uses Baptist rhetoric and speaking style. This however probably has more to due with the Bush's being Texan than being Christian. I am a Catholic Texan myself and many if not most of the United Methodist I know would probably agree with Bush on most of these positions. See for instance Hank Hill from King of the Hill who is also a United Methodist. I realize he is a cartoon, but he is a cartoon written by an actual Texan not someone from the "outside." The stereotypes and preconceived notions we have about ourselves, say a lot more about us and have a lot more truth to them than the stereotypes of outsiders, see excentric Texan oil barron billionare with big cowboy hat from the Simpsons who says things like "In Texas we got rid of the envirionment. Nobody seems to have missed it," and in the end does not beleive in protecting the environment as Lisa does but stops destroying it because he likes her character, style, actions, or some such thing, just as an excentric Texas oil-man billionare found in so many movies, shows, etc. would. Not that we find that particular stereotype to be negative, insulting, or the like, but it has no particular basis in reality or maybe it does and I just do not know many (read any), Texas oil-men billionares.
As a fairly devout Catholic I know I should believe that capital punishment is wrong in a modern society that has the ability to easily imprison people who are a danger to society for the rest of their natural life, but as a Texan I really want those bastards to be killed. In the end fiscal conservitism wins out, and I decide we can imprison one murderer and two rapist or child molesters for life instead of sticking a needle in one murders arm. Drug users are rehabilitable and we should all take a page from of all places Alabama's book and sentence them to mandatory treatment. Their reoffender rate is quite low.

Re:Religion

[TrebLib]

Not sure who your friend is that is a born again christian, however, I must say that his idea of other christain docturns is purly a personal one or at best an idea comming from his/her particular church. The Bible cleary says that christians are not to pass judgement on others and to say that "the church" (I believe you are refering to catholics) are the spawn of Satin, would clearly be passing judgement on those people, and that is a job reserved for God himself. I do believe that one of the definitions of being a christian is to know and believe the scriptues. The Bible says that "all scripute is God breathed". Terefore, if you believe that the Bible is true, then you have to believe that the verses within it are true as well, otherwise you could pick and choose and this of course would bring out more denominations (which is unfortunitly what has happened). Not to critical of your terminology, however, the term "Born Again" is sometimes not completly the same depending on the denomination (such as catholic, baptist, penicostal, etc). The Bible speaks in many places about being saved (or born again). In one spot it gives a very clear definition as to what being saved is. Ephesians 2 (one of the books in the bible) says "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God". And Romans (another book in the bible) says "That if you confess with your mouth, Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved." For some denominations have moved away from this to include "extra" things, or have made exclusion lists .. and this is unfortunite. Jesus Christ was God's Son. He came to earth, lived a life without sin (which no one has ever done before or again) and died on the cross so that our sin (our being anyone who confess Jesus is the Lord). He could have just said your all going to hell, but he did not. Being a Christian means to stive to me more Christ Like. Since he did not condem anyone, neither should we. Anyway, you seem to be very set in your belief about disbelief, so I hope what I have said does not insult you.

Re:Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

"more people than I've seen in one place during my life in a sparsely-populated desert region", and "a thousand years" means "a period of time longer than my cultural upbringing has prepared me to comprehend"

A divinely-assisted book wouldn't be limited by cultural backgrounds. God, supposedly, didn't have that restricted outlook.

Why people assign arbitrarily precise values to bits of information that are inherently imprecise,

Inherently imprecise? "On the first day", "On the second day" are quite precise. So is "40 days & 40 nights"

Then there's Jesus Christ with "I will return before this present generation has passed away", which lead to the funny suggestion that we were all trapped in a time-warp bubble (fortunately, those heretics were burned)

Re:Religion

[Dyolf Knip]

All very true. It is indeed the most logical explanation of how some desert nomads came to the conclusion that pi = 3. Of course, there's one hitch. It requires that the bible was actually written by people that Americans today would categorize as "smelly, brutal, uncultured, 3rd world savages" (i.e. Gribnik and his friends Grabnok, Grubnek, and Grobnak), a notion the True Believer cannot stomach.

Re:Religion

[Keebler71]

Excellent point. My best friend's three-year old son refers to "a lot" of anything as "29". If you ask him how much ice cream he wants, he will say "29". For him, it doesn't get bigger than 29. Now if one does, believe in an omnipotent creator - it is not a stretch to believe that the creator would speak to "man" as though he were a 3-year old. Or alternately, perhaps the creator said the "correct" answer and man interpretted it like a 3-year old. Same difference.

Re:Religion

[das_cookie]

...to say that "the church" (I believe you are refering to catholics) are the spawn of Satin, would clearly be passing judgement on those people, and that is a job reserved for God himself.

Hmmm... I'm having a bit of trouble getting a mental picture of the offspring of a swatch of fabric...

Re:Religion

[TrebLib]

heh ... ok .. so I can't spell ... :-) ... I guess I will never get the job of writing all of those docs on how to use the software we make ... darn .. :-)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Seeing what you want to I guess

[SuperKendall]

From actually watching the video, I wouldn't really call Bush's response as "bristling". He just tried to keep the conversation on track to some extent, and finish up questions to his satisfaction.

Both of them were pretty evenhanded, really... a pretty good interview. Not much new to be learned though.

Re:Seeing what you want to I guess

[SuiteSisterMary]

Perhaps the bristling part came after the interview was over; after all, they must have been pretty pissed to lodge a diplomatic compaint about it.

Design

[saltydogdesign]

For all those geeks out there that think design is not important, this is a good example of why it is. Whoever put this thing together must have wanted the fewest readers possible, which explains why he/she put tiny gray type against a gray background on the left, and tiny black type against an American flag on the right, complemented by tiny scrollbars that move the text about 2 pixels per click. I love that when you hold down the scrollbar arrows, nothing happens. Let's hear it for the triumph of technology over substance!

Re:Religeon

[Artraze]

> You can do more yourself, in a single day, to
> positively affect your own life and those around
> you than either Bush or Kerry can in 4 (or 8!)
> years.

Quite. However, polititions have the ability to negativly affect your future with the wave of a hand in regards to a bad bill (aka DMCA, etc.) That's why these things matter; mitigating the problems the government creates.

Re:Religeon

[vgaphil]

There are plenty of legitimate ways to criticise George Bush, you don't need to resort to cheap shots

It's not a cheap shot, it's the truth. Oh BTW, Linux is the bomb.

You are most of the problem

[FreeUser]

Bye! Don't let the door hit you on your ass on the way out, you spineless worm. If you don't like something in your country, take a stand and try to change it.

I can't speak for the guy going to Vancouver (I'm actually going there on vacation next month, and may even get a summer home there if I like it enough), but I've been fighting the pendulum swing to the right since I first started voting in '84. Twenty years later, and the nonsense I keep hearing about "the pendulum will swing back eventually" rings truly hollow. It may be true in the very long term, but it sounds more like the Jews telling themselves "this too shall pass" (it did, but not until after most of those telling themselves that had been murdered). [cue the usual Godwin's law trolls]

I'm tired of fighting a losing battle against mindlessly nationalistic, irrationally religious idealogues, and other right wing zealots like yourself.

I'm tired of contributing to a society whose international agenda can only be described as toxic and deeply irresponsible.

I'm tired of living among people whose politics and philosophies I have learned over the years and decades to despise.

I'm sick of seeing a country I love destroy itself from within so profoundly and so completely.

I'm sick of a culture that has chosen, systematically, and with ever more zeal, to sell out its basic ideals (freedom, human rights, free expression, and so on) in exchange for short term profits and greed.

Indeed, I'm sick of being a part of a culture that has deified greed and disregarded basic human cooperation and caring, having forgotten that it is cooperation, not competition, that is the foundation of civilization.

In short, I'm sick and tired of being a part of an ever less civilized society, and I am deeply ashamed of what idealogues such as yourself, and the complacent and cowardly fools who follow you, have made America into.

I'm not planning to emigrate anytime soon (I have a job I like and work with good people ... an island of sanity in a nation consumed with neurosis), but I fully empathize with the poster who has had enough and is leaving, and feel nothing but the deepest contempt and disgust for the toxic politics and philosophies of people like yourself that have made it necessary.

And should I lose my job like so many millions of others have (most of whome conviniently no longer appear in the unemployment statistic now that their benefits have expired) I probably will emigrate, assuming any country on the planet will have anything to do with displaced citizens of a toxic, militaristic, and irresponsible superpower as it fades from prominence, probably with similiar results but none of the grace, of Russia.

Re:You are most of the problem

[untaken_name]

I'm tired of fighting a losing battle against mindlessly nationalistic, irrationally religious idealogues, and other right wing zealots like yourself.

I see. I advocate working within the system as opposed to fleeing the nation and that somehow makes me right-wing? Moron. Not everyone that holds a different opinion from yours is right-wing. Dur dur dur. Any more knee-jerk responses you'd like to throw out? Of course!

'm tired of contributing to a society whose international agenda can only be described as toxic and deeply irresponsible.

Apparently you are not contributing much.

I'm tired of living among people whose politics and philosophies I have learned over the years and decades to despise.

Where do you live? I live among mostly decent people whose politics and philosophies vary, but who at least respect each other and attempt to work together. Maybe you aren't lucky in that way, to which I would say 'move somewhere else in the country'.

I'm sick of seeing a country I love destroy itself from within so profoundly and so completely.

So of course, rather than fight harder, the answer must be 'flee', is that it?

I'm sick of a culture that has chosen, systematically, and with ever more zeal, to sell out its basic ideals (freedom, human rights, free expression, and so on) in exchange for short term profits and greed.

Hmm. Sounds like you have the freedom to express your opinions. Weird. I thought that was all destroyed and stuff.

Indeed, I'm sick of being a part of a culture that has deified greed and disregarded basic human cooperation and caring, having forgotten that it is cooperation, not competition, that is the foundation of civilization.

Ahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahaha.

In short, I'm sick and tired of being a part of an ever less civilized society, and I am deeply ashamed of what idealogues such as yourself, and the complacent and cowardly fools who follow you, have made America into.

I see. I advocate exercising Constitutional rights to change the system legally, as opposed to fleeing the country, even though I have noted that it takes sacrifice and persistence, yet *I* am the coward? Truly funny.

I'm not planning to emigrate anytime soon

Of course not. You don't want the responsibilities of living in our society, but you aren't giving up the benefits either. Quite the paradox, isn't it?

I have a job I like and work with good people

What, even though you despise their politics and philosophies?

but I fully empathize with the poster who has had enough and is leaving, and feel nothing but the deepest contempt and disgust for the toxic politics and philosophies of people like yourself that have made it necessary.

Firstly, you have not proved that it is necessary to leave. Secondly, you obviously know nothing of my philosophies. Please tell me exactly which philosophies I have which you hate. Obviously the philosophy that you must work to achieve goals, and that things are not and should not be simply handed out is one you find objectionable. Which others?

And should I lose my job like so many millions of others have (most of whome conviniently no longer appear in the unemployment statistic now that their benefits have expired) I probably will emigrate, assuming any country on the planet will have anything to do with displaced citizens of a toxic, militaristic, and irresponsible superpower as it fades from prominence, probably with similiar results but none of the grace, of Russia.

When I have been laid off in the past, I went out and found another job. Shocking, I know, but it can be done. Of course, in your mind those who have become unemployed will never find another job, so they should just check out now. Interesting. It's funny how with all the anti-American sentiment I see in places like slashdot, there are still very few countries which do not

Re:You are most of the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

FreeUser, you have been trolled. Think I'll feed the creature a little morsel or two.

'm tired of contributing to a society whose international agenda can only be described as toxic and deeply irresponsible.

Apparently you are not contributing much.

Because he says his government is doing bad things and he feels powerless to stop it, you say he isn't contributing much? What is enough in your mind? A one man armed revolt?

Indeed, I'm sick of being a part of a culture that has deified greed and disregarded basic human cooperation and caring, having forgotten that it is cooperation, not competition, that is the foundation of civilization.

Ahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahaha.

There is prescription medication that can treat your malady. If your HMO covers it your psychiatrist can recommend one to you.

His point is actually quite insightful. Cooperation was the original foundation of civilization. It began at the tribal level. It has continued through the rise of every civilization from Egypt to the present. This is generally not disputed among sociologists or historians except maybe among USians.

It has been argued by people who know far more than you or I that civilizations fall when levels of cooperation drop below a particular threshold.

Hardly a laughing matter to anyone watching current events unfold.

I'm not planning to emigrate anytime soon

Of course not. You don't want the responsibilities of living in our society, but you aren't giving up the benefits either.

He said he empathised with the original poster. He didn't say he agreed. In fact, he made it clear he disagreed and is not leaving his country. To the outside looking in it looks like he is taking way more responsibility for living in his society than you are.

Might be a mistake for him, but his stance seems a lot more rational than yours. As for the rest, knowing when its time to fold is as much a part of getting through as knowing when to hold on. I have plenty of neighbors from North Africa and the Balkens who will testify to that.

Re:You are most of the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

"Dur dur dur."

This response has got to be a new low even for slashdot.

Re:You are most of the problem

[untaken_name]

Because he says his government is doing bad things and he feels powerless to stop it, you say he isn't contributing much? What is enough in your mind? A one man armed revolt?

No, because he is doing nothing to change what he doesn't like. That's why he isn't contributing much.

There is prescription medication that can treat your malady. If your HMO covers it your psychiatrist can recommend one to you.

Yes, you're just like many other fools, you believe you can diagnose what you're unfamiliar with.

His point is actually quite insightful. Cooperation was the original foundation of civilization. It began at the tribal level. It has continued through the rise of every civilization from Egypt to the present. This is generally not disputed among sociologists or historians except maybe among USians.

You're being intentionally obtuse here, I hope. Tribes cooperating? Have you ever actually umm....studied history? Cooperation did not build the Greek civilazation nor did it build the Roman nor the Egyptian. That was conquest, slavery, and tyranny that did that. (Sure, the Greeks became so enlightened. Of course, then they got run over by the Romans.) Egypt did not get 'cooperation' from surrounding lands. They got tribute and slaves. They were not beneficent masters. You picked a poor example. How can you say 'it is not disputed' when history is full of violence, cruelty, racism, inequity, and tyranny? I know, you personally surveyed all historians and sociologists before posting...right?

It has been argued by people who know far more than you or I that civilizations fall when levels of cooperation drop below a particular threshold.


Correlation does not imply causation.

Hardly a laughing matter to anyone watching current events unfold.

Yes. War is very new. Violence is very new. Actually, violence on the world level is lower now, with the 'war' on, than it has been in a very long time. You *did* know that, right?

He said he empathised with the original poster. He didn't say he agreed. In fact, he made it clear he disagreed and is not leaving his country.

No, he said he isn't leaving right now, but if he loses his job, he's gone. That's not the way you are presenting it.

Might be a mistake for him, but his stance seems a lot more rational than yours.

Yes, people we agree with are usually accorded rational status, no matter the content of their argument. Likewise, people who do not agree are irrational. Well done, sir.

As for the rest, knowing when its time to fold is as much a part of getting through as knowing when to hold on. I have plenty of neighbors from North Africa and the Balkens who will testify to that.

Immigration to the US has exceeded emmigration since this country was founded, apart from a few times in history which coincide with major world events. Apparently the rest of the world does not hate us as much as is commonly said. Either that, or they are masochists.

Re:You are most of the problem

[untaken_name]

Again, some anonymous person does not respond to my arguments, but to my sense of humor. If you truly think this is a low, for slashdot or anywhere else, you must be the lonliest person on Earth. Cheer up, pal, someone somewhere is bound to like you eventually.

Re:Religeon

[Threni]

> Umm that you be the origional post..

Hard to parse that sentence... but if what you're saying is that in my original post I said that "faith excludes you from science" then you're incorrect. For your convenience, what I said was:

> That's why they are anti-science. There's simply no evidence whatsoever to
> suggest that the Bible has any value as a method of predicting future trends.

where "they" is "the catholic church".

That's that cleared up now, yes?

Where is TFA?

[mcmonkey]

Clicked on the link in the summary, went to the Nature page, cliced on the link to the "interactive feature" and just ended up at a bunch of links to editorials and analysis.

Where are the actual questions and answers?

Re:Religeon

[sadler121]

Knowing full well of my propensity for getting into a religious discussion, and also the fact that I have often been modded "Flambait" or "Troll", most likely from some /.er Mormon who disagrees with my Un Orthodox views on Mormonism. (We need special moderation rules for moderating religious/political discussions, or no moderation at all on religious/political articles, though real trolls would take over, ala GNAA, etc) I am going to don my Asbestos suit, and make a few comments.

( Linux is shit posted )

On the contrary, they are mutually exclusive. Religion means building a view of the universe based on myths, old-wives tales and cult brainwashing. In religion, nothing can be questioned or challenged...

I will agree with you that old school religion, (protest ism and catholicism) are built upon illogical myths, old-wives tales and cult brainwashing, Mormonism is of a completely deferent spectrum. When I speak of Mormonism in general I speak of the religion that Joseph Smith believed in, for if he were alive today, the Mormons would excommunicate him in a less-than a heartbeat. Mormonism today is falling in line with mainline protestant group think, and, while not sliding as fast of the Community of Christ (formally known as the 'Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints'), if trends continue, with in 20 to 30 years, many of the doctrines that have made Mormonism a unique branch of Christianity, ( I would debate as a Mormon that Mormons are NOT Christians, and thats not a bad thing ;-) ) will be extinguished, and Mormonism will be just another protestant denomination. But I digress...

The religion of Joseph Smith, is based on individual acquisition of knowledge. The formula for acquisition of knowledge is given in the Book of Mormon, of which Joseph translated, as Read, Ponder, Pray, or specifically:

Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts. And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

Moroni 10:3-5

Joseph Smith further clarifies this in Doctrine and Covenants Section 9 Verse 8:

But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

D&C 9: 8

If truly followed this method of acquisition of knowledge will work, with the consent modifier that one has at least an impartial judgment that what one studies MAY be true. Impartial judgment is a key to acquisition of knowledge even with in the scientific world, and is also a requisite to the acquisition of knowledge religiously.

If one has an "Open Mind" or as Moroni puts it a "sincere heart, with real intent" an answer will be given. It's just a matter of sincerity and humility. Again, much the same with the acquisition of Scientific knowledge, if one is stubborn and set in ones ways, your acquisition of knowledge will be severely limited because of your inability to "think outside the box".

Sadly, Mormons today rarely, if ever apply this formula for the acquisition of knowledge, to ask with a sincere hear, with real intent. Instead the general population is mired by group think, unable to think for themselves, which i

Re:Religeon

[Noehre]

And religion has no room for morality either.

That is what philosophy is for.

Re:Religeon

[Bull999999]

Religion on the other hand may be taken on faith.

But that also applies to science as well. Take the moon landing for example. How do you really know for sure it happend unless you where there to witness it in person? In fact, there are people who proclaim that it never happend. And with some scientists getting busted for false research, whenever we accept a scientific fact, we are placing out faith on the scientists.

And if you believe that Bush can create his own laws and Congress is helpless, take a look at this article.

Now that's just disingenuous

[hey!]

Bush has increased stem cell research funding every single year he's been in office, and clearly says he'll continue to do so, and clearly says how important it is...

Now that's just being disingenuous. Of course when you're starting with a new area of research, you expect funding to grow. But it also ignores that by limiting the number of cell lines to the 40 original cell lines, he's almost doomed that research in this country to failure. He has apparently no intention in allowing researchers to obtain new cell lines if it turns out that those cell lines are inadequate, as was virtually certain to be the case by limiting the lines to a few that were created at the very outset of research.


Look at Reagan's speech at the DNC about how the research might have helped his father... you could have replaced the "m" for millions with a "b" and Ronald Reagan would never have been saved.

I just don't get this. Are you saying the Reagan family is incapable of feeling empathy for some family that may be going through the same experience they did in a few years?

This "emotional manipulation" argument is just another shamelessly dishonest straw man argument. Nobody said that stem cell research could reach back in time and save Reagan's brain. This just shows the twisted and hypocritical way that the administration twists people's words to suit their agenda. It also shows their complete heartlessness to do this to the family of their party's most beloved leader.

Nobody says we're guaranteed to have therapies in ten years, or even ever. Certainly not the scientists who are pissed over this administration's stem cell policies. But stem cell research is currently the most promising area of focus we have to develop a new class of therapies. You don't get the chance to open up a new front on the war on disease every day, and you can't count on it coming more than once in a career or a lifetime.

Re:Now that's just disingenuous

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm all for stem cell research, but AGAINST research that destroys a human embryo. It's just sick to say lets kill a bunch of really tiny defenseless people so that we can do experiments that could save some other peoples lives some day.

Re:Now that's just disingenuous

[hey!]

I can understand and respect this position, although I disagree with it. Our difference in this has to do with fundamental beliefs where we differ. I don't believe that an early stage embryo is a human being, you do, and so we'll have to disagree on whether it is right or wrong to use them in research.

But saying you're for the research and then working against it -- that is what leads to false hope.

Re:Now that's just disingenuous

[Sgt York]

Our difference in this has to do with fundamental beliefs where we differ. I don't believe that an early stage embryo is a human being, you do

Thank you! I was begining to think I was the only one that understood that.

The same thing translates into the abortion debate. It is not an issue of women's rights, it is an issue of personal belief or conviction about when life begins.

To take the extremes: If you start with the assumption that the zygote is in fact a human life at the instant of conception, all conclusions must logically flow towards pro-life/anti-ES cell research. If You start with the assumption that human life begins at the moment the baby crowns, then all conclusions must logically flow to pro-choice/pro-ES cell research.

Each side finds it so incredibly hard to allow themselves to think in hypotheticals. It's as if the opposition's basic assumption is so utterly alien to them that they can't even imagine it. And that's something I really can't fathom. It is the prime example of a closed mind.

Re:Now that's just disingenuous

[Darby]

The same thing translates into the abortion debate. It is not an issue of women's rights, it is an issue of personal belief or conviction about when life begins.

This isn't strictly true though.

Even if you believe that life begins at conception, by being anti-choice, you are making a much stronger statement than this.

You are saying that just because someone had sex (either unprotected, the condom broke, they were raped etc.) and they ended up pregnant that both they and the future child should be punished for this action.

Seriously, you are saying that they should be forced at gunpoint to carry something inside their body for 9 months and then raise it for 18 years.
Given that the only reason that they might have been considering abortion in the first place is that they didn't want to have a child, this is the least optimal possible situation for a child to be born into. Whether they are not financially, or emotionally ready to have a child, by taking away that choice you say "too fucking bad you are going to be forced to do it anyway".
The really sickening part of this is that quite often, the child would be raised in abject poverty, so by not having it until she was in a better situation, the mother would be doing the best thing for her, for her child, and for society as a whole.
If it's an emotional unpreparedness issue, it could well be even worse. So you force the woman to give birth to a kid she is not ready to raise and when she fails to raise it properly (in extreme cases abandons, abuses or neglects it), throw her in prison for doing what she knew she would end up doing and tried to avoid in the first place.

