The logical conclusion is that Peter Gleick created the document in question and scanned it. While it is possible that it is genuinely a Heartland Institute document, it is extremely improbable. The burden of proof rests on those who wish to contend that it is a genuine Heartland Institute document. Of course, you probably thought that the Dan Rather Bush National Guard documents were not fake either.
The countries with universal healthcare have way better care.
Oh, that explains why someone diagnosed with a serious illness has a better long term prognosis than someone diagnosed with the same disease in just about any other country.
I spend time on a conservative news discussion site. There is no one on that site that considers either Christopher Buckley (an Obama supporter) or Kathleen Parker (someone willing to lend their credibility to Elliot Spitzer) a conservative. Just because they are favor expanding government less than Obama is does not make them conservative.
It is not my inability to discriminate on irrelevant information that causes my business to suffer. It is the inability of my stupid competitors to do so that causes my business to suffer. The fact of the matter is that people should be allowed to choose who to hire based on whatever criteria they wish. Those who choose to hire the best available person for the position will thrive, those who choose to not hire that person because of some irrelevant criteria will be at a competitive disadvantage.
You know the interesting thing is that when people were allowed to discriminate on the basis of race in hiring and business decisions, black income relative to white income rose faster than it has since the laws outlawing such discrimination were passed. The biggest problems at the time was government mandated discrimination. It was not the bus companies that decided to make blacks sit at the back of the bus, it was laws that forced them to do so. Laws written by the people from the same political party that is now taking credit for getting rid of them (even though it was only because of overwhelming support from the other party that the laws forbidding such practices were passed over objections from those within that party--the majority of whom went on to become major players in that party).
The easiest way to understand what happened is to look at nightclubs. White owned nightclubs only hired white acts and only allowed whites to come in (there may have been exceptions, but that was the case for most of them). However, black owned nightclubs allowed anybody to come in and they hired the best performers regardless of race. As a result, the most popular, and profitable, nightclubs were black owned.
Kathleen Parker is not a conservative. She, also, believes that the "elites" should be in charge. Anyone who believes that the "elites" should be in charge is a progressive of one sort or another, not a conservative.
Single Payer is a progressive policy. Of course, your considering it a "liberal" policy indicates that your definition of liberal does not involve liberty, since there is nothing liberating about having to get the approval of a government bureaucrat in order to get medical treatment.
Peter Gleick admits that he is the person who released these documents. Peter Gleick says that he received these documents via e-mail from the Heartland Institute. So, exactly who are you postulating scanned this document? Are you suggesting that someone at the Heartland Institute offices in Central time zone scanned a document using a scanner configured as being in the Pacific time zone? The Heartland Institute does not have any offices in the Pacific time zone.
Based on Occam's Razor, the most logical conclusion is that Peter Gleick scanned the document.
The Wall Street fat cats consistently give more to Democratic political campaigns than they do to Republican political campaigns. Only when it is clear that Republicans are going to win overwhelmingly does Wall Street campaign donations trend towards Republicans and then only marginally. When the political winds are blowing the other direction, Wall Street overwhelmingly gives to Democratic political campaigns.
Additionally, look at which way the richest counties in America vote election after election. The vast majority vote solidly Democratic.
You are absolutely right liberal policies never get passed anymore, that's why Obamacare failed to get enacted...no wait, it did get enacted. I'm sorry, the EPA, FDA and other government agencies have not been dismantled. They are constantly writing more regulations just as the "liberals' and the big corporations desire. Your mistake is in thinking that the purpose of those agencies was to protect the little guy. The purpose of those agencies is to control people.
However, he now writes for the Daily Beast. The Daily Beast consistently takes government expansion stances. Additionally, Christopher Buckley considers those who graduated from Harvard, Yale and a few more elite colleges more suitable to govern than anyone else, in exact contradiction to his father's statement on the matter.
Yeah, that's why corporate power has consistently expanded along with government power. Modern day liberals are relabeled progressives. Progressives have always proposed that our lives should be ordered "scientifically". That is, that "scientific" experts should make all of our decisions for us. Woodrow Wilson was a progressive, Mussolini was a progressive, FDR was a progressive. All of those men reduced the freedom of the people in the countries they governed. All of those men believed that they had an obligation to take care of the lower classes, just as modern progressives believe. If modern day liberals protect the lower classes from the ultra-rich, why do so many of the ultra-rich support liberal policies? For that matter, why does income inequality get worse when liberal policies are enacted?
