Re: Why scientists are seldom Republicans
Bret Cahill
> From The St. Petersburg Times, 8/16/09:http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece
>
> Why scientists are seldom Republicans
>
> By Robyn E. Blumner, Times Columnist
>
> Have you ever wondered what the world would be like without
> scientists?
>
> Ask the Republican Party.
>
> It lives in such a world.
>
> Republicans have been so successful in driving out of their party
> anyone who endeavors in scientific inquiry that pretty soon there
> won't be anyone left who can distinguish a periodic table from a
> kitchen table.
>
> It is no wonder the Republican throngs showing up to disrupt town hall
> meetings on health care reform are so gullible, willing to believe
> absurd claims like the coming of "death panels."
>
> Their party is nearly devoid of neuroscientists, astrophysicists,
> marine biologists or any other scientific professional who would
> insist on intellectual rigor, objective evidence and sound reasoning
> as the basis for public policy development.
>
> The people left don't have that kind of discipline and don't expect it
> from their leaders.
>
> They are willing to believe anything some right-wing demagogue with a
> cable show or pulpit tells them, no matter how outlandish.
>
> Since the Sonia Sotomayor nomination we've been hearing about the
> GOP's Hispanic deficit.
>
> Only 26 percent of Latino registered voters now say they identify with
> or lean toward the Republican Party.
>
> But that's a full house compared with scientists.
>
> Only 12 percent of scientists in a poll issued last month by the Pew
> Research Center say they are Republican or lean toward the GOP, while
> fully 81 percent of scientists say they are Democrats or lean
> Democratic.
>
> We shouldn't be surprised that people who are open to evidence-based
> thinking have abandoned the Republican Party.
>
> The GOP has proudly adopted the mantle of the "Terri Schiavo, global
> warming shwarming" party with the Bush administration helping cement
> the image by persistently subverting science to serve a religious
> agenda or corporate greed.
>
> But what worries me is not the shrunken relevancy of the GOP, a party
> in which 56 percent of its members oppose funding of embryonic stem
> cell research, 39 percent believe humans have always existed on Earth
> in their present form, and in which only 30 percent say human activity
> is warming the planet.
>
> It is that this nation's future depends upon people who don't think
> that way and the Republican Party is closing the door to them.
>
> Every hope we have to invent our way out of this economic malaise and
> create enough Information Age jobs to maintain a stable and prosperous
> middle class sits on the shoulders of people who understand and
> practice the scientific method.
>
> Every hope we have of advancing human understanding of the physical
> universe and bettering our lives in it, is tied to professionals now
> represented by only one of our nation's two major political parties —
> while the other party attempts to obstruct them.
>
> Global warming is a prime example.
>
> Earth is under siege by CO2 emissions to a point that the Pentagon is
> warning that our national security is at risk if climate change is not
> arrested.
>
> All Americans and politicians should be united for collective action.
>
> Yet George Bush spent essentially his entire presidency ignoring and
> suppressing scientific concerns.
>
> Even today, with the effects of global warming evident, Republicans in
> Congress are trying to bury the cap-and-trade energy bill, the
> nation's first attempt (albeit not strong enough) to limit greenhouse
> gas emissions.
>
> Their alternative is to offer nothing.
>
> Why are they so blind to the looming crisis?
>
> Because to embrace what scientists are saying about global warming
> would give political liberals a win, something the GOP leadership is
> not wont to do.
>
> Republicans build their political careers disdaining "elitists" with a
> good education, complex charts and empirical data.
>
> They see it to their political advantage to rally people to distrust
> science.
>
> That means our nation is only likely to advance to meet the heady
> scientific challenges of the future, on health and the environment —
> advancements that translate directly into economic progress and rising
> living standards — if the Democrats remain in power with substantial
> majorities.
>
> But if the nation's economic situation doesn't turn around soon, a GOP
> resurgence could very well come.
>
> Then scientists will once again be on the defensive against a
> Republican Party that left them behind in favor of the Tea Party
> crowd, the birthers, and the people who shout at town halls that
> government better keep its hands off their Medicare.
>
> Theirs is a world without scientists, and scary doesn't begin to
> describe it.
>
> ______________________________________________________
The GOP is servitude to the corp. master, not Reason. Repugliar
economists are baffled by even the most basic logic.
So how are they going to do math?
And if they cannot do math, then how can they do anything in science?
Bret Cahill
"Math is applied logic."
-- Nietzsche
John Q public
Scientists are not republicans fer 1 major reason, the same reason NEA
members aren't, they live on the public dole fer research grants,
salaries and benefits and will support whichever little whore (The
Dems) who gives them their little bitto graft
Bret Cahill
So you openly admit that the private sector is the enemy of science.
Bret Cahill
Fred Weiss
> So you openly admit that the private sector is the enemy of science.
Other than all of the life saving and life enhancing technology which
has come from the private sector over the last 100-200yrs, all based
on science.
Even gov't funded science relies on the private sector to provide the
funding and technology to make it possible.
Fred Weiss
Bret Cahill
> Other than all of the life saving and life enhancing technology which
> has come from the private sector
Heavily subsidized by national gummints as in the case of gas turbine
engines.
> over the last 100-200yrs, all based
> on science.
Science and technology aren't one and the same. You cannot get a
patent on a scientific discovery which is why government must tax the
"private sector" to do basic R & D.
The inventor of the chip was openly baffled when he got a Nobel Prize
because it wasn't a scientific discovery. Someone then quickly
pointed out that inventors could get the Nobel Prize too.
> Even gov't funded science relies on the private sector to provide the
> funding and technology to make it possible.
Funding and technology that was ultimately stolen from employees
working for far less than true market wages.
That's why GOP "market" economists always dodge The Question:
Immortalist
But if we apply the same argument to the people in the police force,
fire department, and military, even though they are on the government
dole as welfare maggots, we still need their services. So therefore
welfare is a good thing?
Bret Cahill
If you confuse our rightard and he'll go on a shooting spree.
Bret Cahill
alien8er
> > From The St. Petersburg Times, 8/16/09:http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece
>
> > Why scientists are seldom Republicans
(Why don't we avoid the chase scene and snip right to the crash?)
> > All Americans and politicians should be united for collective action.
Riiiight.
> The GOP is servitude to the corp. master, not Reason. Repugliar
> economists are baffled by even the most basic logic.
So are Demoncrats. You tool, ALL politicians are professional liars
and pimps, and guess who the whores are? That's right, voters!
Who did YOU vote for, whore? Are you enjoying the way Obama, Pelosi,
et. al. are bending all of us over?
Do you define "free trade" as "Free Trade"? I didn't notice any
"Free Speech" allowed in the implementation of that.
> So how are they going to do math?
>
> And if they cannot do math, then how can they do anything in science?
NONE of them, R or D, give a flying FUCK about science until they
NEED something from it. Then they force-fund it until it gives them
what they want, then they cut its throat and demonize the actual
scientists.
Try living in the real world, whore.
Mark L. Fergerson
Rock Brentwood
> Funding and technology that was ultimately stolen from employees
> working for far less than true market wages.
Any wage, no matter how high, is slavery -- servitude no different in
kind than sharecropping, just different in degree; e.g. the difference
between house slaves and field slaves. To the extent that an
alternative does not immediately avail itself (e.g. hunting & fishing,
which however in most settled places is forbidden and/or regulated)
then the servitude is a matter is railroading you into it on pain of
starvation. That's involultary servitude.
To the degree that a government takes away your God-given right to
hunt, fish, etc. on the land about you, gather plants, etc., it owes
you recompense; or it owes you getting the hell out of the way (or
being pushed out of the way).
Herman Rubin
Bret Cahill <BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>> From The St. Petersburg Times, 8/16/09:http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/co=
>lumns/article1027502.ece
>> Why scientists are seldom Republicans
>> By Robyn E. Blumner, Times Columnist
>> Have you ever wondered what the world would be like without
>> scientists?
>> Ask the Republican Party.
>> It lives in such a world.
>> Republicans have been so successful in driving out of their party
>> anyone who endeavors in scientific inquiry that pretty soon there
>> won't be anyone left who can distinguish a periodic table from a
>> kitchen table.
There are lots of libertarian scientists. One reason for
the lack of such is the socialist indoctrination in the
schools of any country.
>> It is no wonder the Republican throngs showing up to disrupt town hall
>> meetings on health care reform are so gullible, willing to believe
>> absurd claims like the coming of "death panels."
There is nothing absurd about them. The sociocrats cannot
realize that the shortage of practitioners will force the
government to refuse health care to some. This will cause
the "death panels" in some form to be necessary.
>> Their party is nearly devoid of neuroscientists, astrophysicists,
>> marine biologists or any other scientific professional who would
>> insist on intellectual rigor, objective evidence and sound reasoning
>> as the basis for public policy development.
What sociocrats cannot realize is that the laws of nature
cannot always be thwarted by acts of legislatures. There
is NO way we can find enough compentent doctors and nurses.
Also, medical decisions should be made by the patient, with
the primary role of the practitioners to be diagnostic, and
the performance of such procedures as are designated by the
patient.
I am quite aware of the problems of rigor, being known for
my work in the foundations of mathematics and of statistics.
Most scientists do not understand what statistics is; it is
not a collection of alchemic procedures, which is how it is
usually used, especially in medicine. Also, the knowledge
of biology needed for scientific medicine is lacking.