When you look at it without the religious "all life is sacred" glasses on and see the reality of what that creates, it doesn't look anywhere near as compassionate as the anti-choice types try to paint it.

Given also the fact that a great deal of these people are the same ones trying to prevent people from being taught the basic facts about birth control which would allow them to make a more responsible choice in the first place, it becomes obvious that they are just trying to create a totally rigged game.

So, no it is not just about what you believe about when life begins. It has to do with whether or not you believe that you know far more about what is best for a given person than they do.

The anti-choice crowd thinks that they have one single answer that works for every person in every situation, and that is the fundamental difference between the positions.

Re:Now that's just disingenuous

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, gee, let's come right out and ask the underlying question, shall we?

Which would you rather save:
A) old people who are past their prime, or
B) young people who have never seen the light of day or understand/care about the outside world.

Hope you don't blow an internal circuit figuring that one out!

Re:Now that's just disingenuous

[Anonymous Coward]

What about all of the defenseless animals that people kill for food, sport or just because they can? At least with an embryo, it's not a life, sure it's living, but it's not a life. Killing sentience is a problem, not a bunch of cells.

Killing an embryo is akin to drinking, which kills thousands (or millions) of brains cells. They're alive, but not a life.

Re:Now that's just disingenuous

[gfxguy]

It's not disengenuous, it's not feighning ignorance.. it's the facts... he's the first president to fund stem cell research, and like all branches of such research, it starts off slow and builds. What's really disingenuous is the way people of a certain other ilk keep saying he's "banned" stem cell research.

What I'm saying about the argument (and even Kerry uses it in his response in this article), is that some people have been using the combination of "Bush banned stem cell research" and "Stem cell research can help cure Parkinson's disease, or Alzheimer's disease."

In my mind, it's no different then when people say things like "If Bush is elected president, thousands of young girls will die in botched back-alley abortions."

It's playing on people's emotions with what really turns out to be a LIE. How about this one: "If George W. Bush becomes president, the armies of the homeless, hundreds of thousands strong, will once again be used to illustrate the opposition's arguments about welfare, the economy, and taxation."--Mark Helprin, Oct. 31, 2000

Or how about if George Bush is elected, we'll go back to the days of white hooded men and burning crosses?

All these things have been said about George Bush and/or at election times...

Now the gist is "George Bush doesn't care about people afflicted with debilitating diseases."

So the question is, what more, exactly, do you want George Bush to do? Increase spending on stem cell research? I can almost guarantee he'll do that.

The problem with opening up new lines is trickier, I think, than you believe. Really, it's the same question as handing out welfare to needy people. I truly believe in helping those in need, and they don't even have to be fellow countrymen. On the other hand, once you start giving handouts, all the leeches crawl out of the woodwork to abuse the system... unemployment is the same way.

So it's not that research on new cells shouldn't be done, but once you allow it, you open the floodgates to all sorts of things that many of us may have moral problems with... like the idea that a woman can get pregnant and abort it to save her own life, or another childs life. That, to me, is a moral dilema.

So when the opposition says of Bush that he doesn't care about human life because he banned stem cell research, it's just plain wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to begin, but it is a straight out lie that's trying to play to the emotions of the people it's being told to.

Re:Now that's just disingenuous

[Sgt York]

You're still not starting with the correct hypothetical. If the baby is infact alive, then the mother has no right to terminate it because it causes difficulty for her or because of her predictions of its future prospects. And, cue analogy...

Say you are at the wrong place at the wrong time, you make a mistake and hang out with the wrong people and wind up with a prison sentence. You get to your cell and meet your cellmate. He's an asshole. He's not bad by prison standards, he doesn't sodomize or beat you, but he just smells bad, is filthy, makes you exceptionally uncomfortable, gave you some kind of funky communicable disease, talks way too much and keeps you up all night with loud, boring stories, kicks your bunk, etc. In short, he has made your life very, very uncomfortable, but he has not threatened it in any way. The warden laughs at your request to transfer to another cell. You do not have the right to kill him.

I have heard the argument about quality of life before, and it makes perfect sense from the initial assumption that the fetus is not a human life (yet). But when you do assume that it is fully alive and fully human, the logic no longer works. If it did, the same argument would apply to the homeless people I see on my way home every day. Killing them is not mercy, it is murder.

I'm not trying to convince you that I'm right and you're wrong about abortion. I'm just trying to point out that the fundamental difference is wether or not the fetus is a human life, and when it becomes a human life. Both lines of logic are correct, it's the starting points that differ.

You say it is about thinking that you know what is best for any given person. If the fetus is alive, it is me that is saying that I don't know what is best for that person, and he should therefore be left alone by me, and by everyone else. If the mother is as unfit as you say, she probably doesn't have the faculties to decide that, either. If you begin with the assumption that the fetus is human life, then you must also respect them just as you would the mother. She has rights, certainly. But so does the fetus (under this assumption), and her rights end where the fetus's begin. Once the exercise of your rights inflicts real harm on another, they have reached their limit.

Re:Now that's just disingenuous

[WhiplashII]

Well, to show how both sides can be wrong, let me extend your analogy a bit...

What about children born with deformities? Why don't we euthanize (sp, this means kill) them as soon as we find out about their abnormality? What about early childhood injury? Babies that become burn victims, and will suffer through life terribly scarred? What about teenagers that take LSD, and have awkward flashbacks? What about left-handed people? Where do we draw the line and say terminating a possibly good possibly bad life is wrong?

There is no "right" or "wrong" truth in the debate over when life begins. If there was, it would be simple to pass useful laws. This is about morality, and where our rights (or the mother) end and where another's rights (the fetus, child, single celled organism, or whatever) begin.

The only thing that is certain is that if you think you are right and others are wrong, you are wrong!

Political Bias on Science Panels?

[Zardog]

I read Kerry's quote. "My administration would never utilize biased advice..." About fell out of my chair laughing at that one.

Re:Religeon

[toriver]

For instance. Flat world. That was SCIENCE stance long time ago. And catholic church made that part of the religion instead of taking what bible said. Earth is ROUND.

Utter nonsense. The Catholic Church based their science on Aristotle and other Greeks, and the Greeks knew the Earth was spherical. What you probably think of is the Earth-centric view that the Sun and the stars revolve around Earth. THAT was what the Church sternly defended as dogma.

Flat Earth theories predate science. When science got interested in the problem - and not before - did they discover that is was spherical. Same as with every other scientific discovery.

Instead of seeing that if some FAIL the theory then theory must have flaws.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You're just repeating the attacks on science common in dogmatic creationist circles. The idea that evolution takes million of years is of course alien to people who "know" the Earth in 6000 years old. But some scientists are advocating "instant" evolution as an alternative.

See? New ideas emerge to compete with old theories, like the discovery that heat wasn't an element, or the discovery of oxygen.

All this without being burned for "heresy", too.

There are plenty of symbiotic animals, which happened first, the symbiot found WHICH of the symbiots adapted to other first?

That doesn't make sense. You are basically asking how Daimler and Benz could have invented the car before Ford invented his production line.

Now what started the big bang?

Why do you think the Big Bang theory is the only cosmic theory in science? And nothing needs to "start" the Big Bang.

I believe in God

You have been told to believe in God. And who created God anyway?

Science has plenty of theories and debate them, same as religions. The difference is that scientific theories proven false are thrown out, while religious dogma remains. "Virgin birth" my ass.

AWOL BUSH, THE EXCUSES PRESIDUNCE!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Old AWOL always has an excuse!

thanks for the link

[Trepidity]

I'm used to "the companies are BIG BAD EVIL FOLK!" books, but this one seems like it might come from someone with some actual knowledge rather than just rhetoric. Definitely something to pick up.

Re:Religeon

[toriver]

Soldier rapes woman, woman gives birth. Do the math.

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

It is thoroughly possible for sincere Christians to disagree reasonably about these readings of the Bible, and yet still be Christians.

Untrue. The Bible claims that it is the Word of God and thus incorruptible. That cannot be true when different people interpret it in different ways.

You make the point that the Christians you've met fail to "properly distance themselves from the parts of the bible that have been completely disproved."

Actually, he missed a very good point. If you are cherry-picking bits and pieces that make sense and ignoring the bits that don't, why bother with the Bible in the first place? Why not write your own book, since that is, in essence, what you are doing already?

Re:Religeon

[EnsilZah]

I don't know, 8! years sounds like quite a while...

Re:getting rid of radio-activity instead of materi

[Anonymous Coward]

No we can't burn it. However it can be recycled, and in the process we get more energy than we got the first time around!

Eventially there is still waste, but not nearly as much.

My Hero!!! =^)

[phyruxus]

>>>See, when you divorce the logic from the religious dogma held by some re: stem cell research, it's sounds incredibly stupid doesn't it?

OMFG, you're my new best friend.
(groveling) I'm not worthy...
(groveling) I'm not worthy...

ERASERS ERASERS ERASERS

[argStyopa]

Did John Kerry actually write his answers in ink, or did he use pencil for later waffling?

Actually, CBS found his answers in secret memoes written around 1972 on an amazingly advanced Selectric Typewriter.

No, seriously, he probably just submitted his list of questions to the UN, so they could tell him how to answer.

(Hey, it's as 'insightful' as the previous response.)

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

Morality isn't a property of the universe. I say this with complete and utter authority.

Which is the true Bible?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Orthodox and Catholic Bibles have 73 books, while the Protestant Bibles only 66.

I remember vaguely that Martin Luther left out 7 books from his German translation of the bible because they were not considered genuine by the Jewish scholars of the time.

Which are the real Bibles? those made up of 66 books or 73 books?

Vote Bush!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush increases funds for important science: Like Creationism,
and cuts wasteful spending - like medicare and social security!

i am lookin forward to the debates

[beefcake101]

you guys might hate me for saying this but i am pulling for Bush.. i want to see what happens in the debates. i think i read some where they are gonna have like 3 debates. is this true?

Re:Religeon

[BlackHawk-666]

Civilian deaths are a known and unavoidable consequence of war. When you call for a war you are implicitly signing off on those deaths. Bush called for a war. There is nothing obtuse about the statement I am making here.

Bush lies, Kerry weasels

[bob_jenkins]

I read through the first ten questions. I was surprised -- Bush was aware of the issues and gave pretty good answers. However, his answers contradict what his actions have been. Kerry, on the other hand, often avoided answering the question. For example, the question about whether Americans should consume less, he answered that we should be diligent about avoiding pollution. I prefer Kerry's approach -- if he's bothering to weasel, that probably means what he says has some bearing on what he'll do.

I'm impressed by just how many topics they manage to be aware of and have an opinion on.

Re:Bush lies, Kerry weasels

[phantomfive]

I'm impressed by just how many topics they manage to be aware of and have an opinion on.

You say they have an opinion on things they know nothing about? Who knew that our presidential candidates posted on slashdot?

Re:Bush lies, Kerry weasels

[CGP314]

Homer Simpson: Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals... except the weasel.


-Colin

Bush is dishonorable

[n6kuy]

Yep, Bush went AWOL.

Here's the proof!

How third party candidates succeed

[jgardn]

Voters in this country have chosen third-party candidates, and even elected one. Go back to pre-civil war times and look up the name of an obscure third-party of the time and an obscure candidate for president. He ran on an issue of moral importance, something we take for granted nowadays but was a truly revolutionary concept.

If a third-party candidate wants to succeed today, they have to find an issue that the majority of Americans support, that is more important than any other single issue, and that the two parties refuse to address properly. Running on this one issue will be enough to garner enough support to take the election.

However, there are no issues of supreme importance that the candidates aren't addressing. Right now, our number one priority is defense. We are at war with terrorist Islamists. The second most important issue is how to sustain consistent growth in the economy and smooth out the natural cycles. This is what the American people say are important, so there's no arguing with that.

If you're wondering who I was talking about above, the obscure third party was the Republican party. The candidate was Abraham Lincoln. The issue was slavery - was the African race equal with the Caucasion races, or were they merely sub-humans? If they were equal, was it right to free them from slavery and grant them equal rights? Doesn't our nation's Declaration of Independence declare "All men are equal" and talk about God-given rights that no government can take away rightly?

You know the rest of the story, but remember what caused the war.

Hitler was not a devout Catholic!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hilter had no devotion to anything but his own ego.

Re:Hitler was not a devout Catholic!

[FreeUser]

Hitler was most definitely a devout catholic. His devotion to his own ego is not inconsistent with that. The holocaust was committed with the knowledge and cooperation of the Catholic church (which has since apologized to Israel for its involvement). The holocaust was a christian holocaust against the jews ... one of many throughout the centuries (though definitely the most dramatic).

Religious people, and Catholics in particular, will often go to great lengths to revise this particular tidbit of history, often trying to frame the Nazi phenomenon as an "athiestic" one (although almost none of the party leadership, and certainly not Hitler himself, were athiests, nor was their idealogy which was steeped in religious, germanic, and aryan myth).

Hilter had no devotion to anything but his own ego.

Okay, you've found one similarity between Bush and Hitler (his devotion to his ego). There are undoubtably others (such as their both being quite religious, but here I would argue that a) their religions differ and b) Bush is even more zealous in that respect than Hitler was). The similarity of rampent egotism also exists between Bush and Milosevic, and I still maintain that a comparison of Bush to Milosevic is more accurate and more illuminating of the consiquences of Bush's actions for America in the years to come, and more apropos in terms of scale and behavior.

In addition, Hitler appears to have been significantly more intelligent than Bush is. Milosevic may have been as well, but I believe the jury would arguably be out on that one, making the Bush/Milosevic comparison even more accurate, and the Bush/Hitler one less so.

Re:Hitler was not a devout Catholic!

[Brandybuck]

Hitler was most definitely a devout catholic

Hardly! He was a devout cultist who followed every crackpot claptrap of the German occult scene. He used astrology and numerology to plan military actions for pete's sake! He may have been nominally Catholic, but he certainly was not devout.

Re:Hitler was not a devout Catholic!

[CaptainAvatar]

Feh, you're both wrong. Hitler was definitely not a devout Catholic (or Christian at all, for that matter), you're right about that. But neither was he an occultist. There's no evidence that he planned military operations using astrology or numerology - at least, no evidence outside of trashy pseudohistorical paperbacks. If you've got any I'd love to see it! (OTOH, Himmler was definitely very interested in all manner of dodgy pseudosciences.)

Re:Hitler was not a devout Catholic!

[Brandybuck]

OTOH, Himmler was definitely very interested in all manner of dodgy pseudosciences

Hmmm, I may have confused the two. I do read a lot of "trashy pseudohistorical paperbacks" though...

Re:Hitler was not a devout Catholic!

[CaptainAvatar]

LOL, fair enough :) Me, I probably should read more of them ...

Close Mindedness

[Perl-Pusher]

Being unable to accept new ideas that differ from your preconceived notions is incompatible with science. It's not just a religous attitude, some of the mosed learned scientists are just as guilty. If a scientist writes a paper that challenges the status quo, they are usually ridiculed and torn apart by their peers. Even when faced with the absolute proof of something, they refuse to accept that they are wrong. People like that exist everywhere not just churches.

Creation science is an oxymoron

[Tony]

I'm more interested on why people assume that it has to be creationism OR evolution.

There's no such thing as "creationism" in science. Science is merely an epistomology that stresses experimentation, prediction, data gathering, and objective analysis. The fundamentals of science is simply this: an hypothesis must be falsifiable, or it is merely conjecture and flights of fancy.

I can assert there are invisible pink unicorns all around us, helping us every day. There are only two way to prove this assertion: present all these pink unicorns, or create an experiment that tests for the *nonexistence* of pink unicorns, and have that experiment present negative results. (That's a double-negative, which is a positive. Don't do that in English.)

Also, the ideal scientist will not set out to "prove" or "disprove" an hypothesis. They set out in search of the truth of the matter. An hypothesis is merely one step on the way to that truth, and they set out to test that hypothesis. As soon as they attempt to "prove" a particular hypothesis, their interpretation of the data becomes biased and skewed. (For example, check out Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box.)

Evolution is a theory, yes; but in science, "theory" is a class of hypothesis that have passed experimentation. This means it has been backed up by evidence, not by personal belief or the assertions of ancient documents of questionable literal veracity. The basics of evolution by natural selection (generally what people mean when they talk about "evolution") have passed all tests so far. Since we can't easily directly test natural selection, these tests are mostly comprised of tests of the predictions and necessities of natural selection, such as the genetic relationships among species, or the filling-in of the fossil record.

The problem isn't a personal belief in creationism, or a higher being. (To have a creation, you must have a creator.) That is a very personal choice, and since there is no known way to prove or disprove the existence of a God, there is no way to prove or disprove creationism. And in this, I respect whichever side you choose.

However, to teach something that doesn't even rate the label of "hypothesis" as a competing theory to evolution is to ignore the fundamental philosophy of science: the doctrine of testability. This is why the proposition of teaching creationism in a science class is absurd.

Doing so would be a disservice to our children, our society, and our future.

Re:Creation science is an oxymoron

[Keith Handy]

If the unicorns are invisible, then how can they be pink?

Re:Creation science is an oxymoron

[Minna Kirai]

and since there is no known way to prove or disprove the existence of a God

Certainly there is, for a specific definition of God.

Gods in general, when defined only as "beings tremendously more powerful than any human can hope to be", cannot be disproved. But if one makes a more precise claim, such as "God is good and powerful and loves me and is watching over me", then it can be tested.

In the case of that definition, you just need to tear out the claimant's intestines with a pitchfork. If God jumps out and stops you, then he exists. If not, then either God isn't good, or he's not powerful, or he wasn't watching, or he just doesn't exist at all. Any of those 4 interpretations means that God, as defined, doesn't exist.

It also demonstrates that either Superman doesn't exist, or he wasn't within x-ray vision range at the time. Otherwise, he'd have stopped you. And it further demonstrates that a SWAT team wasn't watching you with infra-red googles from outside your window, or they too would've stopped you.

Observing that any evil exists in the world is sufficient to disprove the simplistic Christian definition of God. If heaven were a possibility, we'd already be there.

Re:Creation science is an oxymoron

[BCW2]

Creation and science can get along if both are looked at with an open mind.
Go back and read Genesis in the Bible. All it says is WHY God created. No where does it say exactly how. As long as you accept that His sense of time is a bit different thant ours(7 days to Him could be 700 milineums to us) it is possible. He could have caused the big bang.
All it take is an open mind. Which is in very short supply on /.

Re:Religeon

[Dillusionary]

The sad part for most of this religious right wing bunch is they are ALL ignorant. Ask them basic questions like where did the bible come from? Who made it for what it is today? Who the fuck is John that wrote the Book of John, you know revelations. Most of them will stare at you with very distant eyes, they have no clue. Do your fucking research. I vote for anyone else but Bush.

Those who want to give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin (1759)

You understand what that means? Bush Does NOT!

bumper sticker war

[notcreative]

I actually saw a bumper sticker that said "Keep America Safe for Terrorists: Kerry 04" What's wrong with people?

Religion and the Financia Record of the Usurper

[FreeUser]

Lets look at some of the Business he [Bush]'s Administrated, shall we?

i) Arbusto Energy / Spectrum 7 (CEO, 1977-1986): Formed 1977, declared bankrupt, 1986.
ii) Harken Energy (director, 1986-1990) : GWB implicated for insider trading and accounting practices. 1992 SEC investigation still sealed. Made loss of over $20million.
iii) Texas Rangers baseball club (owner/managing partner, 1990-1994) : 383-379, for an entirely average .502 winning percentage.

iv) The United States of America : GWB and his party, controlling all branches of government, took the treasury from record surpluses to record deficits in just two years, said deficits exceeding earlier records as they grew in the years following, while successfully outsourcing the bulk of the middle class economy and, according to census reports released a month early (prior to the republican convention) in order to be swept away from the public eye well before election time, creating an environment of a significantly shrunk middle class, record poverty, and unprecedented numbers of Americans with absolutely no health coverage whatsoever.

Looks to me like he's doing about average on his latest venture. It is a pity that this time the results affect us all, very detrimentally.

So, that's two unmitigated financial disasters and a ballclub that defines "league average". If that's a model Harvard MBA student, perhaps they should consider tightening their syllabus up a little bit.

Not to mention their admission standards.

Perhaps not

[Tony]

If the answers represent their policy instead of their own personal belief, than the answers are perfectly valid-- hopefully, more valid than if they were their personal belief.

I'd rather know about a candidate's proposed policy than their personal opinions or beliefs. As an example, if their personal belief is that a balanced budget is necessary for a stable economy, but their fiscal policy is one of massive overspending, I would be very, very concerned.

OK by that def...

[FatSean]

...Both religionists and scientists have faith. It's just that the scientist's faith is backed up by observable phenomena.

Bush's secret conspiracy

[jgardn]

BUSH: Hey Cheney, I got a great idea to get me elected.

CHENEY: What's that?

BUSH: If I come off as a complete fool, then everyone will mock me and underestimate my ability to lead. So while I am outsmarting them at every political corner in the race, they will be talking about how stupid I am rather than their issues.

CHENEY: Won't that be bad? I mean, who would want to elect a deficient president?

BUSH: No, it'll be good in a few ways. For one thing, calling people stupid has never resonated with the electorate. They thought that President Reagan was stupid, but he still pulled off some of the most decisive victories in the history of the US. Earning the title as intelligent actually turns off voters. Look at Jimmy Carter. He was considered to be the brightest president we ever had, but he failed to earn a second term. He's still unpopular.

CHENEY: Humm, you're right. Americans don't want smart presidents. They want presidents that are leaders, that are decisive, and that won't cave in to our enemies.

BUSH: Exactly. Look at our most popular president ever - FDR. He earned that popularity by coming across as a fighter, not an intellectual. He had strong words, he rose to impossible challenges. He had real balls, if you know what I mean. Look at the other Roosevelt. He was a fighter as well, and very popular. Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, all of these were fighters.

CHENEY: Now that I think of it, remember the last debates with Gore? The ones you were supposed to get trounced in?

BUSH: Yep. I went into that debate armed with responses to all of Gore's criticisms. He didn't expect any new ideas of any of my responses. He didn't expect me to be able to think on my toes. He came in with the false idea of being a "great debater", but came our with his tail between his legs.

CHENEY: But isn't Kerry wiser about this? I am sure he is going to be ready.

BUSH: But see, I am giving him the false impression that I don't want to debate a "great" debater like him. I am holding off on signing up to the debates as long as possible. I am even trying to reduce the debates from three to two.

CHENEY: So he thinks you are actually afraid to debate. He thinks he can walk all over you in the debates.

BUSH: Yep. "Misunderestimate" sure is an appropriate word.