Except that does not fit into Peter Gleick's explanation of how he got his hands on the documents. Peter Gleick and the Heartland Institute agree that Gleick got documents from the Heartland Institute by creating an email account in the name of one of the Institute's Board members. He then, pretending to be that Board member, requested documents in preparation for an upcoming Board meeting. He claims that he was emailed these documents. So, according to his own claims, he received all of the documents via email. In other words, Peter Gleick, the man who released these documents, claims to have received all of them in electronic format. Why would he print one of them out and then scan it back into electronic format?
Right, because the burden of proof rests on the Heartland Institute, not on the guy who admits that he lied and impersonated someone else to obtain some of the documents. Since after all it makes perfect sense that an organization would scan one of its documents from a device that is set to a different time zone than any of their offices while the rest are printed directly to pdf from computers that are set to the time zone for their offices.
Sorry, but conservatives oppose the federal takeover of healthcare in the U.S. because they do not believe that the Constitution gives the federal government the power to do so. In addition, they recognize that the reason that progressives want the federal government to takeover healthcare is because progressives will be able to use that as an excuse to regulate all behavior.
Conservatives do not believe that science has an agenda. However, they have learned that many scientists do have an agenda and are willing to subvert their science in order to promote that agenda.
I do not remember anyone saying that Saddam had weapons capable of reaching the U.S. However, I do remember many people saying he had weapons of mass destruction, including such well known conservatives as Teddy Kennedy. Of course, there is also the fact that Federal government revenues did go up after the Bush tax cuts went into effect.
Of course, once upon a time a liberal was someone who was a proponent of liberty. Whereas today a "liberal" is a proponent of ever expanding government regulation and power.
Apparently you are unaware that the document that quote comes from was almost certainly forged by the person who released this batch of documents.
All but one of the other documents was printed directly to pdf from a computer set to the Central Time Zone (where the Heartland Institute is located). This particular document was scanned to pdf with a timestamp in the Pacific Time Zone (where the person who released these documents is located).
You miss the key factor in the survey. The survey did not ask about trusting science. The survey asked about trusting scientists. As more and more scientists have been revealed to have political agendas which influence their "science", those who recognized that "scientists" were using their prestige to boost policies that the populace would otherwise reject came to trust those calling themselves "scientists" less.
There is a very basic problem with both the article and your comment. That problem is that the survey did not find that "conservatives distrust science". The survey found that conservatives distrust "scientists". This is completely logical. As more and more people have identified themselves as scientists in order to promote some expansion of government power, those who oppose the expansion of government power have become more skeptical of the claims made by those proclaiming themselves scientists.
That is not entirely true. However, aid must be administered on small scale. In order for aid to be effective it must be distributed by individuals to individuals.
This Anonymous Coward makes two very good points. There have been several studies that show that the basis for a society becoming more wealthy from top to bottom is having a government based on rule of law where the laws change slowly and apply mostly the same to everyone from top to bottom. An additional factor to that is that property has clear title and the mechanism for transferring ownership of land from one person to another is relatively easy to execute. Both of these situations are deteriorating in the U.S. and that deterioration is playing a significant role in our current economic problems.
The second point he makes sounds racist the way he stated it, but it is not necessarily so (I do not know if he meant it in a racist way or not). He is correct that most people in 3rd world countries do not think or act like people in developed nations. This is not biological. It is not a product of their "race". It is cultural. They have learned to think the way they do because that is how things work in the countries they live in. They can learn to think and act differently. Of course, this does not mean that there are no aspects about the way that people in developing nations think that would improve the lives of those in developed nations were to learn to think that way.
I have worked with an organization that works with the extremely poor in several developing nations. It was amazing to see what a difference was made over time because the leader of the organization dealt with the local governments assuming that once the rules were made, they would not change arbitrarily. The leader knew that such was not traditionally the case, but she was able to establish such a reputation with the locals that they were embarrassed to not live up to her expectations. Of course it also worked because she worked with those at the other end showing them that if they worked within the system, they would make more progress than if they went outside it. It also only worked because she limited the size of the organization to where she could establish a personal relationship with people at various levels.