>> The people left don't have that kind of discipline and don't expect it
>> from their leaders.
No, it is those who believe that the state can solve problems
who do not have that discipline.
>> They are willing to believe anything some right-wing demagogue with a
>> cable show or pulpit tells them, no matter how outlandish.
False.
>> Since the Sonia Sotomayor nomination we've been hearing about the
>> GOP's Hispanic deficit.
Charismatic speakers have little effect on people who can
think logically. Sotomayor has stated that the schools
give everyone the same education; this is utter folly.
Scientists should get through school years earlier than
they are now allowed to do.
>> Only 26 percent of Latino registered voters now say they identify with
>> or lean toward the Republican Party.
The Democrats PROMISE what any sensible person knows
cannot be delivered.
>> But that's a full house compared with scientists.
>> Only 12 percent of scientists in a poll issued last month by the Pew
>> Research Center say they are Republican or lean toward the GOP, while
>> fully 81 percent of scientists say they are Democrats or lean
>> Democratic.
Are these good scientists? Also, the government hires
scientists, and is now effectively directing research.
>> We shouldn't be surprised that people who are open to evidence-based
>> thinking have abandoned the Republican Party.
That they have, but they have abandoned the Democrats
as well.
>> The GOP has proudly adopted the mantle of the "Terri Schiavo, global
>> warming shwarming" party with the Bush administration helping cement
>> the image by persistently subverting science to serve a religious
>> agenda or corporate greed.
What you call "corporate greed" is part of what
results in progress. I agree that religious
agendas are bad, but I consider socialism to be
a religion.
..................
>> Every hope we have to invent our way out of this economic malaise and
>> create enough Information Age jobs to maintain a stable and prosperous
>> middle class sits on the shoulders of people who understand and
>> practice the scientific method.
Canute could not stop the tide. To create a populace
who understand a LOGICAL scientific method, which can
only start with ideas, not data, and balance all types
of errors, and realizing that only mathematics can
PROVE anything, but there are always uncertainties,
requires the elimination of the public school monopoly,
and a total reformulation of the curriculum using concepts,
not memorization and routine, FIRST.
Even then, at least 50% of the populace probably do not
have the mental capacity for information age jobs.
>> Every hope we have of advancing human understanding of the physical
>> universe and bettering our lives in it, is tied to professionals now
>> represented by only one of our nation's two major political parties =97
>> while the other party attempts to obstruct them.
No, it is the Democrats with their totalitarianism
which obstructs.
>> Global warming is a prime example.
>> Earth is under siege by CO2 emissions to a point that the Pentagon is
>> warning that our national security is at risk if climate change is not
>> arrested.
At this point, what the US does is of secondary importance.
China will soon surpass the US in CO2 emissions, and India,
with its exponentially increasing population, even more so.
I do not see the Democrats more in favor of nuclear energy,
the only clear non-CO2 energy adequate for industry and
human use, than the Republicans. Most antinuclears are
also socialists.
>> All Americans and politicians should be united for collective action.
WHICH collective action? Not socialist.
>> Yet George Bush spent essentially his entire presidency ignoring and
>> suppressing scientific concerns.
False.
.................
>> Theirs is a world without scientists, and scary doesn't begin to
>> describe it.
>The GOP is servitude to the corp. master, not Reason. Repugliar
>economists are baffled by even the most basic logic.
I have worked with Nobel economists. But people do not
always act logically, and the current crisis was partly
due to the system, and exascerbated by hyperegalitarians
like Obama; McCain introduced legislation to ameliorate
or halt the cycle.
>So how are they going to do math?
They do not have to DO math, they have to USE math.
>And if they cannot do math, then how can they do anything in science?
The scientists needs to know the concepts so that they
can construct mathematical models. Feynman knew just
enough math that he did not realize that his path integrals
are not sufficiently formulated to be handled; he assumed
that infinite dimensional space behaved like finite dimensional,
and they do not. Mathematicians and physicists have not put
it on a sound foundation 60 years later.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Herman Rubin
Bret Cahill <BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Aug 15, 6:22=A0am, John Q public <my2ce...@me.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-08-15 08:40:55 -0400, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> said:
>> >> From The St. Petersburg Times, 8/16/09:http://www.tampabay.com/opinion=
>/co
>> > lumns/article1027502.ece
...................
>> Scientists are not republicans fer 1 major reason, the same reason NEA
>> members aren't, they live on the public dole fer research grants,
>> salaries and benefits and will support whichever little whore (The
>> Dems) who gives them their little bitto graft
>So you openly admit that the private sector is the enemy of science.
Federally supported research was put in for Cold War
reasons. The problem is that it allowed the universities
to transfer what they had been doing to support research
to other uses, which allowed the government to control.
We have to ease the government out of running research,
and require research universities to start taking over
again what they did to make the US great in the first
place in roughly a half century. The state universities
then had to compete with the private ones.
The private sector is no enemy of science; it supports
science. But it cannot compete here with the organization
of government. Get the government restrictions out of
the way, and we would have hundreds working in space, and
be on the way, at least, to permanent living off earth with
its overpopulation and regimentation.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
The private sector operates on the profit motive and there is little
to no profit to be had putting humans in space.
If the space program were entirely private sector, we would have what
we have now minus Apollo, the Shuttle, and the ISS.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
tadchem
Some people have progressed beyond racism. To them expressions of
racial bigotry reveal an undeveloped mind.
Some people have progressed beyond sectarianism. To them expressions
of sectarianism reveal an undeveloped mind.
Some people have progressed beyond partisanism. To them expressions
of partisanism reveal an undeveloped mind.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Peter Webb
> Scientists are not republicans fer 1 major reason, the same reason NEA
> members aren't, they live on the public dole fer research grants,
> salaries and benefits and will support whichever little whore (The
> Dems) who gives them their little bitto graft
But if we apply the same argument to the people in the police force,
fire department, and military, even though they are on the government
dole as welfare maggots, we still need their services. So therefore
welfare is a good thing?
**************************
The word or concept of "welfare" does not appear anywhere until the last
sentence. Specifically, Police and military are not on welfare. It is
therefore impossible to see how your sentence follows from that which
preceded it. I guess you aren't that bright.
Peter Webb
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:4ccae450-7b85-4de1...@n11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> > >> advancements that translate directly into economic progress and
> > >> rising
*************
Another not-too-bright person. The argument does not follow from the facts
provided. I guess you are a Democrat, right?
Bret Cahill
I cut a deal with Websters. I don't play daffynition word games and
Websters doesn't expose shill tank economists as out and out frauds.
Bret Cahill
Michael Gordge
>
> That's why GOP "market" economists always dodge The Question:
Econo = small / little / insignificant
mist = what happens when a drip is under pressure.
Economist = insigificant drips under pressure.
Ewe have a lot in common with economists Bwet.
MG
Bret Cahill
> >lumns/article1027502.ece
> >> Why scientists are seldom Republicans
> >> By Robyn E. Blumner, Times Columnist
> >> Have you ever wondered what the world would be like without
> >> scientists?
> >> Ask the Republican Party.
> >> It lives in such a world.
> >> Republicans have been so successful in driving out of their party
> >> anyone who endeavors in scientific inquiry that pretty soon there
> >> won't be anyone left who can distinguish a periodic table from a
> >> kitchen table.
>
> There are lots of libertarian scientists.
Name _one_ notable scientist who went around claiming that nothing is
interrelated therefore everything can be an individualist this
individualist that free market free trade.
> One reason for
> the lack of such is the socialist indoctrination in the
> schools of any country.
The only political indoctrination going on in U. S. civics classes is
to make students believe political science is irrelevant, boring
nonsense.
It's quite effective.
The _New York Times_ fills the vacuum by trying to get everyone to
believe Pat Robertson came over on the Mayflower.
And the rightard media are even worse.
. . .
> >> They are willing to believe anything some right-wing demagogue with a
> >> cable show or pulpit tells them, no matter how outlandish.
> False.
Birthers are 40 - 58% of the GOP.
Bret Cahill
marc
news:6757427b-6bb9-4eda-ae2d-
Any wage, no matter how high, is slavery -- servitude no different in
kind than sharecropping, just different in degree; e.g. the difference
between house slaves and field slaves.
Semantic abuse in the service of aberrant reason.
To the degree that a government takes away your God-given right
Right-granting resides within the domain of prevailing cultural norms.
Rights granted by imaginary beings reside within the imagination.
Marc
Androcles
"marc" <bo...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:VuShm.1830$D91...@newsfe01.ams2...
> "Rock Brentwood" <mark...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:6757427b-6bb9-4eda-ae2d-
>
> Any wage, no matter how high, is slavery -- servitude no different in
> kind than sharecropping, just different in degree; e.g. the difference
> between house slaves and field slaves.
>
> Semantic abuse in the service of aberrant reason.
>
> To the degree that a government takes away your God-given right
I'd rather live in a democracy than a god-taken monarchic dictatorship.
Stick your god up your arse and get the fuck out of sci.physics
taking your politics and religion with you.
*plonk*
Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.
Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.
There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.
This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.
You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.
I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day.
Fred Weiss
> > > So you openly admit that the private sector is the enemy of science.