CHENEY: Well, shoo-ee. Mr. President, I think you have a fine plan there. Our should I say, Mr. "Stupid" President.

BUSH: Hehehe. Yep, all the way back to the White House. Thanks, Dick.

Re:Bush's secret conspiracy

[hambonewilkins]

Yes, he's been a helluva fighter. Really crushed Osama Bin Laden.

Re:Bush's secret conspiracy

[Minna Kirai]

Lincoln, all of these were fighters.

That's quite wrong. Lincoln wasn't a fighter at all. He even had a reputation for personal cowardice by avoiding brawls as a young man. And as a president, he stayed far away from the details of the Civil War, leaving that all to the generals.

Re:Bush's secret conspiracy

[thrash242]

WTF is wrong with leaving the details to generals? That is the smart thing to do. Presidents should determine broad policies and high-level strategic elements, but leave the details to generals. It's called delegation. And it's a wise thing to do.

That was one of Hitler's main blunders--micromanaging everything instead of letting the generals run the war. Of course it's good for the world that he wasn't much of a military strategist, but it was a blunder in an objective sense.

The only exception is the head of state who has a lot of experience as a military leader, but even then, it's usually best to leave military matters to military commanders. Generals make strategic decisions as a job--they're probably better at it than the president.

Re:Bush's secret conspiracy

[Minna Kirai]

WTF is wrong with leaving the details to generals?

Nothing's wrong with it. It just means that they're the fighters, and not you.

Re:Bush's secret conspiracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Akham's razor... which is more likely?

Bush has the whole world convinced he is a moron (intentionally!), but actually is some sort of genius.

-or-

Bush really is a total dumbass.

Methinks the more likely scenario is the latter, but you're welcome to your delusions.

Allow me to paraphraze...

[ate50eggs]

Most of the question answer pairs go something like this: Nature: If elected, how will you balance [some issue - e.g. the environment] with [some conflicting issue - e.g. industrial growth]? Candidate: I plan on a adressing [issue one] without sacrificing [issue two]. sadly this is probably too late on the board to save anyone the trouble of actually reading the pseudo-interview, but hey, I tried.

Virgin Birth?

[lastninja]

Humans have existed for more than 100 000 years. Taking a strictly scientific view point, it would surprise me if there have never been a virgin birth during those years, chances are that the baby born would have been a girl though.

Re:Religeon

[Charvak]

I disagree. I believe that morality has come to us from the evolution itself and can be explained by science. In order for human species to surive as a social animal we need certain rules/guidelines which may seems to be against the natural selection but necessary for the survival of the society. So, the goodness of my heart, humanity, ethics, morality and even religion have all have roots in survival of the fittest.

Re:Religeon

[Tyndmyr]

Easy there, I was raised Christian and Im certainly not fond of Bush, but your coming across far more retorical than logical. Even if you choose not to believe it, Evolution is not a religion by any impartial standard, any more than, say, the law of gravity. The law of gravity does have rather more evidence for it, but that is a difference of degree, rather than kind. There is contradictory evidence with evolution, but its far more insignifigant than most religious materials would lead you to believe. I suggest you investigate all such instances via a variety of reasonably trustworthy, impartial sources. Also, a belief in a diety, or even a flavor of Christianity, does not preclude a belief in evolution. Its just as reasonable to believe that God could start the process of evolution as to do the whole creation job custom... I know several people with variations of this belief. As far as him being a hypocrite with respect to religion, I wouldn't be shocked...he's a politician, and they're good at such things as a whole. However, I really don't care about the religious tendancies of politicians. Id vote for a satanist, if I thought he'd do a decent job.

Re:Religeon

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

People create cars. Cars are created. Yet, to me, it looks as if cars evolve from year to year... I even see traits that appear to cross-polinate to other species!

Clearly, both are true in a way. And yet, biological evolution is a source of great controversy, even in the scientific community (though not that it itself is dispute, dispite the claims of preachers). Why christians fail to take the opportunity to work within the blank framework that evolution provides, instead of attacking it for its shortcomings, is beyond me.

What happens if somehow, someone proves evolution beyond shadow of doubt? Will billions of christians become atheists? It's just dumb.

third mandate

[Anonymous Coward]

You have right.. this could be a strong argument for his third mandate.

And we American's hope that

[N3WBI3]

Before a non American makes such a stupid statement they read our counstitution and learn what winning an election means..

Questionable scientifically and strategically?

[RealProgrammer]

We are just dumping money down the drain on a system that is questionable both scientifically and strategically.

I agree that the world is a different place after the Cold War. Also, it's not likely that North Korea would launch a first strike at the U.S.

But what about Al Qaida, China, or some domestic terrorist? And what about during a declared war - a missile strike at Kansas City would have a lot of terror value.

"Questionable [science]" is redundant. All science is by its nature questionable; that's part of what makes it science.

There are more things to knock out of the sky than incoming SCUDs and ICBMs. Meteors (both of interstellar and manmade origin) are somewhat dangerous, and by the time we see one it will be too late to do basic research. I'm sure you'd agree that one of the best kinds of scientific research to fund is how to keep giant hunks of burning metal from hitting your roof.

Another, more practical way a missile defense system could be used is to wipe out an incoming airplane, ship, sub, or anything else before it comes in offensive range.

Remember the story about the Navy using rail guns? Those (both shipboard and land-based) would be part of an integrated missile defense.

Re:Questionable scientifically and strategically?

[Minna Kirai]

Meteors (both of interstellar and manmade origin) are somewhat dangerous,

Wrong. Meteors are by definition less than 10 meters in diameter, which isn't dangerous at all. Also, "interstellar" is the wrong way to classify them. "Interplanetary" is a little closer.

Manmade meteors are such far-off scifi that I'll ignore them.

Asteroids, on the other hand, can be much larger and are potentially very dangerous. But, the research going into national missile defense will do NOTHING to help us stop an asteroid. A better spaceflight program would, though. But the attacks that would stop a nuke won't bother an asteroid- and most of the work for NMD is in detecting/tracking the incoming missiles, something totally different from detecting objects from space.

Those (both shipboard and land-based) would be part of an integrated missile defense.

They're not part of Bush's current deployment plan, so they don't contribute any defensibility to his actions. Also, railguns for domestic missile defense is flawed for other reasons. But railgun research is overall useful, for spaceflight as well as military needs.

Another, more practical way a missile defense system could be used is to wipe out an incoming airplane, ship, sub, or anything else before it comes in offensive range.

No, NMD couldn't hit subs. And anything else on that list, we can easily knock out already. (Although you'd never want to blow up an enemy ship- instead capture it, and use it as evidence for who sponsored the attack)

Re:Questionable scientifically and strategically?

[RealProgrammer]

>Not interstellar; "interplanetary"
>Not meteors: "asteroids"

Why quibble over whether an object originates in our solar system or merely travels through our solar system on the way to us? Why worry about how big it is? In any case is there currently nothing anyone could do to keep such an object from hitting your roof.

>Manmade meteors? Sci-Fi.

Think again. There is already a lot of junk in orbit from our space programs; periodically, some of it falls to Earth. There's currently nothing anyone could do to keep such an object from hitting your roof.

>Railguns are not part of the current plan
>... flawed for other reasons

While I know of no formal plan to use them, obviously if there are guns aboard a ship, we'll use them if we can.

Of course, a land-based railgun might be difficult to use on a moving target.

>NMD couldn't hit subs ... [and] anything else on that list
>we can knock out already.

Ah, now I see your difficulty. You're thinking of a "Giant Laser" in the sky to zap incoming missiles. A missile defense system would use every technology available, both conventional and high-tech. The idea is to keep things from hitting us.

>you'd never want to blow up an enemy ship -
>instead capture it, and use it as evidence
>for who sponsored the attack

Never is a long time. In warfare there is no time for the niceties of civilian jurisprudence. You don't mirandize the crew of an enemy ship, you send them to a water grave.

Re:Questionable scientifically and strategically?

[Minna Kirai]

Ah, now I see your difficulty. You're thinking of a "Giant Laser" in the sky to zap incoming missiles.

No, I'm thinking of the actual Pentagon project called NMD, as created by the prime contractor TRW. You are apparently thinking of all kinds of hypothetical other systems that might someday exist, but have no resemblance to the thing President Bush is deploying right now.

You don't mirandize the crew of an enemy ship, you send them to a water grave.

I was talking about terrorism, where the fact that a ship is actually an enemy is probably well disguised. With the overwhelming superiority of the US Navy, the idea that any ship would overtly attack the USA is almost less plausible than man-made meteors.

Re:Religeon

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

You must have went into the very narrow field of boring science. Most scientists see miraculous things every day, I'd think. Hell, thought that was the fun part, trying to figure them out.

Surely you agree that it's a miracle the human race hasn't made itself extinct...

Re:Religeon

[Refrag]

You proved an excellent followup point to mine. That religion was invented because it provides massive power to a few.

My understanding of the Holocaust is that people raised around one religion tried to eliminate people raised around another. Correct me if I am wrong.

Re:Religeon

[N3WBI3]

No, I was talking about the first post in this thread.. " Any president who reads the bible for help making presidential decisions cannot be pro-science,"

Censorship abides

[FreeUser]

I will not have my response censored while right-wing jerks moderate the above troll into the stratosphere.

Bye! Don't let the door hit you on your ass on the way out, you spineless worm. If you don't like something in your country, take a stand and try to change it.

I can't speak for the guy going to Vancouver (I'm actually going there on vacation next month, and may even get a summer home there if I like it enough), but I've been fighting the pendulum swing to the right since I first started voting in '84. Twenty years later, and the nonsense I keep hearing about "the pendulum will swing back eventually" rings truly hollow. It may be true in the very long term, but it sounds more like the Jews telling themselves "this too shall pass" (it did, but not until after most of those telling themselves that had been murdered). [cue the usual Godwin's law trolls]

I'm tired of fighting a losing battle against mindlessly nationalistic, irrationally religious idealogues, and other right wing zealots like yourself.

I'm tired of contributing to a society whose international agenda can only be described as toxic and deeply irresponsible.

I'm tired of living among people whose politics and philosophies I have learned over the years and decades to despise.

I'm sick of seeing a country I love destroy itself from within so profoundly and so completely.

I'm sick of a culture that has chosen, systematically, and with ever more zeal, to sell out its basic ideals (freedom, human rights, free expression, and so on) in exchange for short term profits and greed.

Indeed, I'm sick of being a part of a culture that has deified greed and disregarded basic human cooperation and caring, having forgotten that it is cooperation, not competition, that is the foundation of civilization.

In short, I'm sick and tired of being a part of an ever less civilized society, and I am deeply ashamed of what idealogues such as yourself, and the complacent and cowardly fools who follow you, have made America into.

I'm not planning to emigrate anytime soon (I have a job I like and work with good people ... an island of sanity in a nation consumed with neurosis), but I fully empathize with the poster who has had enough and is leaving, and feel nothing but the deepest contempt and disgust for the toxic politics and philosophies of people like yourself that have made it necessary.

And should I lose my job like so many millions of others have (most of whome conviniently no longer appear in the unemployment statistic now that their benefits have expired) I probably will emigrate, assuming any country on the planet will have anything to do with displaced citizens of a toxic, militaristic, and irresponsible superpower as it fades from prominence, probably with similiar results but none of the grace, of Russia.

Re:Censorship abides

[untaken_name]

Sure, follow the pattern. When anyone responds to you, ignore what they said and respew the same garbage. Nice going.

Re:Censorship abides

[untaken_name]

btw, if you think my comments are going to get 'modded into the stratosphere' let me introduce you to a feature of slashdot. Visit my user page. You can see where instead I am modded down for not agreeing with every peurile whinefest posted on slashdot. Some people agree with me, and mod me up, some people agree with the people with whom I disagree, and mod me down. Sometimes I'll have a comment moderated 20 or 30 times, but that's ok. It appears that slightly more than half of the people who use mod points on my posts agree with me. It's not anything like 'into the stratosphere', but it works. I don't worry about burning karma, because there's too much PC tippy-toe bullshit in this world as it is. I call it like I see it and if you can't handle that, I'm not sorry. I'll not apologize for defending my beliefs any more than I would ask you to apologize for defending yours. I do, however, ask that you defend them with more than ad hominem attacks, tautologies and irrelevant, baseless assertions. I mean, you can use the above...just have more than them. Don't appeal to pathos at the expense of logos.

McCain sucks

[slughead]

I'm an Arizonan and I'm voting against McCain in the next senatorial election.

He's pro internet censorship, is anti-private sale of firearms, and pro USA Patriot Act (note the correct spelling of the USAPA).

Why do people like this guy? Oh yeah, he's so bipartisan (pro censorship == republican, anti-gun == democrat, pro USAPA == bipartisan). What a swell guy .. no.

And by the way, do you have any evidence it was Karl Rove who did the fake poll about McCain's adopted child?

For those who don't know, SOMEONE in South Carolina started calling random numbers pretending to do a poll in which one of the questions was "What do you think about McCain adopting a black baby?" (or something to that effect, in reference to McCain adopting a child from Bangladesh). McCain lost the primary, and consequently we get to hear about every lame excuse and nit-picking research into every single thing that happened, regardless of who did it and how many people were called.

Is it so hard to imagine that someone wouldn't vote for McCain, even over a douche like Bush?

Must you republicrats constantly bicker about this crap? You guys rig the freakin elections both in finance and locking down the debates and we STILL hear complaining about OTHERS getting special treatment? Be happy with what you have.

I'm voting Libertarian, btw.

Re:McCain sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA in parent:

Thus, the "pollsters" asked McCain supporters if they would be more or less likely to vote for McCain if they knew he had fathered an illegitimate child who was black. In the conservative, race-conscious South, that's not a minor charge. We had no idea who made the phone calls, who paid for them, or how many calls were made. Effective and anonymous: the perfect smear campaign.

Some aspects of this smear were hardly so subtle. Bob Jones University professor Richard Hand sent an e-mail to "fellow South Carolinians" stating that McCain had "chosen to sire children without marriage." It didn't take long for mainstream media to carry the charge. CNN interviewed Hand and put him on the spot: "Professor, you say that this man had children out of wedlock. He did not have children out of wedlock." Hand replied, "Wait a minute, that's a universal negative. Can you prove that there aren't any?"

Bush needed to disavow it, appologize to McCain, and throw the push-pollsters to the wolves to earn my respect. He did none of that. His Failure to appologize is tantamount to approval. Bush is a racist. I hope he gets crushed.

Re:McCain sucks

[Minna Kirai]

in which one of the questions was "What do you think about McCain adopting a black baby?" (or something to that effect, in reference to McCain adopting a child from Bangladesh).

The word "adopt" wasn't in the poll. That would've been a lot less negative. By just saying he "has" a child, they imply he's the biological father, and thus not only betrayed his wife, but fled from child support.

Re:McCain sucks

[quax]

As an outside observer (I am German living in the states) and following the presidental campaign with avid ethnological interest I am pretty certain that Karl Rove will never engage into any dirty tricks if there's any chance that he leaves finger prints behind.

The Jesuses

[copponex]

There were a lot of prophets when Jesus was around. Most of them claimed they could deliver the Jews from the Romans, but when they failed, they were run off or killed. I believe Jesus existed, and professed to be the son of God. But instead of declaring that he would win a military victory against the Romans while he was alive, he broke ranks and smartly declared that he would be victorious AFTER they killed him.

It's an old game. If I say, "You'll find out I'm right after you've died" then I can say anything I bloody well please, can't I? So the promise of religion, in our modern world of technology that would provide the ability to reliably record a miracle, must always be after death.

You might say because God doesn't need to prove himself, but I'll say it's because the miracles never happened in the first place.

Who's right? We'll find out after we die.

Re:The Jesuses

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

If Jesus claimed as you speculate, then indeed, it seems he did win a victory of sorts even after he died. I don't mean this in the general religious way, but his religion has outlived the romans many times over, and even before their civilization died, converted them.

I do disagree about some of his claims, it seems more likely that he himself didn't claim to be divine, rather his over-enthusiastic followers.

Is it a miracle if he did manage to walk on water? Or is it the miracle that he may have taught (at least some people, others seem impervious to the lesson) people that if we're good to each other, there may be a paradise as a reward for us?

Re:The Jesuses

[thelaw]

There was, indeed, a long line of would-be Messiahs in the first century and before. The odd thing about the teachings of Jesus is that they aren't at all in line with the teachings of the other would-be Messiahs. A dead Messiah was, by the first-century definition, a failed Messiah. Except Jesus talked constantly about his own death, and appears to have walked purposefully into his own execution. Like you say, he "broke ranks." Even his disciples were disconcerted by his teaching on these things (see Mark 9).

The odd thing is that his disciples appeared to be convinced that he'd come back to life! I've heard a whole lot of explanations for why they might say that, but I haven't yet heard any convincing explanation that makes sense historically, except that he actually did rise from the dead. The eyewitness accounts are especially strange, because women are the first people to see the resurrected Christ. In the first-century Middle East, women were not considered reliable witnesses in court. And yet their testimony is accepted by the other disciples. And why would a group of rigidly monotheistic Jews in the first-century suddenly start claiming that their dead Messiah was now alive, and in fact God? Unless something supremely odd had occurred in Jerusalem, everything we know about first-century Palestine tells us that the 11 apostles would have been stoned for blasphemy for claiming that Jesus was God.

"Who's right? We'll find out after we die."

This is certainly true, although I think we should take it a bit more seriously than that. If the threat of hell is plausible, we have a keen self-interest in knowing the truth about it. :)

Jon

Re:The Jesuses

[Anonymous Coward]

I see a parallel here.

Jesus talked constantly about his own death

Bush talked constantly about WMDs.

Even his disciples were disconcerted by his teaching on these things

Many USA citizens were disconcerted by Bush's claims.

The odd thing is that his disciples appeared to be convinced that he'd come back to life!

The odd thing is that lots of people actually believed we'd find WMDs in Iraq!

In the first-century Middle East, women were not considered reliable witnesses in court. And yet their testimony is accepted by the other disciples.

Now go conduct a poll asking USA citizens if any WMDs were found in Iraq.

Re:The Jesuses

[thelaw]

And, it's on-topic. :)

Jon

Re:Religeon

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

If God does exist, which do you think he probably finds more important?

A) That people believe he exists (even though their belief doesn't alter the fact that he exists)

or

B) That people should be good, kind, and loving to one another. That we shouldn't murder each other, or take advantage of other's weaknesses.

That's the danger in moral relativism. If "God" doesn't exist (and no one can prove that he does), I don't have to worry about being punished. Abortion is more of a convenience than it is taking a life, laying off 10,000 people and ruining their lives to save some dollars is ok because by law my only concern is profit... all sorts of things become possible.

Here's a thought... if we try to be decent, even if it turns out there is no God, maybe this place would end up looking alot like the paradise the fictional guy promised us. It sure looks alot like the fictional hell we were threatened with.

Re:Religeon

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

The saddest part? After tuning it to a point where it's extremely accurate and useful, the religious bigots often co-opt it, and claim that was what they were saying all along.

Witchcraft

[xombo]

I'm surprised most of Bush's answers don't blame witchcraft, knowing how superstitious he is.

Re:Religeon

[pjt33]

I think you misunderstood my post and inverted its sense. If you correctly understood my post, then I have no idea how you draw your initial conclusion.

ambiguous crap

[PMuse]

Well, I thought that Kerry's answers were generally a stark contrast to Bush's.

Nonsuch. There was hardly anything that could be called unambiguous in either set of answers, much less "stark". The following verbage is meaningless in the mouth of a politician: supported, called for, committed, initiated, negotiated, encouraged, improved, assured, believe, considered, consulted, explore, take action, approved, studied, refocus, assist, study, and develop.

If they want my vote, let them talk to me about banned, prohibited, restricted, eliminated, allowed, ordered, funded, taxed, signed, vetoed, and, maybe, voted for.

Re:Religeon

[ericspinder]

4th Corollary: One must make a declaritive statement in a Corollary, for it to be effectively chained to the previous one.

Re:Religeon

[Stripe7]

That is an interesting reinterpetation of history. There was something called the Dark Ages that impeeded scientfic progress for hundereds of years, and I belive it was directly related to something called religion, Chirstianity in particular.

IED vs IUD?

[ironduke-particle]

I bet George doesn't know the difference. It would explain a lot.

Re:Religeon

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

I looked pretty deep

Details please, the devil is in the details, as they say. If you want to make authoritative statements, please cite the authority. If not you are merely wasting everyone's time with your soap-box antics.

I began to find that Evolution Science was as full of holes as a swiss cheese

Right so you are obviously more intelligent and better informed than every biological scientist since Darwin released his "Origin of the Species". Kudos, well done, when you get your nobel, will you remember your friends?

I really don't get this abject horror that some people have that we are descended from "monkeys", and before them from "rats". I mean, that smacks of the kind of racial supremacy that has been responsible for a whole lotta trouble. Evolution posits that mankind is descended from a branch of hominids which closely resemble modern monkeys. These creatures fought like hell, tooth and nail to survive and then prosper, and grew smarter because of their efforts, regardless of the obstacles and threats a profoundly hostile environment threw their way. I am proud to declare myself the descendant of such indomitable spirits, and I apsire to the heights which they achieved.

I'd much rather we hauled ourselves out of a puddle of mud than some divine entity handed us the keys to the kingdom, and the abdication of responsibility that that entails. Because ultimately, that is what religion is. Just a little boy looking in horror at the smashed window, yelling "It wasn't me!"

Amen

[Guuge]

That this sort of bigotry is considered "insightful" is just pathetic.

Yeah, darn those bigots who criticize Bush's policies. Now let's go propose a constitutional amendment that takes rights away from gays because we hate them.

Re:Religeon

[cynic10508]

Well, for the record, I'm a moral absolutist and a deontologist (and a Christian). The nature of the relationship between religion and morality is such if you follow a religion then you also follow a system or morality, but not vice versa. It's totally possible for their to be atheistic moral absolutists. So your question is an inclusive-or rather than an exclusive-or. The answer would be that I imagine God would rather that people believe in Him but either if they believe in him or they follow a system or morals then they should act in good ways.

Let's use an example.

[copponex]

"Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel."

First of all, LORD has replaced Jehovah, Yahweh, or YHVH. This was done by the English church to give more respect to British Lords, in honor of a child molester known as King James. Why was it changed? Why did God allow this? Who knows. But I digress...

The bias in this passage is apparent. An enemy of Isreal is the enemy of God. The Amorites deserved their slaughter. God even stops the sun so Joshua can complete it.

Does this look like the work of a being who loves everyone? Why does he hate Amorites? Is a person evil because they are Irish, Hindu, or if they have a tendency to have blonde hair? The God of this passage seems to believe this, but I do not.