Slashdot Mirror
The logical conclusion is that Peter Gleick created the document in question and scanned it. While it is possible that it is genuinely a Heartland Institute document, it is extremely improbable. The burden of proof rests on those who wish to contend that it is a genuine Heartland Institute document. Of course, you probably thought that the Dan Rather Bush National Guard documents were not fake either.
The countries with universal healthcare have way better care.
Oh, that explains why someone diagnosed with a serious illness has a better long term prognosis than someone diagnosed with the same disease in just about any other country.
I spend time on a conservative news discussion site. There is no one on that site that considers either Christopher Buckley (an Obama supporter) or Kathleen Parker (someone willing to lend their credibility to Elliot Spitzer) a conservative. Just because they are favor expanding government less than Obama is does not make them conservative.
It is not my inability to discriminate on irrelevant information that causes my business to suffer. It is the inability of my stupid competitors to do so that causes my business to suffer. The fact of the matter is that people should be allowed to choose who to hire based on whatever criteria they wish. Those who choose to hire the best available person for the position will thrive, those who choose to not hire that person because of some irrelevant criteria will be at a competitive disadvantage.
You know the interesting thing is that when people were allowed to discriminate on the basis of race in hiring and business decisions, black income relative to white income rose faster than it has since the laws outlawing such discrimination were passed. The biggest problems at the time was government mandated discrimination. It was not the bus companies that decided to make blacks sit at the back of the bus, it was laws that forced them to do so. Laws written by the people from the same political party that is now taking credit for getting rid of them (even though it was only because of overwhelming support from the other party that the laws forbidding such practices were passed over objections from those within that party--the majority of whom went on to become major players in that party).
The easiest way to understand what happened is to look at nightclubs. White owned nightclubs only hired white acts and only allowed whites to come in (there may have been exceptions, but that was the case for most of them). However, black owned nightclubs allowed anybody to come in and they hired the best performers regardless of race. As a result, the most popular, and profitable, nightclubs were black owned.
Kathleen Parker is not a conservative. She, also, believes that the "elites" should be in charge. Anyone who believes that the "elites" should be in charge is a progressive of one sort or another, not a conservative.
Single Payer is a progressive policy. Of course, your considering it a "liberal" policy indicates that your definition of liberal does not involve liberty, since there is nothing liberating about having to get the approval of a government bureaucrat in order to get medical treatment.
Peter Gleick admits that he is the person who released these documents. Peter Gleick says that he received these documents via e-mail from the Heartland Institute. So, exactly who are you postulating scanned this document? Are you suggesting that someone at the Heartland Institute offices in Central time zone scanned a document using a scanner configured as being in the Pacific time zone? The Heartland Institute does not have any offices in the Pacific time zone.
Based on Occam's Razor, the most logical conclusion is that Peter Gleick scanned the document.
The Wall Street fat cats consistently give more to Democratic political campaigns than they do to Republican political campaigns. Only when it is clear that Republicans are going to win overwhelmingly does Wall Street campaign donations trend towards Republicans and then only marginally. When the political winds are blowing the other direction, Wall Street overwhelmingly gives to Democratic political campaigns.
Additionally, look at which way the richest counties in America vote election after election. The vast majority vote solidly Democratic.
You are absolutely right liberal policies never get passed anymore, that's why Obamacare failed to get enacted...no wait, it did get enacted. I'm sorry, the EPA, FDA and other government agencies have not been dismantled. They are constantly writing more regulations just as the "liberals' and the big corporations desire. Your mistake is in thinking that the purpose of those agencies was to protect the little guy. The purpose of those agencies is to control people.
However, he now writes for the Daily Beast. The Daily Beast consistently takes government expansion stances. Additionally, Christopher Buckley considers those who graduated from Harvard, Yale and a few more elite colleges more suitable to govern than anyone else, in exact contradiction to his father's statement on the matter.
Yeah, that's why corporate power has consistently expanded along with government power. Modern day liberals are relabeled progressives. Progressives have always proposed that our lives should be ordered "scientifically". That is, that "scientific" experts should make all of our decisions for us. Woodrow Wilson was a progressive, Mussolini was a progressive, FDR was a progressive. All of those men reduced the freedom of the people in the countries they governed. All of those men believed that they had an obligation to take care of the lower classes, just as modern progressives believe. If modern day liberals protect the lower classes from the ultra-rich, why do so many of the ultra-rich support liberal policies? For that matter, why does income inequality get worse when liberal policies are enacted?