> > Other than all of the life saving and life enhancing technology which
> > has come from the private sector
>
> Heavily subsidized by national gummints as in the case of gas turbine
> engines.
There are certainly instances where the gov't has improperly - and
unnecessarily - usurped private activities. But the fact that the
gov't did it in some - or even many - instances doesn't constitute a
justification - in fact it has proven to be exceedingly dangerous to
our freedom and very lives (as witness Nazi Germany).
Shall we review once again the contrast between the gov't funded Union
Pacific vs. the privately funded Northern Pacific.?
> Science and technology aren't one and the same. You cannot get a
> patent on a scientific discovery which is why government must tax the
> "private sector" to do basic R & D.
Must? This is simply one of your more egregious non-sequiturs. Gov't
involvement in basic R&D is a relatively new phenomenon. It may have
started sooner in Europe, especially Germany (and we know what
happened there), but it came relatively later in the US.
> > Even gov't funded science relies on the private sector to provide the
> > funding and technology to make it possible.
>
> Funding and technology that was ultimately stolen from employees
> working for far less than true market wages.
Umm...Brat, the wages that exist in a market *are* the market wages.
There is no mythic "true" market wage outside of the market - merely
attempts to distort market mechanisms through gov't interference
(which btw in the long term do no one any good, even the supposed
beneficiaries).
Fred Weiss
Bret Cahill
If that were true GOP "market" economists wouldn't be dodgin' 'n
dodgin' The Question:
Bret Cahill
> > > >> advancements that translate directly into economic progress and
> > > >> rising
Here's a fact: GOP "market" economists are guaranteed to dodge The
Question:
Bret Cahill
> > > Other than all of the life saving and life enhancing technology which
> > > has come from the private sector
>
> > Heavily subsidized by national gummints as in the case of gas turbine
> > engines.
>
> There are certainly instances where the gov't has improperly - and
> unnecessarily - usurped private activities.
Gummint _funded_ "private sector" work.
It's called "defense contracting."
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> Pacific vs. the privately funded Northern Pacific.?
Gummint did it first.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> > patent on a scientific discovery which is why government must tax the
> > "private sector" to do basic R & D.
> Must?
Well you can always just not do any research.
That explains the header.
Bret Cahill
Fred Weiss
> > Umm...Brat, the wages that exist in a market *are* the market wages.
>
> If that were true...
It is true. As even you might say, *self-evident*.
A is A, Brat.
Fred Weiss
And made a mess of it, whereas the Northern Pacific was a financial
success from the get-go.
Herman Rubin
...................
The private sector also has non-profit organizations, much
of which is funded by people who believe in what they propose.
We have some such for space activity, but they are totally
stymied. The members of such have interesting ideas for
proceeding, but NASA is almost committed to "it was invented
here, and by us".
We would have had Apollo, and continued to use the Saturn V,
the strongest lifter ever built, instead of even destroying
the plans for it. We might not have had the shuttle, but if
we had something like it, we would not have it scrapped before
something else was BUILT and tested.
We would not have ISS, but we would have one or more space
stations operating, without concessions to a costly orbit
so that Russia could easily launch to it. We would have at
least attempts at "permanent" abodes off Earth.
There are millions of people who believe in space not just as
a place for research, but as a place to live and work. These
are not the poor people looking for a handout, but people who
are willing to put their money where their mouths are.
Governments do not want people to live in space, but to stay
on Earth under their control. To have real freedom, there must
be a place to go not under socialist control.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Babbling nonsense.
In reality there are a handfull of private sector people with a few
million dollars looking at space tourism.
There won't be any private sector living in space because there won't
be any private sector jobs in space because there is no profit to
be made from having humans in space.
And there are no starry-eyed non profits with the required trillions
of dollars to do it "just because".
John Jones
>> From The St. Petersburg Times, 8/16/09:http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece
>>
>> Why scientists are seldom
>> describe it.
>>
>> ______________________________________________________
>
>
> The GOP is servitude to the corp. master, not Reason. Repugliar
> economists are baffled by even
>> Theirs is a world without scientists, and scary doesn't begin to
>> describe it.
>>
>> ______________________________________________________
>
>
> The GOP is servitude to the corp. master, not Reason. Repugliar
> economists are baffled by even the most basic logic.
>
> www.bretcahill.com
>
> So how are they going to do math?
>
> And if they cannot do math, then how can they do anything in science?
>
>
> Bret Cahill
>
> "Math is applied logic."
>
> -- Nietzsche
the most basic logic.
>
> www.bretcahill.com
>
> So how are they going to do math?
>
> And if they cannot do math, then how can they do anything in science?
>
>
> Bret Cahill
>
> "Math is applied logic."
>
> -- Nietzsche
Republicans
>>
>> By Robyn E. Blumner, Times Columnist
>>
>> Have you ever wondered what the world would be like without
>> scientists?
>>
>> Ask the Republican Party.
>>
>> It lives in such a world.
>>
>> Republicans have been so successful in driving out of their party
>> anyone who endeavors i
>> Theirs is a world without scientists, and scary doesn't begin to
>> describe it.
>>
>> ______________________________________________________
>
>
> The GOP is servitude to the corp. master, not Reason. Repugliar
> economists are baffled by even the most basic logic.
>
> www.bretcahill.com
>
> So how are they going to do math?
>
> And if they cannot do math, then how can they do anything in science?
>
>
> Bret Cahill
>
> "Math is applied logic."
>
> -- Nietzsche
n scientific inquiry that pretty soon there
>> won't be anyone left who can distinguish a periodic table from a
>> kitchen table.
>>
>> It is no wonder the Republican throngs showing up to disrupt town hall
>> meetings on health care reform are so gullible, willing to believe
>> absurd claims like the coming of "death panels."
>>
>> Their party is nearly devoid of neuroscientists, astrophysicists,
>> marine biologists or any
>> Theirs is a world without scientists, and scary doesn't begin to
>> describe it.
>>
>> ______________________________________________________
>
>
> The GOP is servitude to the corp. master, not Reason. Repugliar
> economists are baffled by even the most basic logic.
>
> www.bretcahill.com
>
> So how are they going to do math?
>
> And if they cannot do math, then how can they do anything in science?
>
>
> Bret Cahill
>
> "Math is applied logic."
>
> -- Nietzsche
igor, objective evidence and sound reasoning
>> as the basis for public policy development.
>>
>> The people left don't have that kind of discipline and don't expect it
>> from their leaders.
>>
>> They are willing to believ
>> Theirs is a world without scientists, and scary doesn't begin to
>> describe it.
>>
>> ______________________________________________________
>
>
> The GOP is servitude to the corp. master, not Reason. Repugliar
> economists are baffled by even the most basic logic.
>
> www.bretcahill.com
>
> So how are they going to do math?
>
> And if they cannot do math, then how can they do anything in science?
>
>
> Bret Cahill
>
> "Math is applied logic."
>
> -- Nietzsche
e anything some right-wing demagogue with a
>> cable show or pulpit tells them, no matter how outlandish.
>>
>> Since the Sonia Sotomayor nomination we've been hearing about the
>> GOP's Hispanic deficit.
>>
>> Only 26 percent of Latino registered voters now say they identify with
>> or lean toward the Republican Party.
>>
>> But that's a full house compared with scientists.
>>
>> Only 12 percent of scientists in a poll issued last month by the Pew
>> Research Center say they are Republican or lean toward the GOP, while
>> fully 81 percent of scientists say they are Democrats or lean
>> Democratic.
>>
>> We shouldn't be surprised that people who are open to evidence-based
>> thinking have abandoned the Republican Party.
>>
>> The GOP has proudly adopted the mantle of the "Terri Schiavo, global
>> warming shwarming" party with the Bush administration helping cement
>> the image by persistently subverting science to serve a religious
>> agenda or corporate greed.
>>
>> But what worries me is not the shrunken relevancy of the GOP, a party
>> in which 56 percent of its members oppose funding of embryonic stem
>> cell research, 39 percent believe humans have always existed on Earth
>> in their present form, and in which only 30 percent say human activity
>> is warming the planet.
>>
>> It is that this nation's future depends upon people who don't think
>> that way and the Republic
>> Theirs is a world without scientists, and scary doesn't begin to
>> describe it.
>>
>> ______________________________________________________
>
>
> The GOP is servitude to the corp. master, not Reason. Repugliar
> economists are baffled by even the most basic logic.
>
> www.bretcahill.com
>
> So how are they going to do math?
>
> And if they cannot do math, then how can they do anything in science?
>
>
> Bret Cahill
>
> "Math is applied logic."
>
> -- Nietzsche
an Party is closing the door to them.
>>
>> Every hope we have to invent our way out of this economic malaise and
>> create enough Information Age jobs to maintain a stable and prosperous
>> middle class sits on the shoulders of people who understand and
>> practice the scientific method.
>>
>> Every hope we have of advancing human understanding of the physical
>> universe and bettering our lives in it, is tied to professionals now
>> represented by only one of our nation's two major political parties �
>> while the other party attempts to obstruct them.
>>
>> Global warming is a prime example.
>>
>> Earth is under siege by CO2 emissions to a point that the Pentagon is
>> warning that our national security is at risk if climate change is not
>> arrested.
>>
>> All Americans and politicians should be united for collective action.
>>
>> Yet George Bush spent essentially his entire presidency ignoring and
>> suppressing scientific concerns.