Now, is the passage reliable? I can find no motive, no moral other than, "You'll be massacred if you're not Jewish." I have never witnessed the sun stop, and as I understand it, that would require freezing the earth in place in it's motion around the sun, and in it's rotation around it's own axis. Who knows what consequences that would have on the weather, the tides, and the animals? Perhaps there were accounts across the globe about this miraculous event, and they just didn't survive.

So no, I don't believe the passage is reliable, based on my own experience and knowledge.

The question is, why do you want to believe the passage is true? If I traded "God" for "Allah," "Joshua" for "Mohommad," "Amorites" for "Americans," and "Israel" for "Islam," would it be extremist propoganda or the word of God?

Re:Let's use an example.

[Anonymous Coward]

So no, I don't believe the passage is reliable, based on my own experience and knowledge.

You have chosen to reject this passage on moral grounds rather than factual. This seems, to me, quite odd and blatently unscientific. Did these events happen or not? If they did, how is the text not reliable?

Now regarding the morality, find out who the Amorites were and what they did.

The question is, why do you want to believe the passage is true? If I traded "God" for "Allah," "Joshua" for "Mohommad," "Amorites" for "Americans," and "Israel" for "Islam," would it be extremist propoganda or the word of God?

Ooh, can I play too?

"April 28, 1945 - Mussolini is captured and hanged by Italian partisans; Allies take Venice."

Replacing a few words...

"April 28, 1945 - A cute, cuddly kitten is captured and hanged by circus clowns; Libertarians take Texas."

Suddenly Italians look so heartless.

Re:Let's use an example.

[thelaw]

"First of all, LORD has replaced Jehovah, Yahweh, or YHVH."

First of all, there are more readable translations than the KJV. :) The Greek manuscripts that it's based on are not the most reliable that are now available, although they were the best at the time. They've discovered other manuscripts since then that are earlier versions.

Anyhoo, any preface or foreword to a committee-translated Bible will tell you that LORD is used to signify YHWH, to set it apart from Elohim or other words having a similar English translation, but different connotation. See the NIV's website for more details on how they went about translating the ancient texts.

"The bias in this passage is apparent."

Do you mean that the text's view of God's intent is biased? Well yes, of course. But the reason that you think it's biased is that it does not correspond to your viewpoint. That's exactly what I'm getting at here - everyone brings to their reading of a text a raft of presuppositions about fairness, justice, and what God is/may/might/was like or should be like. But the reason you think the passage is biased is that it represents a worldview different from your own. And that's to be expected.

"Does this look like the work of a being who loves everyone?"

I believe you are trying to measure the passage against an erroneous perception of how the Christian God is presented in the Bible. Sure, God loves all his creatures because he created them. But you've set up a straw God that doesn't correspond to the God presented in the Bible. The God of the Bible is indeed loving, and gracious, and compassionate, and tender. But he is also described as "a raging fire", a lion, a warrior, and a judge.

"Why does he hate Amorites?"

In Genesis 15:16, God tells Abram that the Amorites' sin "is not yet complete." This dovetails nicely with the more complete picture of YHWH presented above. God plans in Genesis 15 to judge the Amorites at some future date. And I would argue that God is being more compassionate and gracious than he needs to be when he gives the Amorites 450 years (I think) to turn from their sins.

"Is a person evil because they are Irish, Hindu, or if they have a tendency to have blonde hair? The God of this passage seems to believe this, but I do not."

This comment acts as if Irishness, Hinduism and blondeness are of the same spiritual import. In fact, I would argue that your statement presupposes that such differences are, or should be, irrelevant. Otherwise your implied "No" carries no force.

But Hinduism is very different from "Irishism", if that exists. The God of the Bible always opposes those who worship other gods, and Hindu worship doesn't even claim to worship YHWH. But the God of the Bible will accept Irish who turn from their sins and trust in him, and he will also accept blonde people who turn from their sins and trust in him. And if a Hindu turned from his sins and trusted in Jesus Christ alone for his salvation, then God would accept him as well.

'Now, is the passage reliable? I can find no motive, no moral other than, "You'll be massacred if you're not Jewish."'

Assuming that by "Jewish" you mean "Hebrew", then I think you are reading the passage's meaning correctly, assuming that we understand these principles to be restricted to that particular set of events in space-time Palestine a long time ago.

But we shouldn't confuse "reliable" with "agreeable". There are all sorts of things I find disagreeable in major newspapers, facts I would prefer not to be true. But many, if not most, of them are true and I must accomodate my worldview to them. It does me no good to say "It's wrong for Arab militia in the Sudan to enslave the black Sudanese! Therefore any such reports are unreliable." Is that a reasonable application of your principle, or am I misreading your objection?

Is there a

Re:Let's use an example.

[Unknown Lamer]

First of all, LORD has replaced Jehovah, Yahweh, or YHVH. This was done by the English church to give more respect to British Lords, in honor of a child molester known as King James. Why was it changed? Why did God allow this? Who knows. But I digress...

YHWH in the Hebrew texts always had adonai mixed in with it because name of YHWH was never to be spoken aloud; instead adonai (lord) was used. Thus the KJV and many modern English translation use LORD in small caps to signify YHWH so that the name is not accidentally spoken out loud. Others, such as the WEB use Yahweh. Yahweh isn't universally agreed upon as an accurate transliteration because no one knows how to pronounce YHWH since it was never allowed to be spoken aloud and anyone who would know has been dead for maybe three thousand years :)

Al Qaida????

[jotaeleemeese]

Honestly people, the most those bozos have done is flying 3 planes. Their high tech? cutting blades.

As for China, yeah, that would be a great move: bomb your best consumer!

Re:Religeon

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Science is a system of logic designed to derive natural laws from observations of phenomena and falsifiable experiments. It has nothing to do with "belief". Scientists can and do have suspicions about various things which can be useful when it comes to the first part of the scientific process, but even these suspicions can be problematic if steps aren't taken to ensure that they don't interfere with accurate results, or the interpretations of such. Calling them "beliefs" instead of "suspicions" isn't disallowed, as long as you realize that it doesn't change what I said.

Religion is more than what you describe, in many cases. Far from being a random collection of superstitions (admittedly, some self-described religions do fall under that category), it is often a sophisticated collection of traditions, culture, and moral/ethical laws that can and sometimes do improve the standard of living of people. For instance, many religions claim that it is wrong for me to murder you out of perverse pleasure, and that whether or not I'm caught and punished, it is a great harm, period. What does science tell us of murder? Not much, though it can confirm that murder does happen. There are some that try to count murders, and derive statistical models, but since no experiments are possible (or wise, or unobjectionable), many call this "soft science" or refuse to consider it such at all. However, it should be noted, that whether science or not, the numbers suggest that murder is also bad. A society that tolerates it would probably devolve into chaos, and be an unpleasant, unproductive one to live in. Wow. Imagine, religion taught us not to murder without $13 billion in federal grant money spread over 70 years.

Fidel Castro...

[jotaeleemeese]

... is a very intelligent man, versed in literature, cinema, music and philosophy.

He also played baseball ;-)

Re:Fidel Castro...

[Chandon Seldon]

So he'd be a step up on Bush as president of the USA?

Re:Religeon

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

What a sad, inaccurate picture you paint.

Some will believe in God, though not in an afterlife.

Some will have serious doubts God exists, though will choose to follow the religious laws out of habit (and hopefully) a sense that doing so can make people's lives better.

Some certainly believe that God doesn't watch over them... even they concede that for some (possibly mysterious) reason he chooses to allow bad things to happen.

Some will find evidence to support these beliefs. Others will contrive false evidence.

Few believe that dinosaurs don't exist, the rest interpret the existence of fossil records differently. Others are ignorant that there is a fossil record.

BTW, most preachers, even the most ignorant, will tell you (if you haven't been rude to them yet) that tarot-card-readers are scam artists that tell you what you want to hear. The rest will claim they are witches. Go figure.

Religion is often abused by con artists. It is speculated that religion was invented by con artists. Sometimes, it is used to make things better, to give hope and joy to people who endure the worst of conditions. When a christian organization donates food to starving people in africa, or helps rebuild homes after a hurricane strikes, surely some do it out of fear of going to hell. The rest do it because it is good to help others. You could learn from them.

Oh please....

[jotaeleemeese]

North Korea says they have nuclear weapons.

No wonder after seeing what ahppened to countries that do not have them.

And in any case they may have one or two. How are they going to deliver them to US soil? By burro?

Re:Oh please....

[jc42]

North Korea says they have nuclear weapons. ... How are they going to deliver them to US soil? By burro?

More likely by UPS. FedEx might have an office over there, too.

(This is really the main criticism of the "Star Wars" program. Missiles aren't a good way to deliver such things. Commercial freight can do the job a lot better, and anonymously.)

A little pet peeve.

[nbanman]

Yes, the word "literally" is misused literally (sic) all the time. Everybody knows what people mean. If I say I ain't never gonna do something, are you going to tell me that I'm using a double negative?

You probably know more athiests...

[TamMan2000]

... than you think you do.

Most of us don't come out and say: "nice to meet you; there is no god".

I'd bet a lot of people who you know, who are morally "normal", are atheists and you just haven't realized it.

I am an athiest and independant of that, I realize that the world works better when:
You treat others as you would like to be treated...
Nothing that does no harm can be wrong...
and a few other guidlines.

So I try to live that way. In my experience, most athiest are of a similar mind.

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolution [...] is not questioned by any legitimate scientist

That is not an unbaised and rational statement. Since you clearly have not sampled every legitimate scientist, this can only be taken to mean "any scientist that questions evolution is not legitimate."

Personally, I would think the contrary is true. Scientists should by their nature question everything, including evolution. If they fail to question some theory, they are not being scientific in that respect.

And this brings me to my other point, which is that a scientist does not have to be scientific in every aspect of his life. If they were, few would breed, because nobody wants to take love scientifically.

Re:Religeon

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

My apologies. Failed to see a "n't" in there somewhere. ;)

Religious Zealots Need Fear to Ensure Behavior

[FreeUser]

I'm an athiest, yet I don't need a set of rules written down in a book to know what is right and wrong. My morals are consistent also.

I've heard this argument before, but I just don't get it. Do you honestly feel that an athiest is some kind of wild-man who runs around in a totally sociopathic way?

As an agnostic (with admittedly athiestic leanings) whose immediate family has been enamoured with christianity for a number of decades, I can tell you that most religious people simply cannot imagine people having ethics and morals without a big, threatening God standing over them, bullwhip in hand and using the threat of eternal immolation to ensure adherance.

They balk at the notion that we can ponder and come up with ethical systems based upon what is best for civilization and human kind (treating one another with respect and kindness) without living in abject fear of their God.

Which says a lot more about the ethical and moral grounding of most religious zealots (requiring threats of a particularly horrific kind to do what is right by others) than it does about the ethics and morality of athiest (which have historically been quite decent when compared to the behavior of the world's great religions, notable imperfections notwithstanding.

Re:Other candidates...a little OT

[AuMatar]

*In some ways our 2 party system works well, because picture that we had 10 (viable) parties, and let's say one of the parties was called the "Party of God" you could have people like Falwell controlling the all branches of government, because you only need 10% to win. It would give rise to extreme opinions because you have to find your niche. Even with our system, we still haven't had the winner of the last few elections grab more than 50% of the votes (I doubt this will be different).

Thats why you use runoffs, instant runoffs, or concordiate. Then you can't win just by getting 1% more, you truely need the majority to prefer you to almost any other candidate.

Re:Other candidates...a little OT

[RWerp]

In some ways our 2 party system works well, because picture that we had 10 (viable) parties, and let's say one of the parties was called the "Party of God" you could have people like Falwell controlling the all branches of government, because you only need 10% to win. It would give rise to extreme opinions because you have to find your niche. Even with our system, we still haven't had the winner of the last few elections grab more than 50% of the votes (I doubt this will be different).

In ">2" party systems you have two rounds of the elections, in the second people choose between two most successful candidates from the first round. If an extremist candidate got to the second round, people would vote against him, rather then for his opponent, and elect the opponent. This is how Chirac became president in France (his opponent was right-wing extremist Le Pen).

Re:Religeon

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Your religion colors what you can find acceptable, so I'll try a bit not to be offensive. But the only logical conclusion is this, as I see it

If a person tries to be good, but does not believe there is a god, then, after they die they'll find out otherwise. I would also suspect that God might find this humorous and agreeable (supposing he exists), and that a good person would go "well, imagine that". Then they'd walk off together, and God might say "with all that happened in your life, how could you possibly have doubted?".

Others though, would say that God sends the guy to hell anyway, because after all, there is no room to disagree on a largely irrelevant point.

And of course, even if there is no god, then that person living a good, decent life enriches all of us, and maybe the planet is better for it. Maybe others start living a decent life... certainly, religious or not, that's not the worst role model someone could have in the world we live in.

The opposite is possible though, that a person might believe there is a god... but choose to behave immorally. Does he score a ticket to heaven anyway, just because he managed to guess correctly, on what I consider a largely irrelevant point?

Re:Presidential Debate

[lewi]

2004 Presidential Debate Transcript

Moderator: Please summarize why the American people should choose you as their President.
Bush: Kerry looks French so vote for me because I'm more American.
Kerry: Bush is a cowboy running around the globe causing trouble so vote for me because I'll quit pissing everyone off.
Bush: Oh yeah! At least the boogie man will not hurt us on my watch because I was in the National Guard.
Kerry: I got more Purple Hearts than you do so I'm not afraid of the boogie man and I'll protect us from him too. Besides you never showed up for duty.

Moderator: Enough of that! What are your views on the environment?
Bush: I like going on campouts, and I'll make sure that the American people are safe when they go camping.
Kerry: I'd like to help companies move manufacturing offshore to better help our environment. If there are no companies here to pollute the environment then it will be safe.

Moderator: Lastly, your views on the economy.
Bush: The economy is doing fine. Since we've reclassified chefs and short order cooks as product assemblers, our manufacturing sector has grown tremendously. But we have to keep those jobs safe from terrorists by conducting regular background checks.
Kerry: I would help the economy by encouraging companies to stay here in America instead of offshoring. This would stop the drain of jobs and help boost our economy.

Vote a 3rd party - any party. I'm also voting Liberatian. If there was a large enough protest vote then maybe the Democrats and Republicans would wake up.

Re:Other candidates...a little OT

[Anonymous Coward]

Know where I could get some of this radon water?

Hmmm...

Re:Other candidates...a little OT

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, just like the government's UL regulatory group keeps all our electric wires and appliances from just catching on fire.

Wait, you mean the UL isn't part of the government? But I thought all good things come from the government, and anything commercial is bad?

Re:Religeon

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

If you believe in evolution you simply don't understand it.

(Note: I'm not attacking it, merely pointing out the flaws I hope are fixed here soon)

In recent years, it has become increasingly apparent that Darwin's original model of evolution simply can't account for certain things. While difficult to model, it's becoming more obvious that random cosmic rays zapping a nucleotide here and there, and waiting for natural selection, simply can't explain what we see. Some biological mechanisms are extremely low tolerance, that one blaster beetle comes to mind.

Species seem to pop up out of nowhere in the fossil record. In a few cases, it's difficult to suggest that an incomplete fossil record explains the gaps. Periodic equilibrium is just a name, no one has a good mechanism for it yet...

And need I remind anyone, that even though cars are most certainly created (they don't grow on trees, folks), they also do tend to appear to "evolve' from year to year.

I for one, suspect something is true that resembles evolution alot, but jumping to the conclusion that that's the end of truth is just plain dumb. Who's the name of your biology teacher, so that I can "boo" him if I ever see him on the street?

Kerry's Senate Record

[reptilicus]

Here's a brief synopsis of Kerry's Senate accomplishments:

Instrumental in passing most recent minimum wage increase; introduced bill to significantly increase commitment to fighting HIV/AIDS; passed law addressing nurse shortage; expanded early childhood development efforts; introduced plan that expanded children's health insurance coverage; stood with consumers against big banks on the bankruptcy bill and led and won the fight to pass the anti-money laundering act to stop terrorist and drug financing; secured assistance for families of Agent Orange; and led inquiry into savings and loan cleanup.

To keep things fair and balanced, here's a view from a Kerry-Edwards site, and one from Fox News.

Re:Kerry's Senate Record

[dcmeserve]

Don't forget that he's also the one who uncovered the Iran-Contra scandal

Granted, that wasn't a legislative item, but it's one of his accomplishments in his career as a Senator.

(sorry about the semi-subscription Salon link -- just sit through the commercial; I promise it'll be worth it).

Re:Kerry's Senate Record

[ellenbrenna]

In defiance of some members of his own party Kerry also led an investigation into an international bank called BCCI which was associated with international drug dealers and terrorists. It was something of a scandal at the time. This was in the late 1980's and early 1990s...about ten years before anyone else gave a damn about terrorism.

Busted link to answers?

[Almost-Retired]

Since I'm on the fence like the typical mugwump, I wouldn't have minded reading the (probably non-)answers from these two jokers.

But all I get is an instant white screen and the single word "done" in the mozilla status bar.

Ypu'd think those folks, as ofetn as they've been slashdotted before, would by now have enough iron to serve the masses who are interested far more in the man today, that what he was in 'nam, forgeries by CBS notwithstanding.

Seriously, if this little hoohah doesn't send a message to TPTB at CBS News that the general public isn't going to led around by their latest model of a Judas Goat, I don't know what will.

Frankly, I'm sick of the attitude that people in power think the Bill of Rights only applies to them, and not to the masses who often as not, vote with the tv remote until such time as they can step into the voting booth for real and throw the bums out.

Cheers, Gene

china

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans are pathetic.

The Chinese are going to kick your ass in the 21st century.

Re:Religeon

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Do you honestly feel that an athiest is some kind of wild-man who runs around in a totally sociopathic way?

Do you claim that you've never met one or two people who could be described that way?

Do you not suspect that there are a few like that, but are clever enough to hide it, for fear of retribution?

How consistent are your morals?
Is it wrong to kill someone outside of self-defense?
Is it wrong to kill someone out of sadistic joy?
Is it wrong to kill someone out of convenience?
Is it wrong to kill an infant?
An 8 month old fetus?
A 1 month old fetus?

Mind you, don't worry that I'm picking on atheists. Certainly many supposedly religious people get the answers wrong...

Re:Religeon

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Roosevelt also called for war. Yet I can't help feeling that it was justified, civilian deaths or not. Maybe my math is wrong, or not even being used here... but how many horrible things would Hitler have done?

Some wars have to be fought. To not fight them is wrong.

Bush's "Desert Storm II: Son of Iraq" doesn't count though.

How can you distinguish between one and the other though, in a way that doesn't allow wiggle room, ambiguity?

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's just athiests can tell right from wrong without some crusty ass book from 2000 years ago telling them how to behave.

Of course Bin Laden is a devout follower of a consistent set of moral values so I guess I can see the types people with "religious values" put their lot with...

Re:Religeon

[jafac]

You're not talking about Christians.

You're talking about "Bible Believers".

Most of those pretty much refer to themselves as Christians. In my opinion, as a Christian, who has read the bible, but who does not believe that it is the infallible and complete Word of God, a person can base their faith on the concept of an All Powerful Creator, or a person can base their faith on what is described in the Bible. Any challenge to the precision of that description can upset their entire view of Reality.

So OF COURSE such people will be hostile to facts or reasoning that conflicts with the Bible.

Such people are really guilty of idolotry. They worship the Bible. Not God. They put all emphasis and effort into trying to twist reality into their Worldview. They're staring at the finger, pointing, instead of at the moon.

Those believers who do are not heavily invested in Biblical inerrancy often have doubts about specific things, often have fears, often have periods where they're not sure what they believe in. Sometimes they go astray. The story in the Bible tells of a people called "Israel", which is an Hebrew word meaning "Struggles with God". Above all others, these people are favored and treasured. Those prodigal sons who stray and return are valued above others. That's the lesson contained in scripture. Not "God hates fags".

One thing's certain in my mind. If far more people focussed more on God, and less on scripture (whether it's the Bible, or the Koran, or whatever), and less on what their neighbors may or may not be doing in the privacy of their own homes, and less on how to make more money than they need to live comfortably, there'd be a shitload less violence in the world.

Re:Other candidates...a little OT

[Anonymous Coward]

Ugh, no thanks. Runoff, IRV, and Condorcet are all too complicated and IRV can actually lead to one of the least popular candidates being elected (because of the way the elimination rounds operate). The best alternative to the current one-person-one-vote system is Approval Voting, where you vote for as many as you want and the one with the most votes win. With approval voting there is no "spoiler" problem and there is an incentive to treat ideological allies well (to encourage their voters to vote for you as well, if for no other reason than to defeat a common foe).

Re:Religeon

[jafac]

Science DOES have a Morality.

It's called Ethics.

Sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

an interesting atricle. Most of Bush's responses were that things are pretty good now. Most of Kerry's responses were that we are going to increase spending. So, we have a poor to middleing president (about like Clinton) who had several blunders to show for 4 yers in office, and the usual Democrat tax raiser. If this information really gets out before November, Bush might carry 48 states. that would be a shame.

It would be nice to see a real choice with someone who was moral and visionary, but I guess the system just won't allow that.

Re:Sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

My taxes have increased since Bush has been in office.

The massive federal deficit and debt means less federal money to support state infrastructure and as such state and local taxes had to be increased...oh ya and my tuition went up since the school got shit for federal aid.

So basically my net taxes have gone up. Thanks Bush.

Re:Sigh

[jrtweeter]

With 4 kids my taxes haven't changed, but that child tax credit is great! Thanks America! :)

Why life doesn't count until it's born

[Anonymous Coward]

For thousands of years nearly every culture on earth has understood, at least in general terms, that first comes conception and then nine months later a baby pops out. And yet no person on earth celebrates they day anything is concieved. Yet they all celebrate birthdays, remembering the day when a person was first welcomed into the community. It's not a coincidence. Don't count your chickens before they're hatched, and don't count babies before they're born.

Re:Why life doesn't count until it's born

[Minna Kirai]

AC: For thousands of years nearly every culture on earth has understood, at least in general terms, that first comes conception and then nine months later a baby pops out.

Not quite correct. Many cultures don't even consider the baby a person until well after she's born, and allow the parents to quietly dispose of an unwanted child without fuss.

Ceremonys like baptism are often when the infant becomes officially "born".

Orthodox rabbis, for example, won't hold a funeral for a baby who died after less than a week. They think it'll make everyone feel more comfortable to pretend it was just a kind of miscarriage, and not a dead person at all.

I am a religious scientist.

[DrRobin]

I don't want to reply to this poster directly. The content and tone I think speak for themselves. I also don't want to tackle the subject of Science and Religion overall, which would be both off-topic and also biting off way more than I could chew. Since I started this sub-thread, though, I should correct the implied assertion that I am not religious. I am an honest to god practicing scientist but also a church-going, choir-singing, Sunday school-teaching religious person. Religion is not at all uncommon among scientists. What is quite rare is the kind of fundamentalist religion that asserts the absolute and unchallengeable Truth of some particular religious tradition. It is fundamentalism, not Religion, that is in conflict with science. There are fundamentalist secular traditions as well, like doctrinaire Marxism, that are every bit as hostile to open scientific inquiry.