Except that does not fit into Peter Gleick's explanation of how he got his hands on the documents. Peter Gleick and the Heartland Institute agree that Gleick got documents from the Heartland Institute by creating an email account in the name of one of the Institute's Board members. He then, pretending to be that Board member, requested documents in preparation for an upcoming Board meeting. He claims that he was emailed these documents. So, according to his own claims, he received all of the documents via email. In other words, Peter Gleick, the man who released these documents, claims to have received all of them in electronic format. Why would he print one of them out and then scan it back into electronic format?
Right, because the burden of proof rests on the Heartland Institute, not on the guy who admits that he lied and impersonated someone else to obtain some of the documents. Since after all it makes perfect sense that an organization would scan one of its documents from a device that is set to a different time zone than any of their offices while the rest are printed directly to pdf from computers that are set to the time zone for their offices.
Well, I guess if you consider promoting government regulation of all aspects of people's lives to be science then there is something to what you say.
Here you go. Here is a Link to a story where someone does a thorough analysis of that document.
Sorry, but conservatives oppose the federal takeover of healthcare in the U.S. because they do not believe that the Constitution gives the federal government the power to do so. In addition, they recognize that the reason that progressives want the federal government to takeover healthcare is because progressives will be able to use that as an excuse to regulate all behavior.
Conservatives do not believe that science has an agenda. However, they have learned that many scientists do have an agenda and are willing to subvert their science in order to promote that agenda.
I do not remember anyone saying that Saddam had weapons capable of reaching the U.S. However, I do remember many people saying he had weapons of mass destruction, including such well known conservatives as Teddy Kennedy. Of course, there is also the fact that Federal government revenues did go up after the Bush tax cuts went into effect.
William Buckley was a conservative. His son Christopher is not.
Of course, once upon a time a liberal was someone who was a proponent of liberty. Whereas today a "liberal" is a proponent of ever expanding government regulation and power.
Apparently you are unaware that the document that quote comes from was almost certainly forged by the person who released this batch of documents.
All but one of the other documents was printed directly to pdf from a computer set to the Central Time Zone (where the Heartland Institute is located). This particular document was scanned to pdf with a timestamp in the Pacific Time Zone (where the person who released these documents is located).
You miss the key factor in the survey. The survey did not ask about trusting science. The survey asked about trusting scientists. As more and more scientists have been revealed to have political agendas which influence their "science", those who recognized that "scientists" were using their prestige to boost policies that the populace would otherwise reject came to trust those calling themselves "scientists" less.
There is a very basic problem with both the article and your comment. That problem is that the survey did not find that "conservatives distrust science". The survey found that conservatives distrust "scientists". This is completely logical. As more and more people have identified themselves as scientists in order to promote some expansion of government power, those who oppose the expansion of government power have become more skeptical of the claims made by those proclaiming themselves scientists.
That is not entirely true. However, aid must be administered on small scale. In order for aid to be effective it must be distributed by individuals to individuals.
This Anonymous Coward makes two very good points. There have been several studies that show that the basis for a society becoming more wealthy from top to bottom is having a government based on rule of law where the laws change slowly and apply mostly the same to everyone from top to bottom. An additional factor to that is that property has clear title and the mechanism for transferring ownership of land from one person to another is relatively easy to execute. Both of these situations are deteriorating in the U.S. and that deterioration is playing a significant role in our current economic problems.
The second point he makes sounds racist the way he stated it, but it is not necessarily so (I do not know if he meant it in a racist way or not). He is correct that most people in 3rd world countries do not think or act like people in developed nations. This is not biological. It is not a product of their "race". It is cultural. They have learned to think the way they do because that is how things work in the countries they live in. They can learn to think and act differently. Of course, this does not mean that there are no aspects about the way that people in developing nations think that would improve the lives of those in developed nations were to learn to think that way.
I have worked with an organization that works with the extremely poor in several developing nations. It was amazing to see what a difference was made over time because the leader of the organization dealt with the local governments assuming that once the rules were made, they would not change arbitrarily. The leader knew that such was not traditionally the case, but she was able to establish such a reputation with the locals that they were embarrassed to not live up to her expectations. Of course it also worked because she worked with those at the other end showing them that if they worked within the system, they would make more progress than if they went outside it. It also only worked because she limited the size of the organization to where she could establish a personal relationship with people at various levels.