>>
>> Even today, with the effects of global warming evident, Republicans in
>> Congress are trying to
>> Theirs is a world without scientists, and scary doesn't begin to
>> describe it.
>>
>> ______________________________________________________
>
>
> The GOP is servitude to the corp. master, not Reason. Repugliar
> economists are baffled by even the most basic logic.
>
> www.bretcahill.com
>
> So how are they going to do math?
>
> And if they cannot do math, then how can they do anything in science?
>
>
> Bret Cahill
>
> "Math is applied logic."
>
> -- Nietzsche
bury the cap-and-trade energy bill, the
>> nation's first attempt (albeit not strong enough) to limit greenhouse
>> gas emissions.
>>
>> Their alternative is to
>> Theirs is a world without scientists, and scary doesn't begin to
>> describe it.
>>
>> ______________________________________________________
>
>
> The GOP is servitude to the corp. master, not Reason. Repugliar
> economists are baffled by even the most basic logic.
>
> www.bretcahill.com
>
> So how are they going to do math?
>
> And if they cannot do math, then how can they do anything in science?
>
>
> Bret Cahill
>
> "Math is applied logic."
>
> -- Nietzsche
offer nothing.
>>
>> Why are they so blind to the looming crisis?
>>
>> Because to embrace what scientists are saying about global warming
>> would give political liberals a win, something the GOP leadership is
>> not wont to do.
>>
>> Republicans build their political careers disdaining "elitists" with a
>> good education, complex charts and empirical data.
>>
>> They see it to their political advantage to rally people to distrust
>> science.
>>
>> That means our nation is only likely to advance to meet the heady
>> scientific challenges of the future, on health and the environment �
>> advancements that translate directly into economic progress and rising
>> living standards � if the Democrats remain in power with substantial
>> majorities.
>>
>> But if the nation's economic situation doesn't turn around soon, a GOP
>> resurgence could very well come.
>>
>> Then scientists will once again be on the defensive against a
>> Republican Party that left them behind in favor of the Tea Party
>> crowd, the birthers, and th
Bret Cahill
>
> > If that were true...
If that were true GOP "market" economists wouldn't be dodgin' The
Question you just cut snipped:
> It is true.
Then why are they dodgin' 'n dodgin'?
> As even you might say, *self-evident*.
It's self evident that the "trades" aren't free because they weren't
preceded by free speech.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> > > Pacific vs. the privately funded Northern Pacific.?
> > Gummint did it first.
> And made a mess of it,
And helped lead the way for something somewhat more privatized to
succeed.
Bret Cahill
Fred Weiss
> It's self evident that the "trades" aren't free because they weren't
> preceded by free speech.
You mean like in China?
Fred Weiss
There was no real connection but I'm not sure you realize the full
implications of what you are admitting here.
Careful, Brat. You don't want to be making too many concessions to
libertoons and Randroids.
SilentOtto
You rightards are sooooo full of shit.
How come when you go on about "private financing" of the Northern
Pacific, you "forget" to mention the THIRTY-NINE MILLION ACRE land
grant they received from the Federal government?
Or, all the money the fed spent "pacifying" the natives in the
proposed path of the rail road? I wonder how much it cost to have the
Seventh Calvary escort Northern Pacific survey teams?
Neither was the Northern Pacific a "financial success" from the get
go. It went broke in 1873.
Guess how Jay Cooke raised the money to get out of debt?
That's right...
They sold off some of the land they'd gotten in the Federal Land
grant...
"Privately financed"?
"Success from the get go"?
Hardly...
Heh heh...
Rightards...
Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single one of you.
Herman Rubin
<ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>In sci.physics Herman Rubin <hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
>> In article <ac1kl6-...@mail.specsol.com>,
>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>In sci.physics Herman Rubin <hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
>>>> In article <80bc637f-ee12-48b0...@r18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Bret Cahill <BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Aug 15, 6:22=A0am, John Q public <my2ce...@me.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2009-08-15 08:40:55 -0400, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> said:
...................
>>>> The private sector is no enemy of science; it supports
>>>> science. But it cannot compete here with the organization
>>>> of government. Get the government restrictions out of
>>>> the way, and we would have hundreds working in space, and
>>>> be on the way, at least, to permanent living off earth with
>>>> its overpopulation and regimentation.
>>>The private sector operates on the profit motive and there is little
>>>to no profit to be had putting humans in space.
The private sector universities, using their endowment income,
and the state universities deciding to compete with them, were
quite prominent in world research before WWII. Non-profit
agencies have worked well, before government funding. They have
not worked well after the government provided research funding.
>Babbling nonsense.
No; governments want control.
>In reality there are a handfull of private sector people with a few
>million dollars looking at space tourism.
>There won't be any private sector living in space because there won't
>be any private sector jobs in space because there is no profit to
>be made from having humans in space.
There were no jobs in America when the first British, Dutch,
Swedish, and French colonists came over. Other than the
British West Indies corporation, they came over for other
reasons, such as freedom from tyrants and totalitarians.
Also, there will probably be jobs there for astronomers,
and other scientists. People can explore much better than
robots which have to go extremely slow so they do not get
stuck, as they cannot think and instructions take too long.
It seems that if we can get hydrogen and nitrogen, that we
will be able to live inside asteroids and "farm" them.
>And there are no starry-eyed non profits with the required trillions
>of dollars to do it "just because".
There will be if the governments will allow them to operate.
There is no point in joining an organization which will not
be able to do anything because governments will not let them.
The L5 Society actually did manage to kill the "moon treaty"
which would not have allowed private space activity; there
are tens of millions of well-off people who believe in freedom.
Governments have no problems with space tourism as long as
they control the space.
Fred Weiss
> How come when you go on about "private financing" of the Northern
> Pacific, you "forget" to mention the THIRTY-NINE MILLION ACRE land
> grant they received from the Federal government?
In that respect they got no more and no less than the Union Pacific -
and that's what we are comparing. Such land grants were a standard
practice of the time - in exchange for the promise of development
(just as with the Homestead Act) - because not much value was put on
wilderness (there were people at the time it was done who thought
Jefferson had *overpaid"!!! for the Louisinia Purchase and I'm sure
you remember "Seward's Folly" in regard to Alaska). In fact it was the
building of the railroad which gave the land value and in that respect
the investors took considerable risk because they couldn't know in
advance what that value might be. The land may have been "free" but
the building of the railroad certainly wasn't. And in fact many of
these railroads which received such grants eventually failed anyway.
> Or, all the money the fed spent "pacifying" the natives in the
> proposed path of the rail road? I wonder how much it cost to have the
> Seventh Calvary escort Northern Pacific survey teams?
Protecting property is a legitimate and proper function of gov't and
the railroad paid taxes like everyone else for that protection. Plus
it was in the interest of the country to develop its land - that was
the rationale behind the Union Pacific after all and once again that's
what I'm addressing.
> Neither was the Northern Pacific a "financial success" from the get
> go. It went broke in 1873.
1875. But that was at least in part a consequence of the Panic of 1873
which effected the entire country, not just the railroad.
However, in general you are correct. The Northern Pacific did have a
great many financial difficulties. I had meant to be referring to the
Great Northern of JJ Hill. My mistake in confusing them giving the
similarity of names. The history in fact of the Great Northern, which
I had meant to compare to the Union Pacific, is entirely different.
For example as regards land grants, "Subsidies of large grants of land
and cash had helped build earlier lines to the Pacific coast. Mr.
Hill's venture was unique in that land grants or other government aids
were neither sought nor given. Only government lands ever received by
Mr. Hill's company were those attached to 600 miles of railway in
Minnesota constructed by predecessor companies and acquired by
purchase."
Here is a good summary history of the railroad:
http://www.gnrhs.org/gn_history.htm
As another site puts it:
"Never before had someone tried building such a railroad without
government land and loans. Railroads like the Union Pacific, Central
Pacific, and Northern Pacific were each given millions of acres of
public land to build their transcontinental routes. People thought
that even if Hill could construct his dream, how could he possibly
compete with government-funded lines? Hill's idea to build a railroad
to the Pacific became known as Hill's Folly."
As for Hill's business acumen and the financial success of the Great
Northern, that is a matter of historical record. His was one of the
few of the major lines to survive the Panic of 1893 unscathed.
So, my point stands in comparing the financial success of the Great
Northern vs. the Union Pacific.
Fred Weiss
Wilson Woods
> Repugliar
> economists are baffled by even the most basic logic.
>
> www.bretcahill.com
There is no logic to that nonsense question. No logic, no economics.
It's junk.
Wilson Woods
>>> www.bretcahill.com
>> Do you define "free trade" as "Free Trade"?
>
> I cut a deal with Websters. I don't play daffynition word games
That's all you do.
Wilson Woods
The question is nonsense; no logic, no economics in it. It's just the
raving of an egocentric nothing.
Wilson Woods
>>>>>> advancements that translate directly into economic progress and
>>>>>> rising
All economists ignore - not dodge - that nonsense question. It has no
relevance to economics.
Wilson Woods
>>> Science and technology aren't one and the same. You cannot get a
>>> patent on a scientific discovery which is why government must tax the
>>> "private sector" to do basic R & D.
>
>> Must?
>
> Well you can always just not do any research.
Why would he want to be like you?