To bring this back to the original topic, another part of the distortion of science by the current administration is the deliberate use of a false dichotomy between science and religion as a calculated wedge issue to whip up the evangelical base. Again, this is not a simple partisan assertion. Neither Bush senior nor Bush junior's Republican challenger, John McCain, did this sort of thing. This is a specific criticism of the current Bush administration and its terrible distortion of science.

As it happens, I have over the past several years been giving a cycle of lay-led sermons in my church on the connections between my field (biomedical science) and spirituality. Interested parties can get them from my .Mac page at:

http://homepage.mac.com/colgrove

In the "sermons" folder. My next sermon is coming up October 3rd (on "Death"), and you are all welcome ;^) . Just go to the Theodore Parker Church in West Roxbury, MA:

http://www.tparkerchurch.org/

Re:I am a religious scientist.

[jthayden]

Well said Dr. Rob.

I think people that view Science and Religion as mutually exclusive have some warped views of both. In the end, the goal of any normal religion in my opinion is to guide people to lead better lives and establish some sense of morals. ( Whatever that may be in the religion's view. )
Science on the hand really offers us new ways to live, it doesn't really provide an insight into whether we should or not live that way.
A overused example for instance would be the Atom Bomb. Science lead to its creation, but specific individuals' morality lead to its use. Maybe it should or shouldn't have, that is off topic, but without morals applied science really runs amuck.

If you really want to believe in God, what is so hard about believing he setup the laws of science and nature the way he did so that the Big Bang,life and evolution and everything else was possible. It really isn't that hard, and we can just let science keep on trying to explain his creation if that is what you believe it is.

Re:I am a religious scientist.

[Sloppyjoes7]

Well, your usage of terms is indeed anomalous. Specifically "fundamentalism."

It is an inherent quality of Christianity to be exclusive. There is one God. Jesus was God. Humans are not, nor will become God. The scriptures are God-breathed. This is true for all peoples and cultures.

I'm curious if this would be considered "fundamentalism" according to your lexicon. If you believe in relative truth, you are neither correct, or following anything close to Christianity. The most important quality a Christian tries to emulate is the love of Jesus, so he loves all those around him/her, but Christianity never can accept other religions as being equal or compatible.

Re:I am a religious scientist.

[Anonymous Coward]

Plain and simple - you can not be a man of god and be for abortion (don't give me any anti abortion jabs - you know that less than 1% of abortions are life threatening)

Kerry is Pro Abortion.

Also plain and simple - it is quite clear that the war on terror is not a war on terror at all. It is a war on american tradition and foundation (which is Christianity no matter what any troll posts here to the contrary) If you are against Bush for this reason - then you are against the very principles in the Bible.

Lastly, this administration has actually increased research and scientific funding - something the "nature" article never mentioned!

more like dracula vs. Regis Philbin

[js7a]

n/t

thank you...

[js7a]

...for catching that.

Re:Religeon

[cluckshot]

Sorry but I wasn't trying to prove just discuss. I am aware of the history of the Evolutionary theory and the basis of its proponents for their actions.

I find it most offensive how so many "Republicans" suddenly went brain dead when they learned that Bush(43) prayed. They seemed unable to see how he was slaughtering the party.

I watched the last election as the party openly discussed problems and how to solve them until Bush(43) showed up with $300 million in one week and all we could hear from then on was he could win! We now know where the money came from. (Enron etc) I went to the meetings hearing them celebrating his prayers but unwilling to look at what he was doing. They still will not look. All they can see is the danger from the Democrats real as that danger may or may not be.

Ken Jennings for President!

[SPrintF]

"I'll take 'Bill of Rights' for 100, Alex."

Re:News Agencies Deny NK Blast was a Nuke

[Southpaw018]

Well, reading at -1 can prove so entertaining sometimes. Bush has kind of admitted that he finds black people annoying, though. In late April, 2002 - I don't remember the exact date, though it was initially published in a Brazilian newspaper on the 28th - Bush turned to Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso and asked:

"Do you have blacks, too?"

Bush's overwhelming and jaw-dropping ignorance is clearly evident here...alongside many of his other statements.

Troll food good.

[copponex]

One person is not an entire culture. Did the children of Amorites deserve to die? Why?

You have chosen to reject this passage on moral grounds rather than factual. This seems, to me, quite odd and blatently unscientific.

Sure! Just tell me the last time the sun stopped, or as we say in the 21st Century, the earth stopped revolving around the sun and rotating around it's own axis. I know it's terribly unscientific and everything.

Re:Troll food good.

[thelaw]

"Sure! Just tell me the last time the sun stopped, or as we say in the 21st Century, the earth stopped revolving around the sun and rotating around it's own axis. I know it's terribly unscientific and everything."

Quick note: history is by definition unscientific in the sense that one cannot duplicate events to a 90% confidence interval using the scientific method. It is impossible to test hypotheses about events that occurred thousands of years ago using experimental tools. It is, however, useful to use tools of historical analysis (primary sources, text dating, archaeology, blah blah blah). That's why anthropology is only sort-of a science, and why macroeconomics will always be, at best, guesswork.

Jon

Re:Religeon

[Obfiscator]

i.e. evolution - taught as fact in schools

Well, yes. Why stop there, though? Take a look at everything else that is taught as a "fact" in schools. The "solar-system" model of the atom is my personal favorite. Anyone who's had a lesson in quantum mechanics knows this to be untrue, and yet it's still taught. Why is that? Perhaps because it's easier to learn it this way. It's good to know about protons and electrons before you can understand even the basics of QM.

This appears to be true with a lot of science. You learn the basics of what science "knows" when you're young. Once you can grasp that, you start learning what science doesn't know. I think it was during organic chemistry that I first remember a professor telling me "no one knows." You learn about the Big Bang before you hear about the superinflationary period that occured right after it. You learn about Newtonian mechanics before you're introduced to QM or special relativity. And you learn about evolution before you learn about the inconsistencies, because it doesn't mean evolution is wrong; just incomplete.

I agree with your post below "You claim the bible is inconsistent...", and in the end that always seems to be the case: science can't disprove religion (how do you know God didn't write the laws of the universe to give rise to evolution?), and religion can't deny that science works and is very useful. You may want to rework the first paragraph (perhaps including the caveat that science is generally more flexible than religon, and will eventually admit a theory is wrong given enough evidence to the contrary...would a Christian ever admit it if someone showed that Jesus of Nazarath died after getting kicked by a donkey when he was 4?), though, and maybe alter the second (or just delete the i.e. remark).

Re:Religeon

[Keck]

I agree with you. My post did neglect that. I responded to someone else who pointed this out as well. I don't say it doesn't matter, at all. Cheers.

Religion + Science don't mix.

[DroopyStonx]

A religious politician (one who always spews "God bless" this and that) is never good for science.

For example, Bush's limitations on stem cell research..

Quite frankly, I think it's about time we actually separate church and state. I'm sick of politican's personal religious beliefs affecting something that effects everyone else.

If you don't believe in stem cell research because you feel that scientists are playing god, well, then it's kinda tough shit, because science really needs something like this.

I'm telling you it's gonna get worse

[Anonymous Coward]

I know several radicals/lefties/activists who have had their phones tapped, have been followed and tracked by law enforcement, and some have had their houses/apartments/infoshops broken into, presumably by the cops. (Usually, nothing of value is missing, but papers and items seem to have been rumaged through... now who would do that?)

In case you didn't know, the new head of the CIA is considering consolidating the FBI with the CIA for better 'information sharing'. This is extremely dangerous to our privacy as citizens because by law, the CIA is forbidden from domestic spying (that is, compiling dossiers on US citizens). Combining these agencies will give the new intelligence agency all sorts of powers to invade your life. Imagine if COINTELPRO had the power of the CIA behind it...

Re:I'm telling you it's gonna get worse

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. It's gonna get worse. I didn't always have to self-censor my political statements to manage my risk of being fired for political activity. I've worked on classified DARPA projects, and it's only recently that I've felt the precaution is necessary. It didn't used to be that criticizing the policies of the President [off-the-clock, away from the office, using perfectly civil methods] could get you fired just because you aren't on the same team as management.

When you look at the bill kicking around in the Senate Intelligence Committee for reorganizing the intelligence services, not only do you see a major expansion in the powers of the state security apparatus, you also see a major devolution in the oversight by Congress. They're building an organization with the powers equivalent to what the GDR gave to the Stasi-- and it is very difficult for me to seriously argue that Tom Delay is not as paranoid as any SED appartchniki.

They're building the files. They're crazier than bedbugs. And they're headed for an economic meltdown. Meanwhile guys like 'Politburo' posting followups to me above are whistling in the dark about how serious is the current situation. In the GDR, by the time the people understood the seriousness of their situation, it was already too late to stop it.

"It can't happen here," they seem to think. "It's not happening here. That guy posting anonymously on Slashdot is just talking crazy. He can't possible have any experience with real tyranny. What does he know? Nothing! Won't he look stupid later when it all turns out for the better..." Grrr!

Re:Other candidates...a little OT

[TheOldFart]

and let's say one of the parties was called the "Party of God"

I thought that was the republican party.

Re:Is this really Bush v Kerry? Implications of Q6

[commodoresloat]

This is actually pretty common; administrations usually circulate a series of talking points that are often quoted verbatim. The words likely were written by neither Bush nor Abraham, but an aide. You can find many examples in the Clinton administration too (as well as Reagan, Bush 1, etc.)

Yet more unnecessary Flash crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Page done in Macromedia Flash (for no reason)

Idiots.

gewg_

when did that happen?

[commodoresloat]

a defensive war (we were attacked first).

I'm sorry; I missed that. When did Iraq attack the United States?

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

Romans 2:14-15

14 When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them

Athiest's have God-given consciences just like the rest of us :)

kerry more restictive on stem cell research

[Anonymous Coward]

yes bush will not fund stem-cell research with the the public dollor....but kerry wishes to outlaw stem cell research into human cloning...i ask although bush will not fund it for theroputic or human cloaning he does not advicate outlawing it....why does bush get the short end of the stick here?

It seems to me that Kerry's position is the more absolutly restrictive and essentialy uses the same argument that Bush uses...That it is immoral...the diferance being that Kerry wishes to impose his morality onto people's choices and codify it into LAW while Bush just doesn't want the government to pay for it.

stendec@gmail.com

Re:Religeon

[TykeClone]

Science and magic are man's attempt to explain God.

Interesting reading.

[Koatdus]

About half way down the page is a is a section titled Head to Head Bush vs Kerry where they both got a chance to answer fifteen science related questions. I found this part to be the most interesting as you get to hear their answers in their own words instead of the usual "iffy" synopsis about what they think from some talking head with an axe to grind that never took a science class in his life.

As an example of this in the stem cell section at the top of the page the editors say:

" ...he said, it is immoral to destroy embryos for the purposes of human
research...Scientists have been frustrated by this rule for three years..
They say that it is slowing progress in stem-cell research,..."

While in the q and a section Bush says:

"I am committed to pursuing stem-cell research without crossing a
fundamental line and I am the first president to provide federal funding
for human embryonic stem-cell research. ..Last year the the federal
government invested $25million in embryonic stem-cell research and
nearly $191 million in adult stem-cell research. My administration
is also creating a national embryonic stem-cell bank . These efforts
are providing a boost to research while not providing taxpayer funding
that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos.
My policy makes it possible for federally funded researchers to explore
the potential of embryonic stem-cells, while respecting the ethical and
moral implications associated with this research."

Not really the same thing at all.

I really hate that about our news. They tell us their version of what someone said instead of just quoting them in context so that we can see what they really said.

Most of the time I am convinced that our so called "objective news reporting" is anything but. Don't these people believe in the integraty of the news anymore?. Aren't reporters taught to be fair, objective, and complete anymore? It used to be that a reporters integrity and accuracy was his most valuable asset. People would talk to reporters like Walter Cronkite because they knew the man would report the facts as they happened without trying to put his own spin on things.

Anyway what does the /. crew think about sending our own questions to the candidates? We could do it the usual way where the top 10 moderated questions get sent to both candidates. I would like to see questions dealing with specific policy and specific goals and plans for the country and the world instead of "baiting" to try to make your favorite look better.

I think that it would be an interesting read.

Nope.

[gstoddart]

That's why it's 'charged with' and not 'convicted of' or 'guilty of'

Ah, but the thing is ... they haven't been 'charged'. Nobody has said that under a specific legal statute these people are formally accused of a specific crime.

What has actually happened is that the US government with some legal interpretations that say they are allowed to detain people they claim did bad things for an indefinite period of time without any required legal process.

Essentially these people are held without any real representation, explaination of what they are assumed to have done, and held in a facilty which may or may not be encouraging abuses of these people.

Even the Supreme Court has said that decision may not be based on anything valid in law.

In effect the US administration has two things: US law doesn't apply because we say so, and since we say they're unlawful combatants, international law doesn't apply either.

These people most decidedly have not been 'charged' with anything. They are merely being held under suspicions and accusations, but in such a way as to not be definitevely legal under international treaties and the like.

Trying to change the wording to something that makes it all sound nice and legal has no bearing on the actual legality. It's just fiddling with words to try and hide what has actually happened.

Re:Nope.

[tekunokurato]

Fine, 'held on suspicion of.'

Look, I'm not changing the wording. What I'm saying (which you obviously don't understand) is that the US doesn't detain people on suspicion on plotting against, say, China. No. We detain people on suspicion of plotting against the US.

You said "It's not as if the only people who have been detained were provably in the act of actually trying to kill US citizens on or off US territory." Again, provably? No. But suspected of? However faulty or poor US intelligence? Yes.

I'm not defending the US, here. It's insane of the Bush administration to ask for permission to, and it's insane of Congresspeople like Kerry to grant permission to detain people with no good reason but a general "feeling" or because an unreliable criminal "intelligence source" rolled to save his skin.

But you're completely ignoring the original poster's point, which was that the US doesn't detain people off our soil to protect other countries; we leave that up to them. We detain people (in some unfathomable effort) to protect ourselves.

Don't coopt his point, next time.

Re:Nope.

[gstoddart]

But you're completely ignoring the original poster's point, which was that the US doesn't detain people off our soil to protect other countries; we leave that up to them. We detain people (in some unfathomable effort) to protect ourselves.

Horshshit. Every single Iraqi who is currently involved in insurgency in Iraq is classed as an 'unlawful combatant' by the Bush administration and could be send to Cuba. The same classification applies to Afghanistan since the US has decreed that freeing them from the Taliban is right. The US IS detaining other people who are threats to other countries because, by extension, that is perceived as a threat to the US. To the extent that people like John Walker Lindh et al (ie. American Citizens) have been classified as not having constitutional protections.

When America decides (admittedly, rightly so) that Darfur, or Rwanda, or Boznia has degenerated to a point where they need to do something, are they not detaining people who plot against other countries?

Is getting actively involved in fostering civil wars and backing the very Taliban they now demonize not doing that? Are we to believe that the US doesn't go around intervening on behalf of other countries when it's in their interests to? Again, horseshit.

Believe you me, if China was our (and by 'our', think 'the west') ally in the grand fight for democracy, you can bet that there would be efforts to exactly that end.

The reality is, since the US is in the position of being one of a few countries left that actually can intervene they do that very thing all of the time. The difference is, wether or not the cause is just is largely decided by to what extent it is in the interest of US economic and political interests.

Don't coopt his point, next time.

Well, I only have the context of the original posters comments, and your efforts to prop them up.

Quite frankly, I see a lot of examples where the US administration does exactly what you say doesn't happen.

So, no, I don't believe I've coopted his damned point. The simple act of supporting a government the US doesn't like has now been completely re-classified as 'poltting against the US'.

I respect your position. But I simply can't accept as true that the US doesn't actually intervene in issues where only other countries are involved. There's just too many damned counter-examples, and nothing is black and white.

Cheers.

Re:Nope.

[tekunokurato]

The US IS detaining other people who are threats to other countries because, by extension, that is perceived as a threat to the US

So what you're saying is that you agree with me?

We only spend our military resources where there's a percieved threat against us. We have never entered a country like rwanda just to save some ethnic minorities, we only do it where the threat is percieved as being destructive to our GDP.

the NYT

[IndependentVik]

You realize that it was the Times that broke the Whitewater story when Clinton was president.

AC makes a good point. The NYT was also the paper that unscrupulously backed every single one of the White House's faulty reasons for invading Iraq during the runup to the war.

Leftist paper. Sure. The truth is the mainstream media has been guilty of mindlessly parroting White House talking points ever since 9/11.

Mixing Bush and Science

[DeComposer]

For Question 6, regarding support for the proposed ITER fusion resaerch facility, Bush responded that, "ITER is a critically important experiment to test the feasibility of nuclear fusion as a source of electricity and hydrogen."

"...and hydrogen.

I'm hard-pressed to come up with a better example of the vast chasm between science and the Bush administration.

Dear George, hydrogen is what a fusion reaction "BURNS", not what it PRODUCES.

What's particularly disturbing is that Bush's answers were very clearly vetted by someone with decent communication skills and some understanding of science. How did such a glaring error slip past the vetting process?

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you claim that you've never met one or two people who could be described that way?

Well, I've met a few wild-men who ran around yelling theistic sorts of things, generally about a Christian End of the World scenario... In any case, the fact that a few nuts exist who claim to practice any given religion or lack thereof isn't really a valid indictment of the belief system as a whole.

Is it wrong to kill someone outside of self-defense? There exist circumstances where it is. For example, it is not wrong for a SWAT team member with a sniper rifle to kill someone who is aiming an automatic weapon at a crowd of people.

Is it wrong to kill someone out of sadistic joy? Depends. If in the above scenario, we add that the sniper felt sadistic joy when he pulled the trigger- the death is still necessary and not wrong. The emotion felt while killing doesn't change whether the killing was justified.

Is it wrong to kill someone out of convenience? Somewhat depends on the how you define convenience, but I'd lean to yes if you mean by convenience that there exists a more difficult way to accomplish the same objective without the killing. If it is necessary that someone die the act of choosing the most convenient method isn't wrong, however.

Is it wrong to kill an infant? Depends. If, for example, the infant's condition was imminently terminal and caused intense pain, no.

An 8 month old fetus? Depends. If, for example, the fetus has (pre)birth defects that would make its life very brief in the best case scenario, then no.

A 1 month old fetus? A trick question! Such a fetus cannot be human, as human embryos don't become fetuses until 8 weeks into a pregnancy. The morality still depends though, there are situations where killing a one month old fetus of an animal-with-a-shorter-gestation-period-than-humans would be either right or wrong.

Here are a few questions for you:

Is it wrong to kill hundreds of embryos in a fertility clinics in attempts to make one pregnancy?
Should everything which is morally wrong be illegal?

The Core Problem of Sheeps and Parots

[MerkX]

Many of you nerds formed and expressed an opinion based on the answers that were given. But few seem to have the intelect to ponder, let alone to discover the reasons behind their answers. I guess I sometimes just expect too much from those who often claim that they have all the answers.

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with having your morals dictated by religion (apart from the obvious problem of them not necessarily being sensible) is that you don't develop your own sense of ethics. This means that people who lose their faith are without guidelines compared with people who never had faith to begin with. In this sense, faith is actively harmful as people have a dependence upon it.

When I think about the most immoral people I know and the conversations I have had with them regarding religion, they are all exclusively people who have ill-formed opinions about religion (i.e. they are scared of what God will do to them if they "misbehave" but haven't really given it a great deal of thought). In other words, they use the Bible as a rough template for what is right and wrong, but haven't put any effort into those morals - and so don't respect them.

Consequently, I trust the morals of an atheist far more than that of a Christian, all other things being equal, as the atheist has actually developed those morals for themselves and will value them more.

objectivity is (or might be) a myth

[Sunnan]

Personally, I prefer to know where my news comes from; I read subjective news from many different points of view.

I've never seen a truly "NPOV" newscast in my life. So why pretend?

You are missing the point

[Turambar]

While the media's portrayal of Christians may be skewed, ask your Christian friends whether they consider themselves to be Republican or Democratic and whom they will vote for this year. After they tell you they are Republican, ask them what the Republican party would have to do to lose their vote, or what the Democratic party would have to do to gain it. Now weigh their answer against the probability of those reasons ever happening. This is the real point, and the politicians know it.

Of all the Christians I personally know, only one has already decided to cross the party line this year to vote non-Republican. He has decided that opposing Bush's policies on revitalizing US imperialism, ignoring UN entirely before invading Iraq, ignoring the 1997 Kyoto Treaty, reckless governmental spending, doing virtually everything possible to support big business (especially the oil industry), helping to screw the 40 hour work week, and countless others, are more important than supporting his Christian-based issues of anti-abortion, anti-gay/lesbian , anti-non-Christian religions, etc.

Granted, I haven't conducted a Gallup Poll, but I would certainly like to see the demographic breakdown. What do you think: 90% of people who identify themselves as Christian (not just religious, but Christian) vote Republican? More? Less? Anyone have access to this poll or this one?

Related News Story and Politics & Science Webs

[placidWater]

The US House of Representatives' Committee on Government Reform has compiled a list of the W. Bush Administration's attacks on the scientific community on their Politics and Science website.

In addition, the social psychological community has been feeling the government burn recently because the US House of Representatives passed a vocal vote on 9/9/04 to block future funding of two currently approved NIH and NIMH grants (Click here for that article). This creates an unsettling precedent allowing governing bodies to trump the peer review process. [Sigh ...]

john cummings

[Anonymous Coward]

" the phraseology of "coming on clouds" "

heh
Naughty, naughty, naughty! You filthy old soomka!

that sounds so cool. i wish i was jesus

Bush press conferences

[Aexia]

The point remains that Kerry has avoided the press for over a month. That's quite odd, and should make anyone interested in his positions suspicious.

Bush hasn't held a press conference since April and you're bashing the other guy for not holding one in "over a month"?

You got to be kidding me

[Aexia]

As opposed to Kerry, who tries to affiliate himself with the Catholic Church to garner votes,

Gee, he's only a life-long Catholic. He doesn't need to "try to affiliate himself", he's been well-affiliated with the Catholic Church for decades.

only to be told by the Church itself to buzz off.

A few right-wing cranks in the Church hierarchy are trying to score some political points over abortion. Notice how they don't say anything about pro-choice Republican politicians. Notice how they don't say anything about pro-death penalty Republican politicians.

And unless the Pope has come down on high and said Kerry needs to "buzz off:, the Church itself hasn't said anything.

Honesty and policy.

[khasim]

I also believe the war was over control of the oil.

But if the politicians and such had been honest with themselves (and the US people), most people would have realized the two obvious problems there.

#1. Iraq is too far away, with too many potential enemies, who are too committed to their own goals for us to ever control it. We can kill them, but we cannot rule them. We've already shown this in Afghanistan.

#2. If we're willing to trade US troop's lives for oil, then it's time we got off the oil addiction. It may be hard and it may be expensive, but it will completely remove the "threat" of someone denying us oil. And because of #1, there will always be that threat.

Re:Honesty and policy.

[Ohreally_factor]

#2. If we're willing to trade US troop's lives for oil, then it's time we got off the oil addiction. It may be hard and it may be expensive, but it will completely remove the "threat" of someone denying us oil. And because of #1, there will always be that threat.

Two things:

1) AFAIK, no politician since FDR has really asked the American people as a whole to make any sort of real sacrifice, although JFK made the famous statement, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." In FDR's case, there was a war on, and people expected that they'd make small personal sacrifices and suffer inconvenience while they were asking others to make the ultimate sacrifice.

Today, it would seem that asking for Americans to make any sort of material sacrifice is politically unthinkable. While a small part of the population, say military families, might be asked to sacrifice their spouses, sons, or daughters, it would be political suicide to ask the people as a whole for anything that might inconvenience them or limit their materialist perogatives in any way whatsoever. In fact, since 9/11, we've been given tax incentives to buy bigger gas guzzlers, while tax breaks for hybrids have shrunk and are set to expire in 2006.

2) This gives us some understanding that the phrase "War on Terror" is a lie. It's a propaganda campaign, plain and simple. I'm not suggesting that there isn't a threat from terrorists, obviously there is. However, this "War on", as illustrated by the way it is being waged today, is merely a pretext for domestic and international power grabs.

Furthermore, because the war in Iraq is based on falsehoods, the politicians are further barred from asking Americans to make the sacrifices that could alleviate our oil addiction.

There are, of course, exceptions. Americans seem perfectly content to sacrifice civil liberties in exchange for security. We've also learned to deal with the inconvenience of beefed up airport checkpoints and random screening.

I wonder if America could rise to the challenge, if any politician were to have the balls to ask us to make sacrifices in our oil consumption. I guess it would depend on the politician, if there are any left that are also leaders.

Re:Religeon

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

A 1 month old fetus? A trick question!

Not a trick question. Just didn't feel like googling for the exact term. Besides fetus and embryo there are about 30 different terms for each exact stage of development, ranging from single cell on up to whatever.

People may ask you trick questions, but this wasn't one of them. Just sloppy choice of words.

Is it wrong to kill hundreds of embryos in a fertility clinics in attempts to make one pregnancy?

My own philosophy leans toward excluding fertilized eggs until they implant on the uterine wall. Birth control that prevents this implantation is (barely) moral in that sense, but causing an abortion later is generally immoral.

Are those embryos at a stage of development where they would already have attached themselves? I know that some research embryos are (stem cell crap), and that I consider immoral.

Should everything which is morally wrong be illegal?

Probably not. Should society act as if there is nothing to be ashamed of, nothing to regret, nothing "wrong" with things that are legal, regardless of morality?

My take is simple:

[Zilfondel2]

George Bush is the stupidest human being I have ever seen. Even the crack addicts who beg for money downtown seem to have better sense than this moron.

As far as science, he has done everything in his power to fight against it. Especially the environment; check out bushgreenwatch if you don't believe me. My favorite things he does is to rewrite environmental reports, giving the opposite conclusion on pollution in the environment - the latest is that mercury pollution is GOOD for you.

How can anybody in the know vote for this guy? He should be sent to jail just for all the crimes he has committed against humanity.

Re:You ARE the problem

[insanehippie]

FreeUser sure seems too lazy to pull himself up by the bootstraps and make his life better. Move to Canada if you don't like it in America, I'm sure Canada would *LOOOVE* to have another whiny leftie Yank from America to clog up their "free" healthcare system and to smoke all of thier weed and get even less motivated. Has Slashdot become like K5 now, where any whiney leftie's post is modded as "+2 Insightful" while a rebuttal to that statement is modded as "flamebait"? I thought those on the left were all about "compassion" and "tolerance"? I guess not. If you aren't willing to help yourself, don't expect anyone else to either.

Re:Religeon

[Weh]

Have you ever studied what caused the dark ages? Have you ever studied things like the effects of the collapse of the Roman Empire? Do you realize where the little surviving information that we have about the dark ages comes from? Have you considered the role and effects of the catholic church on such things as the position of women, the widespread raping, pillaging etc. that was going on during the dark ages?

I don't care

[kingpin2k]

I have not RTFA, so take this for what it's worth. It pisses me off that the federal government has anything at all to say about scientific advancement. Usually, we're not even arguing about advancing science, we're arguing about having access to Other People's Money (OPM) to spend on our research. Granted the occasional government ban on this or that specific area of research is something to debate, but being able to steal (by proxy) somebody's money to further your research isn't something I care to hear any candidate talk much about.

Well, all I can really do is pull the lever for Badnarik.

Re:Religeon

[thelaw]

"Untrue. The Bible claims that it is the Word of God and thus incorruptible. That cannot be true when different people interpret it in different ways."

I would actually argue, contrary to the submerged premise in your argument, that the interpretations of adherents are not themselves corruptions of the Word of God. There is an objective, inalterable meaning of the Scriptures which is, by definition, incorruptible. Our willingness and ability to interpret it correctly, however, is not. Christians are humans too, regardless of what people like Creflo Dollar and Kenneth Copeland will tell you.

There is certainly a core of doctrine that one must agree on to be, in fact, a Christian. But the fact that I consider Job to be a meditation on the problem of evil and another Christian in an underground church in China considers it to be historical narrative doesn't change any of those core doctrines. One of us is right, and one is wrong, of course. But it does not change whether we're both Christians. There are other criteria for that.

"If you are cherry-picking bits and pieces that make sense and ignoring the bits that don't, why bother with the Bible in the first place? Why not write your own book, since that is, in essence, what you are doing already?"

First, I'm not, as you say, "cherry-picking." I believe that the Bible was inspired by God, and that the vehicle for his truth was the preaching, speeches, proverbs, teaching, narrative, history, and revelation in the Old and New Testaments. Every word of every book written in the Bible through God's appointed messengers was inspired by him.

But that does not mean that passages referring to "the four corners of the earth" are using literal language to talk about plate tectonics. It's obviously a metaphor, and the passage is generally fairly obvious about it when that's the case (the book of Daniel comes to mind). When people (Middle Ages, ahem) start trying to make the text do what it is not intending to do, you get things like the flat-earth theory.

Should we take Song of Solomon 1:3 ("your name is oil poured out") to be saying that the lover's name is actually oil being poured out? "Hello, my name is 'oil poured out.'" In 1:14 ("My beloved is to me a cluster of henna blossoms in the vineyards of Engedi"), do we actually expect the narrator to go pick her lover from a vineyard in Engedi? No, of course not.

But with a book like Job, where the reader is given a picture of events at the throne of God himself, it's a little less clear how the book functions. The only books where we have a picture of the goings-on in the throne room of God are prophetic books, books that already use high volumes of imagery. Is Job to be read this way? Or is it to be read as a historical narrative, like 1/2 Samuel or 1/2 Kings?

This Bible-reading stuff is not simplistic, as some people (Christians and otherwise) try to make it.

Jon

In socialist Portland [OR]...

[Zilfondel2]

Independents try to sign YOU up to vote!

Oh, wait...but its true! Damn canvasers; can't walk 10 feet without being harassed.

A different questionnaire from Science journal

[FleaPlus]

It looks like Science, the -other- premier research journal also gave questionnaires to the candidates. Their responses are available here.

Some of the responses are copied-and-pasted, but the Science questionnaire also covers issues like Creationism, NSF funding, and their "top three priorities in science and technology," which the Nature article doesn't cover.

I found their top 3 priorities in science and technology particularly interesting:

Bush: ensure every American as access to affordable broadband by 2007, perform next-generation hydrogen research, and recruit science and technology to combat terrorism

Kerry: restore and sustain preeminence of American science and technology, ensure Americans prepared for jobs of future, and ensure that his administration's decisions are informed by the best possible science and technology advice

Re:Religeon

[gfxguy]

I will agree with you on that point...

Personally, I'm agnostic, I don't mind religion, I don't mind people practicing it, and I don't mind public displays of it, but in many ways organized religion has been as much a force for bad as good.

It's funny, as I was driving though tropical storm Ivan today, that I was thinking about the sheople who croud in churches on days like today, praying for God to save them. Then you have the guy who fought tooth and nail a life and death struggle through a storm like this, summoning all his will power and strength to survive, and he might say something like "God helped get through this." I can admire someone like that, but those people huddling in the church make me sick...

MOD +1, PIOUS

[Anonymous Coward]

thx

Re:Non-Americans, YOU CAN VOTE!

[OldHawk777]

You have not herd about recent moves to legalize anyone that steps across the border as citizens and provide social security, health care, and education (in the USA not worth much) to all illegal aliens. Also, the new electronic election machines here will allow anyone to get a vote in if they can figure out the default password for the machine, or hack a little code, or ....

The easier way (won't even cost airfare):If everyone around the world would just pick their own favorite state (California, New York, Texas, Alabama, Virginia, Florida, ...) contact voters registration (use the internet websites) in that state and ask for an absentee ballot ... I am sure many would receive an absentee ballot to vote in the USA Congressional and Presidential election.

If they really wanted folks in the USA to vote, they would have made a national voting holiday and/or mandated fines for non-voters. This is Corporate America not Democratic America ... we can outsource the vote with no real obvious problems from the special interest politicians.

PLEASE, REMEMBER TO VOTE IN OUR NEXT ELECTION.

OldHawk777

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

In recent years, it has become increasingly apparent that Darwin's original model of evolution simply can't account for certain things.

Darwin's model has been advanced significantly since it was first published. If you are basing your opinion on Darwin's work, then you are ignoring a century and a half of scientific progress. But who am I kidding? The chances of you actually having read The Origin of Species before proclaiming it to be wrong is rather small.

Species seem to pop up out of nowhere in the fossil record. In a few cases, it's difficult to suggest that an incomplete fossil record explains the gaps.

Actually, it's rather easy. Or do you think there's some magical technology for finding every fossil on the planet?

Periodic equilibrium is just a name, no one has a good mechanism for it yet...

You mean punctuated equalibrium, and there are multiple explanations for it, such as rapid changes in the environment and accumulative neutral mutations.

And need I remind anyone, that even though cars are most certainly created (they don't grow on trees, folks), they also do tend to appear to "evolve' from year to year.

Only in the most superficial manner. If you have a theory that explains how cars could spontaneously come into being without being manufactured, with an abundance of evidence to back it up, then it would be a different story, but you don't and evolution does.

I for one, suspect something is true that resembles evolution alot, but jumping to the conclusion that that's the end of truth is just plain dumb.

Show me a credible scientist that claims the scientific method is infallible. You have constructed and are attacking a straw-man argument, not the real argument, which is "a well-reasoned theory with lots of evidence to back it up is far more believable than a fairytale about a magical pixie in the sky".

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you can't get everyone to act Christian, not strike back when struck, love your enemy, help the poor and oppressed, but its how everyones supposed to act.

That's not acting Christian, that's acting like a kind and decent person. You Christians don't have a monopoly on being nice people, in fact there's been rather a lot of torture and suffering that's happened in the name of Christianity over the years.

If you are looking for world peace, Christianity is going to cause problems, as I'm sure that the idea of a world living under the name of Christianity isn't going to sit too well with Muslims, atheists, etc. If world peace is your goal (and not spreading Christianity), you'd be much better off acting in the manner you describe as "Christian" but dropping any reference to religion. You don't need a god to be a nice person.

Re:Religeon

[cynic10508]

The intent to not offend is a rarity on slashdot. I'm not sure what you mean by "colors" as I was using logic.

First, not the use of "should". "Ought" also applies. Morality entails what we "should" do, not necessarily what we actually do because morality presumes that we could do otherwise. If we have no choice then there's no such thing as morality (Kant's autonomy of the will.

The sentences are: (A) An agent believes in God, (B) the agent should act well, and (C) the agent is a good person. My logic then proceeds:
A => B => C. So there are two ways to be a good person (C). Believing in God (A) entails acting as one should (B). But, one could just act as he/she should (B) without believing in God.

Now, asking questions about going to Heaven/Hell are metaphysical ones not availing themselves to logical proof. I have my own answers but I'll keep them to myself as they don't add anything here.

Re:Actually Bush stands to lose the "Christian Rig

[Anonymous Coward]

SCotUS

SCotUS looks too much like SCrotUM.

Re:Religeon

[CrazyJim0]

That's not acting Christian, that's acting like a kind and decent person. You Christians don't have a monopoly on being nice people, in fact there's been rather a lot of torture and suffering that's happened in the name of Christianity over the years.

But they weren't acting right. You're supposed to love your neighbor as yourself. Torturing another human being isn't right.

If you are looking for world peace, Christianity is going to cause problems, as I'm sure that the idea of a world living under the name of Christianity isn't going to sit too well with Muslims, atheists, etc. If world peace is your goal (and not spreading Christianity), you'd be much better off acting in the manner you describe as "Christian" but dropping any reference to religion. You don't need a god to be a nice person.

Read my first book on my website, I said exactly the same thing! Religions may cause problems, how do we mesh together? But later in life, God spoke to me and revealed himself. Theres no way that I as a person can deny God since he showed me he exists. If you've read the New Testament and still don't want to believe in God, thats your own buisness. But its definately worth a read, and the Good News bible is in easy English, none of those hasts and thous.

My books can be found at:

www.geocities.com/James_Sager_PA

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you have to be exceptionally dense to miss the point that thoroughly. The point wasn't that war is bad. The point was that it is hypocritical for Bush to stop people from having abortions (because "killing is bad") whilst simultaneously being responsible for thousands of deaths himself.

As far as I am aware, Roosevelt wasn't anti-abortion, making your comments utterly pointless.

Bush responds

[Peaceful_Patriot]

"My admministration is now well along in implementing a comprehensive climate-change strategy to advance the science, expand the use of transformational energy and carbon sequestration technologies, and mitigate the growth of greenhouse-gas emissions in the United States and in partnership with other nations."

I know the candidates have professionals to write the responses to these types of inquires, but did anyone else get the feeling that some of the 'Bush Responses' consisted of words I cannot imagine our Prez could pronounce, let alone understand?

IBM SELECTRIC, NOT FORGERY

[Anonymous Coward]

AWOL BUSH was PROVEN AWOL again!

Re:Religeon

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Thanks for the punctuated equilibrium thing, forgot the name.

The basis for modern evolution theory was largely developed after the discovery of DNA. Until then, only the most basic guesses could be made. We knew that DNA encoded the genes that were passed down... and we even had good ideas what could randomly change them. Radiation, chemicals, viruses.

But it's obvious that it's not as simple as that.

I'm sure that it will be figured out anyway, and I am curious to the solution. I'm not saying that evolution isn't the solution (in my opinion), just that it is currently incomplete. I do, however, point out (or try to) that even as things are, there is room for God in there somewhere, if that's something that is important to you.

Cars aren't an analogy, they're a literal example. Cars do undergo a form of evolution, and they are created. Both.

Strawman arguments are only possible if I'm arguing. You're the one trying to do that.

PS I suspect that a more accurate evolution theory will be something exotic like Greg Bear's "Darwin's Radio". Even if common sense tells me it will likely be something far simpler. Guess I should read more biology journals and less science fiction.

PPS People need to read more James Hogan, the concept of DNA having quantum properties that allow it to undergo natural selection with all variations at once doesn't sound entirely implausible either...

Diabolical mimicry!

[copponex]

everyone brings to their reading of a text a raft of presuppositions about fairness, justice, and what God is/may/might/was like or should be like. But the reason you think the passage is biased is that it represents a worldview different from your own

That's nice. Usually, I express genocide as "mass murder" not a "different worldview." I think it's wrong in _any_ case. Again, infants and children were killed because they were Amorites. Why?

The reliability of the text depends on the reliability of the source.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I know you've heard it, but that doesn't mean it's not a valid point. If I outline the workings of gravity, and then say, "By the by, I can levitate things with my mind," I may have a very reliable source with an untrue statement. Adding someone's God to the mix suspends that disbelief for some reason.

Can a man live inside of a huge fish? Can the earth freeze in space so the sun doesn't set? These are easy questions to answer by themselves. So why is the answer different when you *believe* that God was involved? These were facts for your church in the 1500s, because everyone was ignorant. It seems the more that our societies learns about the universe, the less likely God is to exist. Where is hell? It used to be "down." Where is heaven? It used to be "up." These are at best simple ideas from a simple culture.

You see the Bible as infallible, because you believe that God willed men to write it, and that it holds the key to eternal, supernatural existence. I see the Old Testament as one tribe's wish for a general that would allow them to defeat the other more advanced civilizations that were constanstly beating them at war. And the new Testament is the tale of one Messiah who finally did what he said he was going to do, that all other messiahs had done before him: he died. Meanwhile on that day millions of people hunted, fished, had sex, made war, forged tools, discovered, gave birth and died... all seemingly unaware that a man was crucified in a town on the outskirts of the vast Roman Empire.

And the only reason you believe he is different is because lot of other people do too, otherwise you'd just believe in your personal cult. And there's must be something to it. Right? It seems no matter how hard you pray, or how much fealty your churches show, they still need someones $20. They still need someone to work to provide for the hierarchy. Because they know, as sure as the sun won't stop the next day, money isn't just going to fall out of the sky. Churches aren't going to appear out of thin air. The soup kitchens won't magically have food in the fridge, and the church media conglomerates won't find AV equipment surrounding their alters.

If God truly provided, church would be seven days a week. But history has shown that to be unreliable, so you, and I, and the rest of the world, do something besides praying to sustain ourselves.

Re:Diabolical mimicry!

[thelaw]

'That's nice. Usually, I express genocide as "mass murder" not a "different worldview." I think it's wrong in _any_ case. Again, infants and children were killed because they were Amorites. Why?'

You are proving my point about worldviews precisely. As you say, you have already decided a priori that there is no God who *could* rightly judge a whole nation of people that included infants and children. I've already laid out why I am unwilling to come to the table with that assumption, and why the Amorite nation was judged by God. Obviously we disagree.

But I do want to stave off one possible misunderstanding: I am not in any way implying that our worldviews are compatible. One or both of us are wrong. I'm trying to convince you that our disagreement starts much deeper than this issue. We have different starting points, we have different ending points. I start with God, you start elsewhere. And there is almost no way we will end up at the same point unless one of us changes our assumptions.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence ... Adding someone's God to the mix suspends that disbelief for some reason."

No, that's not exactly how it works. There are a totally different set of assumptions that underly your worldview, namely a deep, underlying skepticism. What I assume as true (the existence of a good and just God) is, in your worldview, a question that needs proving.

"Can a man live inside of a huge fish? Can the earth freeze in space so the sun doesn't set? These are easy questions to answer by themselves."

Can a man live for 3 days inside of a large marine animal without supernatural intervention? I don't know -- maybe. That would be a historical question, would it not? Can the earth be stopped from rotating for a short period of time, then restarted? Sure, if a strong enough angular acceleration is applied to it.

"So why is the answer different when you *believe* that God was involved?"

Look, we believe that God raised a man who had been dead for a weekend so he could walk around like you and I do. Keeping a guy alive for 3 days in a large animal is not so hard for a God who can bring people back to life. To answer your question, though, if God chooses to accomplish something in his creation, he is fully capable of making it happen. That is how God describes himself in the Bible. The truth of that statement has nothing to do with whether I believe it or not.

"You see the Bible as infallible, because you believe that God willed men to write it, and that it holds the key to eternal, supernatural existence."

Good, we're on the same page, except for "supernatural existence." I'd include "natural existence" in there, too, because I think the only way to fully understand what God meant mankind to be is to be in right relationship with that God.

"And the only reason you believe he is different is because lot of other people do too, otherwise you'd just believe in your personal cult."

In one sense that's true, because there were a lot of people who died so I could read the Bible in my own native language. And there have been a lot of faithful Christians in my life who have given their own testimony about the work of the Holy Spirit in their lives. But if I wanted to go for the peer-pressure angle, as you imply I'm doing, I could just go ahead and deny the existence of God. I'd probably be a lot more popular with my classmates and professors.

"If God truly provided, church would be seven days a week. But history has shown that to be unreliable, so you, and I, and the rest of the world, do something besides praying to sustain ourselves."

According to Genesis, humans were intended to work. But because of our sin, our work has become uncomfortable and toilsome. We work now because we have to feed ourselves and would die otherwise. But this is not the end of the story -- Christians look forward to the resurrection of the dead, when we will no longer live by faith, but by sight.

Jon

Re:Diabolical mimicry!

[copponex]

I start with God, you start elsewhere.

That does sum it up. The thing we have in common is that we both have no good reason to start where we did. I gave everything an equal chance, and you decided that the Bible was beyond common criticism.

There is no difference between you and a devout Muslim, Jew, Hindi, Sikh, or Branch Davidian. You all believe fervently that you are right, and everyone else is wrong. You all believed in something because it "spoke" to you, and you followed the directions after you told yourself they were true.

I was saved once. Twice, if you count when my uncle dragged me into church when I was twelve. You know what changed my mind? My father's girlfriend was a follower of a Hindi Guru from India. I told her that he was not holy, and that Jesus was her only way to enlightenment. My father, who is a devout Catholic, looked at me and said, "Dean, it sounds like you wouldn't have followed Jesus if you were alive when he was."

And he's right, I wouldn't. I realized Jesus is just like any other prophet. They're fake. They claim miracles; they claim to know the way. But when you see them, you see a man. He may be wise, he may be loving, but he is still just a man. I'm glad they give hope to some people, but I wish it didn't have to involve an organization of lies.

There has never been a single reliable account of a supernatural event, and there never will be. No person rose from the dead until medics started resuscitating flatliners. No blind man ever started to see until science provided the technology. No cripple ever started to walk until science developed intelligent robotic appendages. No disease was cured until science developed vaccine and antibiotics.

There is a miracle happening around the world, but it has nothing to do with God, or Jesus, or going to church on Sunday. It has to do with people working, using the principles of science - not the ramblings of ancient desert tribes. I'd sooner shake the hand of the man who gets out and does something to make the world better, than a man who sits around and prays for it to happen.

Imagine if all of those billions and billions of dollars that go to build five story churches, and pastor's mansions, and Catholic monuments, and Buddhist Temples, and Mosques, and cheesy Christ Books and Movies - imagine if all that money was instead given to scientists to find cures for cancer, alzheimers, and AIDs.

The world would be a better place without religion. It's unfortunate that some people can't accept the finite nature of their lives, and contribute to the good of humanity. I take comfort in the fact that every religion dies along with it's ruling empire. Soon Jesus and Elijah will conjure no more emotion than Zeus and Orpheus did after the fall of the Greeks. Europe is already lost, and North and South America won't be far behind.