Wilson Woods
>>>> Umm...Brat, the wages that exist in a market *are* the market wages.
>>> If that were true...
>
> If that were true GOP "market" economists wouldn't be dodgin' The
> Question
The question is junk. It has nothing to do with economics. Economists
ignore - not dodge - junk like that.
Bret Cahill
> >>> If that were true...
> > If that were true GOP "market" economists wouldn't be dodgin' The
> > Question
> The question is junk.
Any Repug economist who raises it will be retraining for the
productive sector.
> It has nothing to do with economics.
Free marketry doesn't have anything to do with economics?
> Economists
> ignore - not dodge - junk like that.
How much money are these "economists" willing to ignore?
$2,000?
$20,000?
$200,000?
$2,000,000?
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> > > > > Pacific vs. the privately funded Northern Pacific.?
> > > > Gummint did it first.
> > > And made a mess of it,
>
> > And helped lead the way for something somewhat more privatized to
> > succeed.
>
> There was no real connection but I'm not sure you realize the full
> implications of what you are admitting here.
>
> Careful, Brat. You don't want to be making too many concessions to
> libertoons and Randroids.
You are projecting again. You vilify anyone who disagrees with you on
anything and think I'm the same way.
If Rand says freedom in the marketplace of ideas necessarily precedes
freedom in the marketplace of goods and services, I will agree.
Now we just need to get GOP "market" economists to comment on the
matter:
Bret Cahill
> > >lumns/article1027502.ece
> > >> Why scientists are seldom Republicans
> > >> By Robyn E. Blumner, Times Columnist
> > >> Have you ever wondered what the world would be like without
> > >> scientists?
> > >> Ask the Republican Party.
> > >> It lives in such a world.
> > >> Republicans have been so successful in driving out of their party
> > >> anyone who endeavors in scientific inquiry that pretty soon there
> > >> won't be anyone left who can distinguish a periodic table from a
> > >> kitchen table.
> > There are lots of libertarian scientists.
> Name _one_ notable scientist who went around claiming that nothing is
> interrelated therefore everything can be an individualist this
> individualist that free market free trade.
Notice there's no answer?
> > One reason for
> > the lack of such is the socialist indoctrination in the
> > schools of any country.
>
> The only political indoctrination going on in U. S. civics classes is
> to make students believe political science is irrelevant, boring
> nonsense.
>
> It's quite effective.
>
> The _New York Times_ fills the vacuum by trying to get everyone to
> believe Pat Robertson came over on the Mayflower.
>
> And the rightard media are even worse.
>
> . . .
>
> > >> They are willing to believe anything some right-wing demagogue with a
> > >> cable show or pulpit tells them, no matter how outlandish.
> > False.
>
> Birthers are 40 - 58% of the GOP.
>
> Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> >> Do you define "free trade" as "Free Trade"?
> > I cut a deal with Websters. I don't play daffynition word games
And Websters doesn't out GOP "market" economists as frauds.
Bret Cahill
Wilson Woods
>>>>> www.bretcahill.com
>
>>>> Do you define "free trade" as "Free Trade"?
>
>>> I cut a deal with Websters. I don't play daffynition word games
>>
>
All you do is play juvenile word games. You're not a serious person,
make no serious contribution.
Wilson Woods
>>>>>> Umm...Brat, the wages that exist in a market *are* the market wages.
>>>>> If that were true...
>
>>> If that were true GOP "market" economists wouldn't be dodgin' The
>>> Question
>>
> Any Repug economist who raises it
No economist of any political party pays any attention to it. It's junk.
>> It has nothing to do with economics.
>
> Free marketry doesn't have anything to do with economics?
The question has nothing to do with free markets or economics. That's
why economists rightly ignore it, and you.
Wilson Woods
Question is nonsense. Economists ignore it; has no connection to economics.
Bret Cahill
> >>>>> If that were true...
> >>> If that were true GOP "market" economists wouldn't be dodgin' The
> >>> Question
> >> The question is junk. It has nothing to do with economics. Economists ignore - not dodge - junk like that.
> > Any Repug economist who raises it
> No economist of any political party pays any attention to it. It's junk.
> >> It has nothing to do with economics.
> > Free marketry doesn't have anything to do with economics?
> The question has nothing to do with free markets or economics.
You dodged the question:
Free marketry doesn't have anything to do with economics?
> That's
> why economists rightly ignore it, and you.
"You are vexed therefore I am right about you."
-- Nietzsche
Bret Cahill
> Question is nonsense.
Are you saying Rand wrote nonsense?
> Economists ignore it; has no connection to economics.
Ayn Rand believed free markets had to do with economics.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
>
> >>>> Do you define "free trade" as "Free Trade"?
>
> >>> I cut a deal with Websters. I don't play daffynition word games
And Websters doesn't out GOP "market" economists as frauds.
> >> That's all you do.
>
> > And Websters
>
> All you do is play juvenile word games. You're not a serious person,
> make no serious contribution.
"You are vexed therefore I am right about you."
-- Nietzsche
Chazwin
> On Aug 15, 10:12 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > So you openly admit that the private sector is the enemy of science.
>
> has come from the private sector over the last 100-200yrs, all based
> on science.
>
> Even gov't funded science relies on the private sector to provide the
> funding and technology to make it possible.
>
> Fred Weiss
Private market forces have produced absolutely NO advances in basic
science and health care innovation.
Wilson Woods
>>>>>>> www.bretcahill.com
>>>>>> Do you define "free trade" as "Free Trade"?
>>>>> I cut a deal with Websters. I don't play daffynition word games
>
> And Websters
All you do is play juvenile word games. You're not a serious person,
make no serious contribution.
>>>> That's all you do.
>>> And Websters
>> All you do is play juvenile word games. You're not a serious person,
>> make no serious contribution.
>
> "You are vexed therefore I am right about you."
Ha ha ha ha ha! Add Nietzsche to the ever-lengthening list of things
you absolutely don't get.
Wilson Woods
>>>>>>>> Shall we review once again the contrast between the gov't funded Union
>>>>>>>> Pacific vs. the privately funded Northern Pacific.?
>>>>>>> Gummint did it first.
>>>>>> And made a mess of it,
>>>>> And helped lead the way for something somewhat more privatized to
>>>>> succeed.
>>>> There was no real connection but I'm not sure you realize the full
>>>> implications of what you are admitting here.
>>>> Careful, Brat. You don't want to be making too many concessions to
>>>> libertoons and Randroids.
>>> You are projecting again. You vilify anyone who disagrees with you on
>>> anything and think I'm the same way.
>>> If Rand says freedom in the marketplace of ideas necessarily precedes
>>> freedom in the marketplace of goods and services, I will agree.
>
>>> Now we just need to get GOP "market" economists to comment on the
>>> matter:
>
>>> www.bretcahill.com
>
>> Question is nonsense.
>
> Are you saying Rand wrote nonsense?
Rand didn't write that nonsense question.
>> Economists ignore it; has no connection to economics.
>
> Ayn Rand believed free markets had to do with economics.
She didn't write your inane nonsense question. You did, based on your
ignorance of markets and economics, and your unwarranted ego.
Wilson Woods
>>>>>>>> Umm...Brat, the wages that exist in a market *are* the market wages.
>>>>>>> If that were true...
>
>>>>> If that were true GOP "market" economists wouldn't be dodgin' The
>>>>> Question
>
>
>>>> The question is junk. It has nothing to do with economics. Economists ignore - not dodge - junk like that.
>
>>> Any Repug economist who raises it
>
>> No economist of any political party pays any attention to it. It's junk.
>
>>>> It has nothing to do with economics.
>
>>> Free marketry doesn't have anything to do with economics?
>
>> The question has nothing to do with free markets or economics.
>
> You dodged the question:
Your follow-on question was equally nonsense.
>> That's why economists rightly ignore it, and you.
>
> "You are vexed therefore I am right about you."
No, not about me. However, *your* crippling vexation about your
question being ignored indicates economists are right in ignoring it.
Herman Rubin
Chazwin <chaz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Aug 15, 4:40=A0pm, Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 15, 10:12=A0am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > So you openly admit that the private sector is the enemy of science.
>> Other than all of the life saving and life enhancing technology which
>> has come from the private sector over the last 100-200yrs, all based
>> on science.
>> Even gov't funded science relies on the private sector to provide the
>> funding and technology to make it possible.
>> Fred Weiss
>Private market forces have produced absolutely NO advances in basic
>science and health care innovation.
On the contrary, most of the advances come from private funding.
It costs close to a billion dollars to bring a new drug to
market; the testing process is that expensive. A drug that
does not make it costs a good fraction of that. Most
antibiotics were found by drug companies.
I am a diabetic. All of the advances in treating diabetes
seem to come from competing pharmaceutical companies.
Also, many of the advances come from doctors using their
brains to use drugs approved by the FDA for certain things
to use them for other things. The FDA does not like that.
Fred Weiss
> Private market forces have produced absolutely NO advances in basic
> science and health care innovation.
Uh, huh.
You mean other than the Pasteur and Salk Institutes, the Mayo Clinic
and Rockefeller University, and the Princeton Institute for Advanced
Study - just to name a few.