The enemy of religion will always be science, because science provides reality where religion fails every time.

Re:Diabolical mimicry!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Imagine if all of those billions and billions of dollars that go to build five story churches, and pastor's mansions, and Catholic monuments, and Buddhist Temples, and Mosques, and cheesy Christ Books and Movies - imagine if all that money was instead given to scientists to find cures for cancer, alzheimers, and AIDs."

This is laughable. You think that's where the money would go... you don't think that just maybe, it would be spent on some other "opiate of the masses?"

"The world would be a better place without religion. It's unfortunate that some people can't accept the finite nature of their lives, and contribute to the good of humanity. I take comfort in the fact that every religion dies along with it's ruling empire. Soon Jesus and Elijah will conjure no more emotion than Zeus and Orpheus did after the fall of the Greeks. Europe is already lost, and North and South America won't be far behind."

You're revealing the small minded bigot within by saying that religious people can't contribute to the good of humanity. How about mother Theresa? There are innumerable examples of religious people doing great (and non-proselytizing) things in the name of their faith.

And you clearly haven't got a clue what you're talking about with respect to the fall of religion. What's the ruling empire of Christianity? Rome was once, I guess. But there isn't one now. And (assuming by "lost" you mean free of Christianity, or on its way to being free of it) you couldn't be much more wrong about Europe and North and South America.

"The enemy of religion will always be science, because science provides reality where religion fails every time."

You're wrong. They don't even have to intersect. Not only that, speaking as a Christian, they shouldn't. It's not intended to replace science, or even suppliment it.

Interestingly enough, you seem to fit the profile of a zealot, except with science as your religion. No less self assured than any of the other fanatics you bash for "fervently" believing that they are right.

Re:Diabolical mimicry!

[copponex]

This is laughable. You think that's where the money would go... you don't think that just maybe, it would be spent on some other "opiate of the masses?"

I'm a realist - of course it wouldn't all go to science. Perhaps some of it might. I'm just pointing out how poorly religion has done with all of the money and power it has commanded over the centuries.

How about mother Theresa?

How about Ghandi? A person's goodness has nothing to do with what religion they follow. I guess all of the work she accomplished would have been nothing without her faith. After all, feeding the poor isn't good enough for God - you have to accept Jesus/Mohommad/Abraham too, right?

you couldn't be much more wrong about Europe and North and South America

This article has some more concrete evidence about this. There is no denying that religion has declined rapidly in the last century throughout Europe. Judging by the history of social evolution, from outlawing slavery to accepting homosexuality, we usually follow in Europe's footsteps.

And if you don't think America is an empire, you aren't paying attention. I love it when someone says, "America hasn't taken an inch of ground in 200 years!" Um, Guantanamo Bay? The Sinai? Military bases and installations around the world? New Mexico, Arizona, California and Texas? Puerto Rico? The Marshall Islands?

You're wrong. They don't even have to intersect.

No, they don't intersect, so you don't believe that they have to. Why must religion always be full of promise and nothing else? Where are the miracles? Where are the blind men who see, and where are the cripples who walk only because someone prayed for them?

It's not intended to replace science, or even supplement it.

Of course it's not intended to replace science. The writers of those ancient texts had no idea that science would exist. That's why religions only last so long. Sooner or later, the complete lack of insight into modern daily life is too obvious to deny. Unless you're still giving your heave offering and not working on the Sabbath.

No less self assured than any of the other fanatics you bash for "fervently" believing that they are right.

If you become paralyzed from the neck down, does the ambulance take you to a hospital or to your church? If your child has the flu, do you give them antibiotics or do you simply have your pastor pray? If your mother is going blind, do you take her to an optometrist or to an exorcist?

I am assured by results, not by false promises. If someone questions my faith in the scientific method, I don't have to leave the room to find concrete examples of why it works. I don't have to get into some overbearing conversation, explaining to them how "Science is real, but just not in this life. Science will help you, but you have to believe in it first. Science will provide all of these blessings for you, but you can only be sure until you're dead."

Given the choice, most people will give up God before they give up even the tiniest modern conveniences provided by science. Most people already have.

Re:You ARE the problem

[untaken_name]

That was well said. Thank you for expressing so clearly in so few words what I attempted to express with a veritable book. Sincerely, I wish I could do that. Hopefully you won't mind being added to my friends list.

Re:Actually Bush stands to lose the "Christian Rig

[Minna Kirai]

illegal alien amnesty

Illegal aliens are demographically Christian and more actively religious than the general USA population. Maybe the voting bloc called the "Christian Right" disapproves of them (for racist reasons?), but aliens are heavily Christian.

equivocation on supporting Israel

Bush seems pretty strong in support of Israel's administration. He brags he's been the first President to support a Palestinian state... which is funny, because he tries to spin it like that's pro-Palestine or pro-peace, when really it's just formalizing that the "Palestinans" will never be allowed back to the land conquered from them in Israel's "War for Independence"

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody is saying that science can replace religion.

Well why shouldn't they?

Many people in this thread seem to be saying that science and religion are looking at different things or are different sides of truth or some such fuzziness.

But religion and science are both in the business of explanations. They are direct competitors in this field. And without putting too fine a point on it, science is a better source of explanations, and it is continually widening the gap, thanks to the scientific method.

The fact that many people have some components of their beliefs drawn from both religious and scientific tendencies is simply a reflection of the fact that there is no reason to expect everyone to have a consistent belief system. Many people are entirely unconcerned, or even angry, when someone shows them that they hold contradictory beliefs; this means nice people often don't go around pointing such things out. This does not prevent these things being doublethink, any more than the fact that various scientific pioneers or luminaries might have held religious beliefs does.

As to the point about morality, any competent ethicist will tell you that God is not required for a consistent or decent ethical framework, Dostoevsky notwithstanding. Pascal's observation that 'men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction' is apt. Ethical systems that use realistic descriptions of the world (ie non-religious ones) are preferable to those based on fixed and demonstrably untrue propositions (ie religious ones).

Science may well not be incompatible with all potential religious belief systems (although it is incompatible with all I'm familiar with). However science is the preferable explanation, because any compatible religious explanation would still have to include the science to be valid. Ockham's razor says we should just ignore the fluff.

Maybe they feel more at home with the GOP

[Anonymous Coward]

because of the anti-Christian sentiment (accurately reflected in your post) in the Democratic party.

For more evidence, go here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discus s/duboa rd.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=1683346&mes g_id=1683346

You might as well ask Blacks why they don't feel at home at KKK rallies. Maybe because they aren't being made to feel welcome?

BTW, moron, the 1997 Kyoto treaty was not ratified. In fact, the Senate voted it down 97-0.

Re:Religeon

[phantomfive]

The most-debated books with regard to historical narrativity are the first few chapters of Genesis, Job, Esther, and John. The rest are understood to be historical narrative.

Ezekiel is historical commentary? If it is, then the only historical event it describes is an alien invasion....(seriously, read the first few chapters of Ezekiel.)
Actually, the old testement is divided into three different sections, the Law, the History, and the Prophecies.

Re:Mars.

[nightsweat]

I see some peopel don't watch Dave Chapelle...

I still say - Mars, bitches!!

because Democrats are good on war, economy...

[Uberbah]

...and running tough campaigns against fellow Democrats, but run around like headless chickens when facing Republicans. This election shouldn't be remotely close...we should be talking about the inevitable Kerry landslide and how lucky Bush will be to carry Idaho and a couple Bible Belt states. Instead this election will be just as close as the last one, or Kerry will fuck it up Dukakis-style and Bush will win handily.

Kerry isn't a flip flopper, but he never gets out of Rhetoric Mode and never commits to anything. WTF do they have Edwards running around rural Ohio when he should be on the news networks 12 hours a day eviscerating the Bush administration is beyond me. He was a fucking trial lawyer for gods sakes, it should be trivial for him to put together a case against the Bush administration that was so tight that not even Rush Limbagh could find fault with it.

Even "red states" should be easy pickings for Kerry and Edwards, all they have to do is crush Bush's image as a real, traditional conservative. How about a return to fiscal responsiblity, a government that protects us without infringing on our rights, getting rid of unfunded mandates, and most obviously, not getting us into a massive, costly war that's not in our national interests.

WTF doesn't Kerry have an economic plan? WTF, for example, doesn't he propose a two year plan consisting of:

1. $100 billion for infrastructure - would generate tens of thousands of jobs
2. Expand Americore - more jobs and more people going to college
3. freeze or reduce all other spending
4. 50 cent increase in the minimum wage
5. reintroduce a 90% income tax bracket

blah blah blah

[Anonymous Coward]

As if Christians haven't been doing things that would land them in hell as long as there's been Christianity. Crusades, Inquisition, the list goes on and on. And abortion during the first semester isn't killing a human being, its expelling a blob of cells.

Re:blah blah blah

[Anonymous Coward]

"And abortion during the first semester isn't killing a human being, its expelling a blob of cells."

this is of course your opinion

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably to allow English-speaking readers to understand the content. :-)

Re:Religeon

[DarkSarin]

I don't usually do this, but:

NO, you MORON! They explicitly stated that some of Bush's response "exceeded length requirements" and were therefore edited to shorten them!

Yet, when I read the responses there are no signs of editing. That's called false reporting or somesuch.

Geez!

Re:Religeon

[Threni]

So why accuse me of writing it? My username is Threni - the person who made the original post uses the name tangledweb. I agree with the post, but I didn't post it.

Re:Religeon

[N3WBI3]

Not blaming you for anything, you asked why someone said something I replied to your post with the answer..

Re:Religeon

[Threni]

So we're friends then, right?

Re:Religeon

[N3WBI3]

lol.... Lets leave it at my bad..

Re:Religeon

[thelaw]

Thanks for the correction - I meant, and should have said, that the historical books that are debated are Genesis, Job, Esther, and John, and that the other historical books are pretty straightforward. In no way did I mean to imply that the major and minor prophets were considered historical narrative.

Jon

Infinite resource assumption

[SuperKendall]

I think you are making an assumption though about the capacity for dangerous nations to build enough missles to "overwhelm" a missle defense system.

Consider North Korea or Pakistan. The goal of a missle defense system may well be to protect neighbors from these two king of crazy nations. Well, how many nuclear missles might these two countried be able to build? Probably a lot less than the US could field if they wanted.

If it does lead to an escalation, then you might see some soviet-style breakdowns like the whole MAD thing led to. That would probably be an addition hope for a missile defense system.

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you honestly feel that an athiest is some kind of wild-man who runs around in a totally sociopathic way?

Yes they are, they are!

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

Judaism and Christianity are clearly on the moral absolutism side.

No they're not. They allow God (or G-d) to do things (such as massacre thousands of firstborn children) that would be sinful for a human. That's not moral absolutism... it's not even moral at all.

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

it cannot be denied that the Bible has undergone more literary and scientific scrutiny than any other literary work in history

It's true that there has been more scrutiny of the Bible than any other book. It didn't pass this scrutiny, though...

Its historical accuracy and relevence continues to be demonstrated over and over

You know what myth has been the best predictor of where to dig up ancient artifacts? Homer's Iliad, by a huge margin.

Second, this country was born on principles "endowed by their Creator" and based on "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."

But what about the "all Men are created equal" line?

Neither of those 2 statements is rendered invalid by atheism. If you believe there was no creator, then those rights came from nobody, which is still fine. And technically, each man is created by his parents...

The full first quote is "Endowed by his creator with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". The Bible specifically says man does not have the right to liberty.

Consider the US quarter-dollar coin. "In God We Trust". If there is no God, it means "Trust No One", which is perfectly smart.

Notice it states "created" not "evolved"

Creation and evolution are not exclusive terms. Evolution can be a kind of creation. The Chevy Corvette is both created and evolved (from year to year)

the point is...

[Aexia]

that Clinton opposed the war in Vietnam and avoided service while Bush supported the war in Vietnam and avoid service.

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

so terrorists will say "We must bring down America -- except dasmegabyte, who proved to use that one day he's pretty cool."

Don't worry man. We got you on the list. It's all cool, you're fine.

Just stay out of Orando Nov 1, if you know what Im saying.

.223 != .22

[StandardDeviant]

The difference is that the .223 has one hell of a larger powder charge behind it. It can sure as shit ruin your day, even if it is smaller than some other cartridges (the main reason it was kept small was to increase the number of rounds that could be carried).

Semiautomatic weapons do make it easy to have a larger rate of fire, as there is no requirement of external action before the next round is ready (such as moving a bolt or similar). While not as rapidly firing as automatic weapons, they are usable in area denial/anti-crowd roles (e.g. when you want to stalk from cubicle to cubicle pumping round after round from your gas-operated semiautomatic AR-15 into the twitching bodies of your coworkers. ;)).

The ban was always fairly silly, and I say this as someone very left of center. The only portion that even made sense at all was the reduction of magazine capabilities, which was a functional way to reduce the effective rate of fire of the weapons.

Re:.223 != .22

[thrash242]

Yes, that's true, but I didn't want to get into all that with someone who didn't seem to know much about firearms. The .223 (5.56mm) has a lot more powder than a .22LR and shoots a lot faster. You're right that the caliber was reduced to increase carrying capacity, along with other reasons. After WWII, the military determined that the previous doctrine of long range and large caliber was wasted, since most engagements took place only within only about 300 meters. Smaller calibers also help significantly with recoil when firing in automatic mode. I've heard that the aim is to wound rather than kill, and smaller rounds help with that, but I'm not sure about the validity of that.

Semiautos have a higher rate of fire compared to bolt/lever/pump action, yes, but I was comparing semiauto to full auto, as many people seem to confuse the two. I was just pointing out that all pistols, most revolvers, and many shotguns and hunting rifles are all semiauto, so it's nothing unique to "assault weapons".

I'm glad that you seem to know your stuff and agree that it was silly. Like I said, the vast majority of people against the ban don't understand it beyond what the media and hollywood pumps into their brains. I agree that the magazine capacity is the only thing that really makes a functional difference, but I still don't support a magazine capacity limitation.

Re:.223 != .22

[Anonymous Coward]

A small high velocity round will tumble inside the body(ie. if fired parallel to the ground the bullet will go perpendicular to the ground and often times end up backwards inside a body). Where as a .30 caliber round with just bore a hole straight through a body. Which is why some of the cops who were on tv talking about the weapons that were banned were full of shit. They were talking about a Ak-47 which shoots a 7.62mm X 39mm as being more powerful than other rifles well most decent deer rifles will shoot a 7.62mm X 54mm cartridge which has much more power.

HOW

[Rooked_One]

is this modd'ed up? I mean really... I will stop there

Re:Religeon

[fyngyrz]

the Old and New Testament Scriptures have shown themselves to be reliable in the vast majority of archaeological findings.

The thing is, the bible's reporting contemporaneous events, even if highly accurate, has absolutely no bearing at all upon the truth of the core story - god, jesus and the supernatural.

I am not saying the bible is fiction. However, I am pointing out that writers of fiction regularly and dependably describe the environment they know, as well as politicians and celebrities of the time, quite accurately.

For instance, contemporary author Tom Clancy describes, in considerable and very well fleshed out detail, US naval social and technological details, the American presidency, mentions the Apple computer and Windows PCs, describes fishing, working in the FBI, the US police force, the Pentagon... and so forth.

All of which are spot-on, 100% accurate historical content - future researchers would find these to be absolutely accurate, or if they didn't, they'd be just flat out wrong. None of which supports the idea that CIA employees John Ryan, John Clark and/or the submarine Red October actually exist - the core thematic elements of one of his more successful books, "The Hunt for Red October."

A key art of writing contemporary or historical (at the moment of writing) fiction is to use the historical context well so as to allow the reader to set up a theatre of the mind wherein the core elements become plausible; but it is very important to recognize that this is a writer's technique, used quite intentionally to create an illusion specifically to carry the rest of the story.

If god, jesus and the rest of the supernatural theme in the bible are accurate reporting of the truth, then that will have to be made clear by other than the bible itself. Anyone, and I mean anyone, who tries to tell others that the supernatural truth of the bible is made evident by the bible's apparent accuracy in the reporting of (then) current/(now) historical events is doing their religion, themselves, and their putative listeners a huge disservice.

Nothing meaningful, move along.

[Anonymous Coward]

This was neither on topic or meaningful... rather a flount of everything that you are and the average person is not. I'm not sure if you cou could have name dropped any more or written any more 7+ letter words in a 4 paragraph statement.

Solomon is dead.

[Doc Ruby]

When we can't definitively decide what is the dividing line between two consecutive time periods, like when a developing embryo becomes a human, we find a point on which we agree, like the human nature of babies at birth. Then we move the dividing line back to include more time, erring on the side of caution, if those who disagree that that extra margin is valid agree for practical purposes, like settling the dispute. And in the totally intractable area, we let the person whose actions caused the situation, and who will live with the consequences, decide for themselves. So we have laws preventing abortion in the third trimester, even though the human nature of 26 week old embryos is neither provable nor agreed. We can't pretend that there's proof, or even consensus, that would allow the state to determine this decision in many people's lives. That's how we deal with these fuzzy issues - acknowledge the limits of our knowledge, and accept that we live in a real, complex world where every day sees the dire consequences of treating these decisions as if they're some decidable ideal.

Insightful?

[Pan T. Hose]

If the unicorns are invisible, then how can they be pink?

This question is +5, Insightful? Invisible Pink Unicorn is a goddess, therefore she can be both invisible and pink. Asking how can she be invisible and pink at the same time is equally meaningful as asking e.g. how any deity can be both transcendent and immanent at the same time. Logically, it obviously cannot. But by definition, someone who is an omnipotent supreme being is beyond any reason and understanding and therefore does not have to follow our rules of logic. Do you feel somehow obligated to point out logical inconsistencies and paradoxes in every religion? You may find it entertaining but some people might find it highly offensive. Actually, every truly religious person will most certainly find it offensive if not outrageous. Faith and reason are orthogonal phenomena. It is not only common for religious beliefs to be illogical, but it is actually a prerequisite of any faith system in the first place, since otherwise where any religion was logically consistent and provable or at least falsifiable, there would be no need for faith whatsoever and such a system would not be a religion any more.

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't Einstein Jewish? Did't he believe in God?

Yes and no. He was of Jewish ethnicity, but didn't believe in "G-d" or God as commonly defined.

If you read Einstein's actual writings on the subject, he did not believe in any God with an intelligence, personality, or anything like that.

No, you are both wrong (and deeply in denial)

[FreeUser]

Oh contraire. Hitler was a devout Catholic, praised by the pope of the day, revisionist historymongering by those uncomfortable with those facts notwithstanding.

Just a few of the plethora of references available on the subject:

• Selected Quotes from Mein Kampf underscoring his religiosity
• A collection of links documenting Hitler's devotion to Catholicism
• Many continue to deny Hitler's Catholocism

You aren't doing yourself, the Catholic church, or the world any favors by trying to gloss over an unpleasant aspect of world history, merely because you find it distasteful.

It is America's ignorance of Hitler's religious fanatacism and the dangers it incorporates that has helped to allow a modern day religious fanatic to usurp the nation's highest office ... and quite possibly get elected legitimately this autumn, the consiquences of which don't bear thinking about. The last thing in the world anyone should be doing is glossing this over.

Re:No, you are both wrong (and deeply in denial)

[CaptainAvatar]

Oh, give me a break. I'm an agnostic-cum-atheist, and a lapsed Catholic to boot. I don't think highly of the Catholic Church, the current Pope, or Pius XII (or Hitler, of course); I have no desire to do any of them "any favours". I'm also a history grad student who reads lots of books by specialists in Nazi history because I find it fascinating (although it is only marginally relevent to my own area); I have no wish to gloss over things whether I find them "distateful" or not. I said what I said about Hitler's non-Catholicism because I believe it represents the best consensus of historians about his religious beliefs, as opposed to some biased selection of quotes I found on some website with an agenda which completely ignore their historical context. Finally, I'm not an American, so your political agenda is irrelevent to me (although FWIW, I think Bush is a moron and his religious evangelism is deeply disturbing). So cut the crap ok?

Hitler made plenty of pious references to Christianity in public. In private he made many derogatory comments about it; you can read many of them here and here. (Yes, those pages are both by Christians. But unlike those rather lame sites you gave, these at least mention the evidence on the other side of the argument, and examine the views of actual historians, quoting them at length. So I have no qualms in citing them.) Have you never heard of a politician lying to the public before now? Furthermore, he made a pact with the Catholic Church which had clear political benefits for him, as something like 30% or more of Germans (from memory) were Catholics, and so the Church represented a possible source of opposition to his regime. The pact eliminated that threat cheaply. Finally, here's a quote from a respected recent historian of the Third Reich, Michael Burleigh:

National Socialism, like other totalitarian dictatorships, parodied many of the eschatological and liturgical attributes of redemptive religions, while being fundamentally antagonistic towards the Churches: rivals, as the Nazis saw it, in the subtle, totalising control of minds. However, the overwhelmingly Christian character of the German people meant that Hitler dissembled his personal views behind preachy invocations of the Almighty, and distanced himself from the radically irreligious within his own Party, even though his own views were probably more extreme. During the Weimar period, he periodically traduced the Roman Catholic Centre Party for engaging in coalitions with "atheist internationalists" in the SPD. In reality, his views were a mixture of materialist biology, a faux-Nietzchean contempt for core, as distinct from secondary, Christian values, and a visceral anti-Clericalism. Even though he disdained a confrontation with wearers of "petticoats and cassocks", in the long term a showdown would come:

The war will be over one day. I shall then consider that my life's final task will be to solve the religious problem. Only then will the German nation be entirely secure once and for all. I don't interfere in matters of belief. Therefore I can't allow churchmen to interfere with temporal affairs. The organised lie must be smashed. The State must remain the absolute master. When I was younger, I thought it was necessary to set about matters with dynamite. I've since realised that there's room for a little subtlety. The rotten branch falls of itself. The final state must be: in St Peter's chair, a senile officiant; facing him, a few sinister old women, as gaga and as poor in spirit as anyone could wish. The young and healthy are on our side.

Rude though they were, these views were roughly congruent with the heated rhetoric of nineteenth-century Church-State conflicts. But, in what followed, Hitler forsoo

Re:No, you are both wrong (and deeply in denial)

[FreeUser]

Clearly historians are divided on whether or not Hitler was a devout catholic, and this discussion is going to degenerate into semantic arguments over what 'devout' really means.

Hitler was clearly devout in his ramblings when he wrote his manifesto Mein Kampf, which, as with nearly every manifesto ever written, was written with a particular point of view in mind, to promote a particular philosophy, and without any real concern for political correctness (in contemporary terms) or expediency. It is believed by many (most?) historians that his writings were a reasonably sincere representation of his (admittedly twisted) beliefs, and those included belief in his religion.