There are of course many examples among private profit-making
companies as compared to private non-profits. For example, "In the
early 1940s, a Merck chemist synthesized cortisone from ox bile, which
led to the discovery of cortisone's anti-inflammation properties. In
1943, streptomycin, a revolutionary antibiotic used for tuberculosis
and other infections, was isolated by a Merck scientist."
Or, Syntex Corp.'s work on the birth control pill.
It would be too tiresome to make a list of even just the top
discoveries.
But any such list would be incomplete without mentioning the discovery
and widespread distribution of the Salk Polio vaccine which was
entirely funded by the fully private March of Dimes.
You know, Chazz my friend, all your yapping about free medical care
would have no point except for the medical discoveries and innovations
produced by private individuals, institutions, and companies - made
possible by the extraordinary prosperity of capitalism - which make
possible the very care you now DEMAND as yours by right. Prior to
these discoveries and innovations - toward which you have contributed
NOTHING - you could have screamed all you wanted about free medical
care, but it wouldn't and couldn't have amounted to much.
Fred Weiss
John Stafford
<e4caebf9-94e1-4670...@d23g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
Fred Weiss <fred...@papertig.com> wrote:
> On Sep 18, 11:46�am, Chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Private market forces have produced absolutely NO advances in basic
> > science and health care innovation.
>
> Uh, huh.
>
> You mean other than the Pasteur and Salk Institutes, the Mayo Clinic
> and Rockefeller University, and the Princeton Institute for Advanced
> Study - just to name a few.
I know there are plenty of private firms who have introduced helpful
innovations, but please note that The Mayo and the Salk Institute also
enjoy the status of educational facilities.
Joe
> On 2009-08-15 08:40:55 -0400, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> said:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Why scientists are seldom Republicans
>
> >> By Robyn E. Blumner, Times Columnist
>
> >> Have you ever wondered what the world would be like without
> >> scientists?
>
> >> Ask the Republican Party.
>
> >> It lives in such a world.
>
> >> Republicans have been so successful in driving out of their party
> >> anyone who endeavors in scientific inquiry that pretty soon there
> >> won't be anyone left who can distinguish a periodic table from a
> >> kitchen table.
>
> >> meetings on health care reform are so gullible, willing to believe
> >> absurd claims like the coming of "death panels."
>
> >> Their party is nearly devoid of neuroscientists, astrophysicists,
> >> marine biologists or any other scientific professional who would
> >> insist on intellectual rigor, objective evidence and sound reasoning
> >> as the basis for public policy development.
>
> >> The people left don't have that kind of discipline and don't expect it
> >> from their leaders.
>
> >> cable show or pulpit tells them, no matter how outlandish.
>
> >> while the other party attempts to obstruct them.
>
> >> Global warming is a prime example.
>
> >> Earth is under siege by CO2 emissions to a point that the Pentagon is
> >> warning that our national security is at risk if climate change is not
> >> arrested.
>
> >> All Americans and politicians should be united for collective action.
>
> >> Yet George Bush spent essentially his entire presidency ignoring and
> >> suppressing scientific concerns.
>
> >> Even today, with the effects of global warming evident, Republicans in
> >> Congress are trying to bury the cap-and-trade energy bill, the
> >> nation's first attempt (albeit not strong enough) to limit greenhouse
> >> gas emissions.
>
> >> Their alternative is to offer nothing.
>
> >> Why are they so blind to the looming crisis?
>
> >> Because to embrace what scientists are saying about global warming
> >> would give political liberals a win, something the GOP leadership is
> >> not wont to do.
>
> >> Republicans build their political careers disdaining "elitists" with a
> >> good education, complex charts and empirical data.
>
> >> They see it to their political advantage to rally people to distrust
> >> science.
>
> >> That means our nation is only likely to advance to meet the heady
> >> advancements that translate directly into economic progress and rising
> >> majorities.
>
> >> But if the nation's economic situation doesn't turn around soon, a GOP
> >> resurgence could very well come.
>
> >> Then scientists will once again be on the defensive against a
> >> Republican Party that left them behind in favor of the Tea Party
> >> crowd, the birthers, and the people who shout at town halls that
> >> government better keep its hands off their Medicare.
>
> >> Theirs is a world without scientists, and scary doesn't begin to
> >> describe it.
>
> >> ______________________________________________________
>
> > The GOP is servitude to the corp. master, not Reason. Repugliar
> > economists are baffled by even the most basic logic.
>
> >www.bretcahill.com
>
> > So how are they going to do math?
>
> > And if they cannot do math, then how can they do anything in science?
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> > "Math is applied logic."
>
> > -- Nietzsche
>
> Scientists are not republicans fer 1 major reason, the same reason NEA
> members aren't, they live on the public dole fer research grants,
> salaries and benefits and will support whichever little whore (The
>
> - Show quoted text -
Scientist aren't republicans because they apply reason to solve
problems whereas many republicans are now right wing religious kooks
that believe in superstition over science. Scientist are far more
productive in creating wealth, all you have to do is look at how many
jobs venture capital funded companies have created which often come
from academic ideas.
Rock Brentwood
> From The St. Petersburg Times...
The mass media -- be it talk radio, newspapers, real TV, cable TV, are
dangerously obsolete and have no relevance to this world.
Regurgitating their content here or the content of any other Old Media
is a slap on the face of Cyberspace and the Netizens of this world
(i.e. the majority of the inhabitants of the world).
As usual, they always get everything wrong. The discussion in the
article bears little or no resemblance to what's really going on.
First, this isn't a "conservative" thing. It's not even "conservative
vs. liberal" in the first place. This labelling is a propaganda ploy
by those who are still stuck in the ancient (1960's) mode of thought
of divving up the land between them amongst each other as Left and
Right.
In fact, the underlying issue that is driving (i.e. the discontent of
the past 30 years on the insolvency issue) has already led to the call
for the Second Constitutional Convention -- which 32 states have
already ratified. This call was led back into the 1970's and needs
only 2 more states for it to be enacted.
Number one, the mere framing of the "divide" as conservative vs.
liberal is, itself, nothing more than a Kabuki dance of a ploy. The
very divide is outmoded and is itself the shibboleth of the real
divide, which nowadays is "front vs. back" and cuts horizontally
across left and right. More explicitly, front and back correspond
respectively to what Toffler referred to as Third Wave and Second
Wave.
The Future Shock/Third Wave/Powershift/Revolutionary Wealth
quadrilogy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Wealth
The so-called conservatives and liberals are engaging in this pseudo-
debate in a quiet and tacit agreement to monopolize the airwaves and
debate floor to drown out the voices of the emergent Third Wave
civilization.
They're on the same side of the real divide -- this one.
What's going on now is not a question nor has it ever been one of any
kind of "conservative backlash", any more than it was a quesiton of
"liberal backlash" (on the very same issue, no less) just a few years
before.
That's nothing more than a ploy to keep everyone from being able to
attack the real issue -- the growing insolvency of the United States
and the obsolescence of this and all other institutions borne of the
Second Wave.
First, you have the Liberal wing of the conserviliberals with their
(now standard) talking point: "you guys over on the [sic] other side
can't complain about insolvency anymore because you've spent us into
oblivion", while the Conservative wing of the conserviliberals are now
saying the very same thing.
Very convenient. Anyone who complains about insolvency is labelled
either an extreme right-winger (if the critic is of the left half of
the conserviliberals) or anti-Bush (if the critic is of the right
half).
Very convenient.
The facts are these: the United States has gone deeper into debt every
single year since 1959. This is by the account of the only numbers
that count -- those published regularly by the Bureau of Public Debt.
The so-called "surplus' is nothing more than a talking point nowadays
used by the liberal half of the conservative liberals to throw down
all those who they would railroad into being pro-Bush, if they dare
speak up about the public debt.
There was no surplus. The best that the US did at the end of the
1990's was to *almost* break even. Even in its best year, it STILL
went deeper into debt -- albeit by only a few million.
Whatever lies behind the growing debt has nothing to do with party
divide and ideology. This much should be clear to you or anyone else:
for, in the past 50 years, you have seen every combination of
conservative and liberal dominance in Congress, the Supreme Court and
the Presidency; and yet in each and every case, the Debt has continued
to skyrocket upwards.
Bret Cahill wrote:
> It is no wonder the Republican throngs showing up to disrupt town hall
> meetings on health care reform are so gullible, willing to believe
> absurd claims like the coming of "death panels."
This is little more than the mass media (itself the paragon Second
Wave institution) trying to poison the well -- and the unfortunate few
who actually listen to TV news, cable, talk radio or read newspapers,
playing along with it. In fact, the real issue goes far beyond the
vagaries of this or any other particular issue and boils down to this:
in the United States at present, the most important life-altering
decisions regarding how this society is to be run and governed, and
how its money is to be collected and spent, lies in the voting
decisions of a mere 400 some-odd individuals.
Whether they are elected every 2 years at a voting booth or not is
irrelevant. The chief point is that you have a decision-making
bottleneck which is completely untenable -- a 700,000 to 1 ratio. Each
person is -- what in times of old -- would have been the equivalent of
a monarch presiding over an entire nation; since that was the size of
nations in the past. It doesn't matter that they are elected every
term. Even the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire was elected (by an
electoral college, no less).What matters is that functionally this can
only be and only operate as a completely undemocratic oligarchy.