It is also clear that he had political differences with the church (despite their close collaboration with the holocaust), and that he privately wished to subordinate the church beneath the state, or even replace it with a "purer" faith of his own devising. It is also clear that this notion came later in life, after he had ascended to power.

He was raised catholic.

He was a practicing catholic.

When he wrote his manifesto, he clearly believed in his religion quite strongly.

Whether his later belief faded and became political expediency, or remained, is openly debated.

By many people's definition of 'devout', he clearly falls within that categore early in life, and arguably until is death in 1945. By others he did not.

What is certain is that he was religious (the only argument among historians is to what degree), that his religion was Catholic, that the Catholic church actively supported and assisted in the holocaust, and that a great many people are doing their damndest to brush these facts under the rug, not least of them modern day Catholic apologists who are trying to spin Pope Pious as "secretly against hitler" (even though he actively gave financial and logistical support to the Nazis) and protestants who flat out lie, claiming Hitler was an athiest (whether or not he was 'devout', he was certainly not an athiest, nor was the Nazi party as a whole).

References supporting the belief that Hitler was in fact quite devout (by many lay folks' definition of the word) in his Christianity include:

• Hitler's Christianity: by James Walker
  
• Hitler Was Not An Atheist: by John P. Murphy
  Religion and the Holocaust: by Richard E. Smith
  
• itler: Christian, Atheist, or Neither?: by Dean Mischewski
  
• Was Hitler an Atheist or a Theist? More Importantly, Who Cares?: by Mark Vuletic
  
• Copin' with Copan: The Defense of Zacharias that Fails: by Doug Krueger
  
• Hitler Aims Blow at 'Godless' Move: Lansing State Journal
  
• Hitler's Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII: by John Cornwell
  
• Was Hitler A Christian?: by Solid Rock Ministries
  

(Bibliography cribged from: Religious Views of Adolf Hitler)

Re:No, you are both wrong (and deeply in denial)

[CaptainAvatar]

What, no apology for assuming that because I disagreed with you I must be arguing for some ideological viewpoint rather than making an objective assessment of the evidence? Well, I shouldn't expect any better on slashdot, I guess.

No, this does not depend upon the definition of "devout". I said the best consensus of historians is that he wasn't Christian. If you don't know what that means, look it up. Saying that historians are divided on the question of Hitler's christianity is like saying saying biologists are divided on the question of evolution. Go read some books (yes, books! not websites!) by some historians (yes, historians! not polemicists!) like Ian Kershaw, Joachim Fest, Alan Bullock, Richard Overy. Get a fuller understanding of both how historians approach and understand historical evidence and of the historical context in which Hitler made such remarks. Then maybe you will realise why I have no time for websites which cherrypick quotes from Hitler without trying to understand why he said what he did, who he was talking to, and what he hoped to gain thereby.

As for your other "evidence": yes, he was raised a Catholic. So what? So was I. Stalin even trained as a Russian Orthodox priest. Familarity can breed contempt.

I've never heard that he was a practising Catholic. He never went to Mass, as far as I know. He attended church only for state occasions. (Eg Hindenburg's funeral.)

Manifestos are hardly devoid of expediency. Politicians write them to appear bold and visionary when they want to get elected. He wrote it in Landsberg prison after his failed putsch, when he was moving towards a parliamentary path towards seizing power. There were no votes in being anti-Christian (or at least those that there were, were sewn up by the communists), therefore he dressed up his rhetoric in pious invocations of divine guidance and so on. The particular philosophy he was trying to promote was racism, not religion. Just ask yourself: would an atheist campaigning for the Presidency of the United States openly say "Hey, your god is rubbish - one day I'm going to destroy your church too, if you vote for me?" No. He'd lie about it or he wouldn't get elected.

Oh the other stuff I won't go into, you keep saying it's "clear" or "certain" that he was Christian, but you don't actually back it up with any evidence. Please give me some REAL references, I'm on a university campus, I'd be quite happy to check them out. (Oh, and it's quite obvious you didn't bother to check those "references" you gave : only one is a book (by a respected historian, John Cornwell), but the others are websites, of which three actually argue against his Christianity - in fact, one of them I had already cited to you! The "Hitler was a Christian" links are just more of the same superficial posturings by atheists and secularists.)

I don't think Hitler was a Christian by any sensible definition of the term. I have yet to see any good evidence for that. I don't think he was an atheist either, or a pagan or occultist. He did have vaguely mystical, semi-religious, perhaps pantheistic beliefs, but his god was his race.

Re:No, you are both wrong (and deeply in denial)

[CaptainAvatar]

OK, I've looked at the Cornwell book and it in no way supports the claim that Hitler was a Christian. Cornwell only briefly mentions his attitudes to Christianity (as far as I can see, anyway), noting as I did that Hitler's public and private views were very different: in February 1933 he declared in the Reichstag that the churches would be integral to German life, the following month he was ranting in private about eradicating Christianity, and asserting that one couldn't be both a German and a christian (pp 105-6 of the 1999 Viking edition). Again, as I did, Cornwell stresses Hitler's desire to avoid a damaging conflict with the Catholic church. If you look at the end of chapter 3 of Mein Kampf , you'll see that this section blames the failure of the pan-German movement in Austria on its anti-Catholicism, from which Hitler draws the lesson that such a struggle pointlessly alienates potential supports. And it is from this section that many of those cherrypicked quotes come from.

Next ...

Re:No, you are both wrong (and deeply in denial)

[FreeUser]

OK, I've looked at the Cornwell book and it in no way supports the claim that Hitler was a Christian.

Your bias in showing. Hitler was clearly raised Catholic, was a practicing Catholic, and was in good standing with the Church through his death in 1945. By any definition this makes him Catholic, and as Catholicism is generally regarded as Christian by all except the most fringe of protestant sects (indeed, the Catholic church is the original "christian" sect from which all others are derived), this makes him Christian by definition.

Now, if one wishes to redefine "being christian" (as so many splinter sects do), or argue as to whether or not he was a "devout" Catholic or a "good Christian" then that is another arguement, and one that is entirely subjective and dependent on one's definitions of what constitutes 'devout' and what 'good Christian' is defined as. But as to 'Christian' (with no such ajective attached) it is clearly supported by all the literature cited that Hitler was, in fact, Christian.

If you look at the end of chapter 3 of Mein Kampf, you'll see that this section blames the failure of the pan-German movement in Austria on its anti-Catholicism, from which Hitler draws the lesson that such a struggle pointlessly alienates potential supports. And it is from this section that many of those cherrypicked quotes come from.

I just waded through that unpleasant read (in the original German), and I find your characterization to be a bit disingenuous. Yes, Hitler does blame earlier failures of the pan-German movement in Austria on its anti-Cathlocism, but he does so in the context of proclaiming himself devoutly Christian. The quotes are hardly "cherry-picked", they are scattered through the document. The original reads more along the lines of (shamelessly paraphrased) "I am devoutly Christian, and the movement is Christian. The reason the movement failed in the past is because earlier leaders of the movement didn't understand this, and unnecessarilly alienated the Church as a result." It did not read as you seem to imply "we are going to need the Catholic Church's support, so we'll let them into the club."

Historians may argue as to how much of this is cynical manipulation, and how much was actual belief. But the fact that he was Christian is beyond dispute, and there is enough evidence to suggest he was, at least early on, quite strong in those beliefs that historians still argue the point despite his clearly cynical political ploys and agenda later on. It should also be noted that Hitler was not a well adjusted person, so it is unsurprising if his views on the subject, like his views on so many things, didn't shift radically from one extreme to another (and back again, perhaps multiple times).

Re:No, you are both wrong (and deeply in denial)

[CaptainAvatar]

Ok, let's go through this again.

Your bias in showing.

Errm, which bias would that be? Did you miss the part about me being an atheist, lapsed Catholic etc? You can read it again here if you've forgotten. If you think I have a bias, then demonstrate (or at least elucidate), don't assert. As far as I can tell, my biases should tend towards your position, not the one I am actually holding. Oh, and I'm sure you don't have any biases. Those who accuse others of bias never do, strangely enough. From your comments and looking at your website, I could guess a few.

Hitler was clearly raised Catholic, was a practicing Catholic, and was in good standing with the Church through his death in 1945.

Right, here's that weasel word "clearly" again. On what basis do you assert that Hitler was "clearly" a practicing Catholic? Practicing means going to church, communion, confession, all that. Evidence please. And that the Church never excommunicated him says more about the Church in this period than it does about Hitler.

But as to 'Christian' (with no such ajective attached) it is clearly supported by all the literature cited that Hitler was, in fact, Christian.

Am I slow? Are you trolling? Some of the literature you cited supported that contention (and not very well, at that). Some of the literature you cited (including the Cornwell book, which I took the trouble to check and report what it says, which apparently means I'm biased) and all of the literature I cited supported the opposite contention. How does this become "all the literature"?

Yes, Hitler does blame earlier failures of the pan-German movement in Austria on its anti-Cathlocism, but he does so in the context of proclaiming himself devoutly Christian.

Don't you think that, having just concluded that anti-Catholicism is tactically unwise, it might have occured to him that to immediately proclaim that, regardless, he was in fact anti-Catholic might not have been the cleverest move? And of course he is going to sound sincere about it. Look, it's obvious us now that Hitler was a ranting, raving lunatic, but how do you think he ever got into power if that was obvious to everybody back then? He was politically astute and knew how to push the right buttons.

But the fact that he was Christian is beyond dispute, and there is enough evidence to suggest he was, at least early on, quite strong in those beliefs that historians still argue the point despite his clearly cynical political ploys and agenda later on.

Weasel words again - it's "beyond dispute" now. Oh, feel free to ignore the evidence I have provided - (here's another, Ian Kershaw in Hitler, Nemesis 1936-1945 speaks of Hitler's radical instincts on the Church question, and reports on on discussions he held in early 1937 where he looked forward to "the destruction of the clerics", but for the time being it was necessary to wait and be tactically clever; everything was a means to an end, and "a great world showdown" was coming; pp 39-41). Please give me the names of those historians who claim he was Christian. Assertion is not evidence. Or perhaps it is in your corner of the world, but it's not in mine.

Re:No, you are both wrong (and deeply in denial)

[FreeUser]

But as to 'Christian' (with no such ajective attached) it is clearly supported by all the literature cited that Hitler was, in fact, Christian.

1889 April 20 Adolfus (Adolf) Hitler is born at Braunau-am-Inn, Austria. According to his birth certificate, he was born at six o'clock in the evening and baptized two days later by Father Ignaz Probst at the local Catholic Church. (Payne)

• According to public records he was born and baptised Catholic.
• According to public statements and records he was (what most of us would call) a firm believer. Certainly he professed to be, if Mein Kampf and his various public speeches are any indication.
• According to the Church's own records, he remained in good standing until his death.

This, in most peoples reckoning, would make him a Catholic, which in turn makes him a Christian.

There is no evidence that he was non-Christian, beyond a few references to cynical back-room dealings in which he planned to supplant or subjegate the church to the state, which is clearly a political move and does not provide any real indication as to his underlying Christian belief (or lack thereof).

quoting various sources, trivially accessible via google, one finds (chosen more or less randomly out of several hundred references):

Going by what the Christian clergy teach about the virtues that the faith inspires, Nazism, Hitler's wars, and the Holocaust should not have been possible. Not only did they occur, but with insignificant and wavering exceptions, neither theologians, clergy, nor ordinary Christians as individuals, nor churches as corporate bodies, objected. In fact they overwhelmingly supported them. Look at three of the most distinguished German Protestant theologians--Gerhard Kittel, Paul Althaus, and Emanual Hirsch. These men were highly respected, extremely erudite, uncommonly productive, and internationally known professors, each at a different, first-class university.

Professor Robert P. Erickson did an unusually comprehensive investigation of the three theologians' writings, utterances, and activities as they pertain to Nazism and the Jewish Question. He reports his findings in a book, Theologians Under Hitler. If anyone should know whether submission or opposition is demanded of the followers of the living Christ when confronted with a regime as totally reprehensible as that of the Nazis, surely it would be these theologians.

What conclusions did Erickson reach as to the stance of the three men who would be expected to exemplify the ultimate in the embodiment of those noble values that millions of Sunday school children are taught attach to Christian folk? They are grim:

"They each supported Hitler openly, enthusiastically, and with little restraint." In fact, they deemed it the Christian thing to do. They "saw themselves and were seen by others as genuine Christians acting upon genuine Christian impulses." Furthermore, all three tended "to see God's hand in the elevation of Hitler to power." Hirsch was a member of the Nazi party and of the SS. The Nazi state, he said, should be accepted and supported by Christians as a tool of God's grace. To Althaus, Hitler's coming to power was "a gift and miracle of God." He taught that "we Christians know ourselves bound by God's will to the promotion of National Socialism."

Kittel and a group of twelve leading theologians and pastors issued a proclamation that Nazism is "a call of God," and they thanked God for Adolf Hitler.

Clearly, Hitler was considered by theologens of the day to be quite christian in his beliefs and actions, be they Protestant theologens (as cited above) or Catholic theologens (as cited in numerous other writings).

• Hitler was born and baptised a Christian.
• Hitler professed his Christianity all of his life
• Hitler was in good standing with the Catholic

Re:No, you are both wrong (and deeply in denial)

[CaptainAvatar]

Clearly you don't do apologies or retractions. I seriously want to know what you think my bias is on this question.

According to public records he was born and baptised Catholic.

This has absolutely no relevance in proving his beliefs about Christianity as an adult. Is this not blindingly obvious? I was born and baptised a Catholic too. Wasn't my choice. Wasn't Hitler's either.

Certainly he professed to be, if Mein Kampf and his various public speeches are any indication.

No, they are not any indication, as I have explained before. Yes, he professed to be, in public. Why do you believe he would speak the truth in speeches intended for public consumption by a German nation that was overwhelmingly Christian but then lie to his Nazi underlings who shared his goals and wanted to implement them on his behalf? I cannot comprehend this at all.

According to the Church's own records, he remained in good standing until his death.

Again, this proves nothing. I'm in good standing with the Church as well; I have never told them I no longer believe, nor have they excommunicated me. I'm sure the records of my Confirmation are still held by the church I attended at the time, so if I died tomorrow, you could claim I was in good standing with the Church until I died, and therefore a Catholic. But you'd be wrong.

There is no evidence that he was non-Christian, beyond a few references to cynical back-room dealings in which he planned to supplant or subjegate the church to the state, which is clearly a political move and does not provide any real indication as to his underlying Christian belief (or lack thereof).

Christ on a bike, there is plenty of evidence about his non-Christianity. It's not just "a few" backroom deals, it's what he said all along., to his like-minded intimates and acolytes. To take but one example, what do you think his statement that one cannot be both a German and a Christian actually means? It's more than just deploring the political power of the Church, it's asserting that to be a Christian is to owe allegience to something outside of the Aryan race. This is completely consistent with his attacks on liberalism, internationalism, Marxism, Judaism ... Aryans had only one duty, to the race, and God, human rights, class, anything else undermined that duty. It is not just a backroom political move and I still have not seen any evidence that historians argue this.

Clearly, Hitler was considered by theologens of the day to be quite christian in his beliefs and actions, be they Protestant theologens (as cited above) or Catholic theologens (as cited in numerous other writings).

Which again proves nothing about Hitler's own beliefs. It only proves that others believed or professed to believe that he was a Christian. There are many reasons why they might have thought so: they might have fallen for his public protestations of piety (as you have). They might have doubted those statements, but calculated that going along with them gave them more influence than outright resistance, or protected their church from persecution. Or they might agreed with his policies (eg anti-Semitism) and so supported him for that reason. But whatever, it says nothing about Hitler's own beliefs.

Hitler's discrimination and rhetoric against the Jews was embraced by the clergy of both Protestant and Catholic churches of the day

See above. This says much more about the clergy than it does about Hitler.

The only piece of evidence, on which everyone who wishes to believe Hitler wasn't really a real Christian hangs their collective hat, is the fact that he intended some cynical political maneuvers to subjegate the churches to his authority.

Right, and for some reason all prominent historians of Nazi Germany that I know of (like Kershaw and Burleigh - and I'm not making that up, these are the top guys in the field) seem to have fallen for this. Or it could be that y

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

The question is irrelevant because the hypothetical is impossible. God would not change His mind about the acceptability of murder because divine morality is constant and absolute. Since murder cannot become good, God would never declare it to be ok, and if any entity claiming to be God made such a declaration, any rational and non-evil person would deduce that said entity is not in reality God. Compare with, "Why does God need a space ship?"

Re:Religeon

[NarrMaster]

Nice way to sidestep the question. Mind answering it?

Re:Presidential Debate

[Jesrad]

If there was a large enough protest vote then maybe the Democrats and Republicans would wake up.

I doubt it unfortunately. A large protest vote for a third party would only provide an incentive for both Republican and Democrat parties to further tweak the electoral system (using excuses like, say, the Diebold debacle and Florida 2000/2004 debacles and the many 50-50 results) into an even more locked state.

What is needed is a large number of electoral wins for small libertarian candidates. That would have an immediate effect on the lives on many people.

Re:Religeon

[Anonymous Coward]

Since murder cannot become good, God would never declare it to be ok

It sounds to me that you are choosing your morality and then constructing a god to rationalise it. How very Nietzschien of you.

I have a proposal...

[Anonymous Coward]

You say that you are an athiest, and I respect your beliefs and your freedom to have those beliefs.

I have a proposal for you: could you entertain the possibility, no matter how small it might be, that God could exist? If so, would you be willing to entertain even the slightest possibility that this God could hear and respond to prayer? If so, then why not take some "alone time" where you can be quiet and undisturbed, and pray to God asking him to reveal himself to you.

Prayer doesn't need to be fancy, ritualistic or religious--it's just a personal conversation between you and God. Just ask God, if he does exist, to open your heart and mind and reveal himself to you. Don't bargain asking for signs--that's not the point. Just ask him to reveal himself to you in a way that you can understand. Really, what would be the worst that happens other than you spent a few quiet minutes in contemplation?

Re:AC Trolls

[tomhudson]

Or more likely, about being caught like the liar you are, or, for those who are curious about the whole thing, the "executive summary"

Re:AC Trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

Bwahahahahahaaha!

I laugh at that every time I see it! And not just because I'm the one that crushed you into your blathering jibberish rant. I laugh because, whether On Lawn meant to or not, his stunt exposed you for the idiot you are! You fear the AC because when your argument gets totally crushed you can't collapse back on your personal attacks to prop up your pathetic spine. You can't run into a corner and yammer repeatedly "onlawn troll" "onlawn troll" like the frightened toddler you are pointing at the monster in the closet.

And just when I thought your humiliaation couldn't get any worse you light up a huge neon "MORON" sign above your head by calling peoples attention to it! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Too rich! The only thing funnier than seeing someone's guts ripped out with their own inadequate tool is when they're too stupid to know that's what happened.

Hey, Tom, see that blinking light out of the corner of your eye? It's the big flashing "Tom's a Moron!" sign you keep lighting up. Bwahahahahahahaha!!! Please, stop it some more!

Re:AC Trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

And it gets funnier still!

Two neon signs!! Not only do you show yourself a complete idiot by saying people hardly ever declare victory on the internet (happens all the time, mushbrain), let alone slashdot (happens all the time), but you concoct a twisted use of Godwin's law that gets slapped down by Godwin's law itself.

Bwahahahahahaha! Please, please, my sides are starting to hurt. You've got to stop. And do you know what's the icing on the cake?? You prove you knew how completely stupid you were being when you set that JE up so nobody could reply!! That's right, you knew the journal would quickly fill up with people pointing at you and laughing so you wrapped your blanky around your head and sucked your thumb to drown it out! Bwahahahahahahaha! Well here's a newsflash, We're all laughing at you anyway! I can't tell you how many people I've pointed to that JE just to have a laugh at your expense. Now I get to point them to the parent post to show that you are so stupid you point people to it, too!! It's like watching those blooper videos of the guys getting whacked in the crotch by baseball bats and golf clubs...only you're the one doing the swinging at your own shrivelled balls!

I'm going to have to submit this thread to America's Funniest Journal Entries, this is cash in the bank!! You should really just stick to whining about your impotent life and pining for your ex. Whenever you try something else you just kick yourself in the crotch again. I've got all the comedy material I need.

OMG, ROFL

[Anonymous Coward]

GODWINS LAW I WIN!!!11!!111

Re:AC Trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, anyone reading the JEs in question knows OnLawn is the AC posting.

And that he got caught.

As lots of people pointed out

HYBT NFO

Laughing all the way... Ha Ha Ha

[On Lawn]

You rang? Funny where this stuff pops up. Always quality entertainment when it does.

Hmmm, interesting JE indeed. I point people to it quite a bit myself. Tom and his posse spend 90+ posts astroturfing and trying to distract people from his failures, and it winds up backfiring.

I gained many friends that day. Mad Poster and Tom (if they are different people who have the same reflex to run to their Journals whenever anyone starts pounding on them) were the only ones that cared. And between them have spent around a dozen JE's on little old me.

Well and the AC cares, and who should deny AC such barrel-fish sport? As for the post in question, I still find it funny "I'm a different AC than the other post". Tom has such a fear of the AC (which is shown by PTDS reaction in this thread) that he litterally jumps whenever AC says 'boo'. Who wouldn't want in on the action?

All in all, I couldn't ask for a more fortunate mistake ;) And no, Tom the mistake wasn't in not hitting the 'post anyonymously' button... You crack me up.

Re:AC Trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

Bwahahahahahahahahaha! Hawhawhawhawhawhawhawhaw!! STop! Baaaaaahhaahhaaa!

Oh man, Tom, stop!! This is too much. Now you're posting as an AC! The very thing you accused OnLawn of doing! Bwahahahahahahahaha! Just when I thought you couldn't be any funnier.

Whooo. Whoo. I think I've got it now. No... Bwahahahahahahahahaha! I just can't stop laughing!

I'm telling you you've given me all the comedy material I need! Stick to feeling sorry for yourself. The rest of it just comes across as slap-stick pie-in-your-own-face comedy.

Re:AC Trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

As lots of people pointed out

Bwahahahahahahahahaha! Oh, man! I was laughing so hard it the beginning of this post I didn't bother reading to the end!! Bwahahahahahahahaha!!

Now it's the plea to his sycophants to come bail him out! Too rich! Too rich! What's funnier the a hopeless boob tripping over his own landmines? The toadies with their lips surgically attached to his backside! Bwhahahahahahahahahaha! No, wait, what's funnier than that?? Haahahahahahhahhahhaaa! No, wait for it. What's funnier than that?? After he hits himself in the crotch, watching him trip over the pants around his ankles trying to get someone to kiss his butt! Bwahahahahahahahaha! I told you it was toooo funny. Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!! Man, oh, man! Tom, when I said you were like watching some guy whack himself in the nuts with a golf-club I was way wrong! You are much funnier than that!