The alternatives being presented in the current debate are the equally
unpalatable Plutocracy by the rich (hooking everyone into a permanent
Life Tax -- i.e. $1000/year just for being alive or otherwise forced
purchase of a policy from one of the members of the corporate elite)
or a top-down centrally planned or centrally-run Socialist state; or a
combination thereof (the unholy union of mandated insurance and an
increase of socialism. In case anyone's forgotten, Social Security and
Medicare originated from the party platform of the Socialist party in
the 1920's).
In both cases, there are the further growth of institutions of the
Second Wave; and growth of regulation of everyone's lifes from top-
down.
Whether it be plutocratic or oligarchy, the result and effect is the
same: an undemocratic rule by the elite, with a de facto railroading
of everyone into lifelong serfdom.
The concerns about "death panels" or "government takeover" are merely
unfocused renderings of this deeper sentiment which, itself, runs FAR
more prevalently thoughout the lands -- and the entire world -- as it
has for the past 1/2 century.
Of course, you may be too young to know this or frankly too young to
have a damned clue, thinking that the insolvency (or polarization)
problem are somehow "Bush's fault" or "the last 8 years".
They were, in fact, spoken of in detail by Toffler in 1970 Future
Shock and its 1979 sequel the Third Wave and significantly expanded on
in the 2006 sequel Revolutionary Wealth. It is why you see, for
instance, sections in the Third Wave titled "Political Mausoleum" and
"21st Century Democracy" and why you see the chapter "21st Century
Democracy" headed by an open letter that now reads very much like what
the Tea Party coalition is now being heard to say.
But before you go off on a conserviliberal rant and label Toffler an
"extreme right-winger" (since it's a well-known ploy of the
conserviliberals to railroad everyone who stands outside their fold
into theextremes of one anothers' camp), it bears pointing out that
some of the people who've made use of Toffler's Third Wave range from
the Republicans in Congress under Gingrich to the (ex-)Communists in
China under Deng -- Toffler's compass encircles even the extremes of
both sides and everything between.
The real problem with the de facto oligarchy that Congress has become
(as has all other representative bodies that preside over any other
large state, even states within the US like California) is that with a
2 year term and a 700,000/1 ratio, that yields an average of
60,000,000+ seconds/700,000 people or about 90 seconds/person.
There can be no viable representation at this level. When the Republic
was founded, its population was between 2 million (in 1775) and 10
million (by 1783). In both cases, the ratios were around 100,000/1 or
less -- the scale of what today would be an altermanic district.
(The reason it is still not at this level is that in the 19th century,
a clamp was put on the number of reps. It would have been no good,
even if there had been no such limit in place -- Congress would be
upwards of 5000-10000 members without the limit).
Because of this extreme ratio, the mere decision cast by any vote has
become a blunt instrument that paints an impossibly unreasonable brush
across a wide spectrum of people. This includes pursestring decisions
that require everyone's money (or else which put everyone into debt
and the Treasury in growing danger of default -- as it will be in
soon), while giving them no individual input on where or how that
money is to be spent.
It creates a human bottleneck on one of the most important functions
of the US with no way out. At the top of the bottleneck, the peoples'
right to regress and grievance has to be funnelled tightly to fit the
bottleneck. This leads (and can ONLY lead) to the pooling of
collective redresses in the form of "Special Interest Groups". Thus,
the so-called Special Interest Group issue is not some kind of plague
that's descended upon the land, as politicians would have you believe,
but simply the people trying to exercise their right in the only way
left for them to do.
It is a symptom of the deeper problem of the structure of the Republic
as a representative "democracy" (i.e. popularly validated oligarchy)
having seriously outstripped its original scale.
Any time spent by anyone with representatives over their 90 de facto
quote (more like 10 seconds, when you factor in the time the reps need
for sleep, and for doing ordinary business), is time spent at someone
else's expense. Thus, with the growing pooling of interests in the
central location (Washington) the peoples' mere ability to address
Congress has become virtually impotent. A few lucky people will
occasionally get through, but even this makes the problem worse -- for
any further time spent beyond 90 seconds it yet more at someone else's
expense.
On the other side of the bottleneck you have the representatives'
decisions having to be made on a HUGE number of items such as would be
appropriate for a country the size of 300,000,000 people. This is
humanly impossible. And the job the members of Congress are being sent
to do is equally impossible. All elected representatives are set up
for failure before they even get to Washington.
By virtue of this bottleneck, you have forced expediencies -- reps who
do not and cannot read every detail of the bills they sign into law;
bills pooled together and passed without debate (omnibus bills,
earmarks, etc.) Again, these are not plagues that have suddenly
descended upon the land, but forced expediencies made necessary by the
ever-tightening bottleneck.
Because of the bottleneck, there is now a de facto disconnect between
those who make the decisions on how to spend everyone's money, and
those who actually pay. This leads inevitably to the two mutually
contradictory opposing forces which tear apart the financial solvency
of the Republic at its seams: the unrelenting resistance against
giving away any more taxes (which now take up 50% of what you make, on
average, where formerly it was more like 10%) and the equal resistance
against having any benefits cut (e.g. Social Security).
The result is that even in the best of times, under the best possible
conditions (e.g. 1999-2000) the country will STILL continue to go
deeper into debt. The Debt is permanent, and the Republic is
structurally unsound and structurally insolvent.
Two ways you can tell that this is an emergent problem of scale is
that (a) it started becoming prevalent during the population boom of
the 19th century, and with the further continuing increase in
population, the number of years in which the Debt has gone up has
become larger and larger relative to the number of years where the
Debt has gone down. Now it's at the point where it's every single year
since 1959 -- 50 consecutive years of growing Debt; (b) the state
afflicted the most by the insolvency problem is predictably enough the
largest state -- California; now going on 10 years' insolvency.
Consequently, it means that Texas, Florida and New York (as well as
Illinois) are shortly to follow.
The underlying cause of the problem afflicting these lands (as well as
others throughout the world) is its very structuring as an ancient
(i.e. 18th-20th century) representative "democracy" (now: oligarchy).
At the center of this problem is the Bottleneck. And the focal point
of this bottleneck is Congress.
By "is Congress" I mean "is the very existence of Congress". Whatever
solution there emerges to the insolvency and bottleneck issues must
necessarily involve Congress to no longer exist (nor for any other
oligrarchic or plutocratic arrangement), for its purse-string powers
to be revoked and brought directly back into the hands of the
individual -- not through the mediation of representatives, but
DIRECTLY.
We no longer live in a world in which representative governments are
viable. And we no longer live in a world, in which any such government
is NEEDED.
Rock Brentwood
> Semantic abuse in the service of aberrant reason.
This has nothing to do with anything you're replying to and is
therefore irrelevant.
> Right-granting resides within the domain of prevailing cultural norms.
THIS is semantic abuse in the service of aberrant reason.
There is no God. It's used as a rhetorical device that means
Birthright. It means you're born with your rights.
Nobody gives you the rights you have. They are yours from birth.
> Rights granted by imaginary beings reside within the imagination.
... "rights granted by imaginary beings reside within the imagination"
is the shibboleth of those who think that rights are granted by non-
imaginary Earthly authorities who equally have the authority to take
them away (i.e. the shibboleth of those advocate of dictatorship or
totalitarianism, as Androcles pointed out).
Just try to take them away and see what happens. Wars are fought, with
justification, over issues less serious than this.
Bret Cahill
> >>>>>>> If that were true...
> >>>>> If that were true GOP "market" economists wouldn't be dodgin' The
> >>>>> Question
> > [nonsense question reference snipped]
You cannot censor The Question:
. . .
> >> The question has nothing to do with free markets or economics.
Are you saying free markets have nothing to do with free markets?
. . .
> >> That's why economists rightly ignore it, and you.
> > "You are vexed therefore I am right about you."
-- Nietzsche.
> No, not about me.
Don't deny it. You are vexed because you want to censor The Question.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> >>>>>>>> Pacific vs. the privately funded Northern Pacific.?
> >>>>>>> Gummint did it first.
> >>>>>> And made a mess of it,
> >>>>> And helped lead the way for something somewhat more privatized to
> >>>>> succeed.
> >>>> There was no real connection but I'm not sure you realize the full
> >>>> implications of what you are admitting here.
> >>>> Careful, Brat. You don't want to be making too many concessions to
> >>>> libertoons and Randroids.
> >>> You are projecting again. You vilify anyone who disagrees with you on
> >>> anything and think I'm the same way.
> >>> If Rand says freedom in the marketplace of ideas necessarily precedes
> >>> freedom in the marketplace of goods and services, I will agree.
> >>> Now we just need to get GOP "market" economists to comment on the
> >>> matter:
>
> >>> www.bretcahill.com
> >> Question is nonsense.
> > Are you saying Rand wrote nonsense?
> Rand didn't write that nonsense question.
No but she addressed the issue.
See the Ayn Rand Letter.
Bret Cahill
Angelo Campanella
> vs. liberal" in the first place. This labelling is a propaganda ploy
> by those who are still stuck in the ancient (1960's) mode of thought
> of divving up the land between them amongst each other as Left and
> Right.
> the past 30 years on the insolvency issue)
> for the Second Constitutional Convention -- which 32 states have
> already ratified. This call was led back into the 1970's and needs
> only 2 more states for it to be enacted.
> liberal is, itself, nothing more than a Kabuki dance of a ploy. The
> very divide is outmoded
> divide, which nowadays is "front vs. back" and cuts horizontally
> across left and right. More explicitly, front and back correspond
> respectively to what Toffler referred to as Third Wave and Second
> Wave.
> The Future Shock/Third Wave/Powershift/Revolutionary Wealth
> quadrilogy:
>
> debate in a quiet and tacit agreement to monopolize the airwaves and
> debate floor to drown out the voices of the emergent Third Wave
> civilization.
> kind of "conservative backlash", any more than it was a quesiton of
> "liberal backlash" (on the very same issue, no less) just a few years
> before.
> attack the real issue -- the growing insolvency of the United States
> and the obsolescence of this and all other institutions borne of the
> Second Wave.
> (now standard) talking point: "you guys over on the [sic] other side
> can't complain about insolvency anymore because you've spent us into
> oblivion", while the Conservative wing of the conserviliberals are now
> saying the very same thing.
> either an extreme right-winger (if the critic is of the left half of
> the conserviliberals) or anti-Bush (if the critic is of the right
> half).
> Very convenient.
> The facts are these: the United States has gone deeper into debt every
> single year since 1959. This is by the account of the only numbers
> that count -- those published regularly by the Bureau of Public Debt.
> The so-called "surplus' is nothing more than a talking point nowadays
> used by the liberal half of the conservative liberals to throw down
> all those who they would railroad into being pro-Bush, if they dare
> speak up about the public debt.
> There was no surplus. The best that the US did at the end of the
> 1990's was to *almost* break even. Even in its best year, it STILL
> went deeper into debt -- albeit by only a few million.
> Whatever lies behind the growing debt has nothing to do with party
> divide and ideology. This much should be clear to you or anyone else:
> for, in the past 50 years, you have seen every combination of
> conservative and liberal dominance in Congress, the Supreme Court and
> the Presidency; and yet in each and every case, the Debt has continued
> to skyrocket upwards.
> Bret Cahill wrote:
>> It is no wonder the Republican throngs showing up to disrupt town hall
>> meetings on health care reform are so gullible, willing to believe
>> absurd claims like the coming of "death panels."
> This is little more than the mass media (itself the paragon Second
> Wave institution) trying to poison the well -- and the unfortunate few
> who actually listen to TV news, cable, talk radio or read newspapers,
> playing along with it. In fact, the real issue goes far beyond the
> vagaries of this or any other particular issue and boils down to this:
> in the United States at present, the most important life-altering
> decisions regarding how this society is to be run and governed, and
> how its money is to be collected and spent, lies in the voting
> decisions of a mere 400 some-odd individuals.
> irrelevant. The chief point is that you have a decision-making
> bottleneck which is completely untenable -- a 700,000 to 1 ratio. Each
> person is -- what in times of old -- would have been the equivalent of
> a monarch presiding over an entire nation; since that was the size of
> nations in the past. It doesn't matter that they are elected every
> term. Even the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire was elected (by an
> electoral college, no less).What matters is that functionally this can
> only be and only operate as a completely undemocratic oligarchy.
> The alternatives being presented in the current debate are the equally
> unpalatable Plutocracy by the rich (hooking everyone into a permanent
> Life Tax -- i.e. $1000/year just for being alive or otherwise forced
> purchase of a policy from one of the members of the corporate elite)
> or a top-down centrally planned or centrally-run Socialist state; or a
> combination thereof (the unholy union of mandated insurance and an
> increase of socialism. In case anyone's forgotten, Social Security and
> Medicare originated from the party platform of the Socialist party in
> the 1920's).
>
> In both cases, there are the further growth of institutions of the
> Second Wave; and growth of regulation of everyone's lifes from top-
> down.
> same: an undemocratic rule by the elite, with a de facto railroading
> of everyone into lifelong serfdom.
> The concerns about "death panels" or "government takeover" are merely
> unfocused renderings of this deeper sentiment which, itself, runs FAR
> more prevalently thoughout the lands -- and the entire world -- as it
> has for the past 1/2 century.
>
> Of course, you may be too young to know this or frankly too young to
> have a damned clue, thinking that the insolvency (or polarization)
> problem are somehow "Bush's fault" or "the last 8 years".
> They were, in fact, spoken of in detail by Toffler in 1970 Future
> Shock and its 1979 sequel the Third Wave and significantly expanded on
> in the 2006 sequel Revolutionary Wealth. It is why you see, for
> instance, sections in the Third Wave titled "Political Mausoleum" and
> "21st Century Democracy" and why you see the chapter "21st Century
> Democracy" headed by an open letter that now reads very much like what
> the Tea Party coalition is now being heard to say.
>
> But before you go off on a conserviliberal rant and label Toffler an
> "extreme right-winger" (since it's a well-known ploy of the
> conserviliberals to railroad everyone who stands outside their fold
> into theextremes of one anothers' camp), it bears pointing out that
> some of the people who've made use of Toffler's Third Wave range from
> the Republicans in Congress under Gingrich to the (ex-)Communists in
> China under Deng -- Toffler's compass encircles even the extremes of
> both sides and everything between.
>
> The real problem with the de facto oligarchy that Congress has become
> (as has all other representative bodies that preside over any other
> large state, even states within the US like California) is that with a
> 2 year term and a 700,000/1 ratio, that yields an average of
> 60,000,000+ seconds/700,000 people or about 90 seconds/person.
Wilson Woods
>>>>>>>>>> Umm...Brat, the wages that exist in a market *are* the market wages.
>>>>>>>>> If that were true...
>
>>>>>>> If that were true GOP "market" economists wouldn't be dodgin' The
>>>>>>> Question
>
>>> [nonsense question reference snipped]
>
> You cannot censor The Question:
No one trying to "censor" it. It is universally ignored, because it is
nonsense.
>
>
>>>> The question has nothing to do with free markets or economics.
>
> Are you saying free markets have nothing to do with free markets?
The question has nothing to do with economics. That's what I'm saying.
>
>>>> That's why economists rightly ignore it, and you.
>
>>> "You are vexed therefore I am right about you."
>
> -- Nietzsche.
>
>> No, not about me.
>
> Don't deny it. You are vexed because you want to censor The Question.
Ignoring your content-free question is not censoring it. It's junk.
Wilson Woods
No, she didn't.
Wilson Woods
>>>>>>>>>> Umm...Brat, the wages that exist in a market *are* the market wages.
>>>>>>>>> If that were true...
>
>>>>>>> If that were true GOP "market" economists wouldn't be dodgin' The
>>>>>>> Question
>
>>> [nonsense question reference snipped]
>
> You cannot censor The Question:
The question is nonsense. It has nothing to do with economics.
>
>>>> The question has nothing to do with free markets or economics.
>
> Are you saying
I'm saying the nonsensical question has nothing to do with free markets
or economics.
>>>> That's why economists rightly ignore it, and you.
>
>>>
>
>> No, not about me.
>
> Don't deny it.
Nothing to deny.
Your question is nonsense. Economists aren't even aware of it, and
would ignore it even if they were.
Wilson Woods
No, she didn't.
marc
> marc wrote:
>> Semantic abuse in the service of aberrant reason.
> This has nothing to do with anything you're replying to and is
> therefore irrelevant.
>
would be irrelevant. However, the import of its relevance was not
diminished by your failure to grasp it.
>> Right-granting resides within the domain of prevailing cultural norms.
>
> THIS is semantic abuse in the service of aberrant reason.
It is a concise statement of the obvious, except for those unable to
distinguish the difference between the ontological status of human
concocted abstractions and the external world.
> There is no God. It's used as a rhetorical device that means
> Birthright. It means you're born with your rights.
>
> Nobody gives you the rights you have. They are yours from birth.
>
>> Rights granted by imaginary beings reside within the imagination.
>
> ... "rights granted by imaginary beings reside within the imagination"
> is the shibboleth of those who think that rights are granted by non-
> imaginary Earthly authorities who equally have the authority to take
> them away (i.e. the shibboleth of those advocate of dictatorship or
> totalitarianism, as Androcles pointed out).
>
> Just try to take them away and see what happens. Wars are fought, with
> justification, over issues less serious than this.
See above - right-granting resides within the domain of prevailing
cultural norms. Different cultures have different ideas on what rights
are and indeed different groups within the same culture have different
ideas on what the rights are. Those with different ideas from the
prevailing cultural norms about what rights should be can and do work to
influence their cultures (and other cultures for that matter) to adopt
and thereby grant their version of rights so that these rights become
culturally accepted as the norm.
Many if not most people in first world countries choose to believe that
(their version of) rights are somehow inalienable to man and hence can
neither be granted nor rescinded by any authority. Indeed, I seem to
recall some historical document that made such an arbitrary assertion,
although if am I not mistaken that particular arbitrary assertion was
predicated on some other arbitrary assertion about rights being given by
some imaginary being.
If there is broad consensus on what rights should be then it is
beneficial to treat them as if they were inalienable to help preserve
and protect them. However, in reality treating them as such would be a
(albeit probably very desirable) fiction. If rights are not culturally
enshrined or indeed are culturally suppressed, then the existential
reality is that those rights do not exist other than as belief-fuelled
aspiration and will only come to exist when culturally granted, either
explicitly through formal cultural machinery or progressively through
diverse cultural assimilation.
Marc