Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Dinosaurs on Noahs Ark

Tim. People with pots of dough can spend enough of it to convince other people they need to vote for them. This is what always happens in democracies. I agree with Ellis that two party systems are much easier to manipulate than are multi party systems. That's why the conservatives in NZ are working so actively to return us to a two party system. Personally I think every country in the world should adopt the NZ system. I'm pleased with it although it looks very much as if the conservatives will get an absolute majority here in the next election.

But on topic again. Perhaps G. W. Caesar is a dinosaur and dinosaurs voted for him.

"Perhaps G. W. Caesar is a dinosaur and dinosaurs voted for him."
That, Terry, is an exemplary economy of words. Why didn't I think of that? T.rex in sheep's clothing.

This is related the posts above:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-kaplan/i-believe-for-every-drop-_b_55753.html

"This "belief" thing runs alarmingly deep. In his [G.W.Bush] Cleveland speech, he said "I believe" 75 times"

"I can't help thinking that it's not just a rhetorical tic. In Bush's faith-based epistemology, the strongest possible justification for any action he takes is that he believes in it. Not that it's true; not that it's supported by evidence; not that it's consistent with the Constitution; not that it enforces the law; not that it's desired by the vast majority of the American people -- but that, like the Nicene Creed, he believes it"

"The truth is that the President has aggressively theologized policy differences"

"...what Bush possesses is a narcissism that he markets as a civic religion. He believes he was elected as the Defender of the Faith, and that it is we who are accountable to him, rather than he who is accountable to us."

"It was Thomas Jefferson who best described what's most pernicious about belief-based leadership: 'It is always better to have no ideas than false ones; to believe nothing, than to believe what is wrong.'"

I still do not understand why people do not like Bush. The mere fact that there are so many people actively and overtly disagreeing with him proves his democratic ideas. If he was a T. Rex Cesar, dissedents would not be permitted in the government. That is how you can test a democracy, see how many different opinions are out there on various issues. A paradigm, which the liberals do not notice since their quest on "reason" and not "beleif."
Yes, his ratings are low, as are the Democratic-led Congress. But that would prove his openess in politics, setting a circle that many do not see. Perhaps this is in our evolutionary nature of survival of the fittest to disagree with everything, even in disagreement. The Iraq war is justified for a small defeat will be countered with a grand victory. I would think man would have learned after Vietnam what to do in the mud, for instead of eliminating it, they quickly get out, leaving thousands more to fall. Why I support Bush (aka Ceasar as one called him) is that he is open to the truth. History will agree with that. Instad of letting the terrorists -whose intent is to destroy Israel, Europe, and the United States- acheiving their goals, he takes a minimal defeat now to counter the large one later.
That is how reasonably and scientifically it makes sense. The liberals would have a good case if it wasn't for the circular motion the conservatives take it in. They are blind to the truth, progressing the circle furthur.
Ann Coulter has an article similar to this:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/20070704/cm_ucac/studiesshowfelonssmarterthanliberals

A grand victory for whom?

Tim: "I would think man would have learned after Vietnam"

Perhaps humankind never will learn - that there's nothing glorious in war. There remains the eagerness for the most gross and hideous violence, and a total disregard for the sanctity of life. Is that the lesson that Christians learn from the teachings of Jesus? The Old Testament bloodlust has survived the Sermon on the Mount.

Tim. Study the reasons why Julius Caesar invaded Gaul and see if there are any similarities with Gorse W. Caesar and his friends' justification for the Iraqi invasion. History has an interesting habit of repeating itself. A quick look at Persia and Rome may also be informative.

Tim: "I still do not understand why people do not like Bush."

Many reasons. Here are a couple of biggies:

"A British minister suggested a shift in foreign policy away from the United States, telling an audience in Washington that a country's strength depended on making global alliances rather than military might."

"In a speech late on Thursday, International Development Secretary Douglas Alexander said while Britain stood beside the United States in fighting terrorism, isolationism did not work in an interdependent world."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070713/ts_nm/britain_usa_dc_2;_ylt=AgrwnIFIfnuqouYXpIDGylOEDvII [13-07-2007]
___________

A slight thread detour - here's the kind of truth, refuted by creationists, that scientists offer for the good of everyone:

Professor Salzberg (director of the Center for Bioinformatics and Computational Biology at the University of Maryland and lead author of a recent study that sequenced the genomes of more than 200 human influenza viruses) argues that creationists of various kinds, including proponents of ID, commit a very dangerous disservice to the well being of people in trying to downplay the teaching of evolution and undermine people's trust in it by casting doubts on the fact of evolution. This creationist activity is especially sinister in view of the hazards of new viral and microbial pandemics, including the avian flew and other ever-reemerging viral infections, which can be successfully fought only based on the concepts of evolutionary biology.

Bush, the Flu and Evolution -- by Steven Salzberg, Ph.D. (Nov 2005)

http://newswire.ascribe.org/cgi-bin/behold.pl?ascribeid=20051117.073638

"Why has the debate about evolution re-emerged? Perhaps it is because few people see the obvious effects of evolution that geneticists and evolutionary biologists see every day. Consider the influenza virus. Like many viruses, it mutates very fast, creating many slightly different strains that compete to see which ones can infect their host most efficiently. Each year we create a new flu vaccine, which although not perfect is very effective. Why do we need a new vaccine every year? In a word, evolution. Each year the flu accumulates many mutations, and some of those mutations allow it to avoid the vaccine. These resistant strains quickly take over - that's what Darwin meant by phrase "natural selection" - and become next year's flu strain. The same thing happens with bacteria, and this is why our over-use of antibiotics - in animal feed, hand soaps, and a growing number of other products - is hastening the evolution of frightening new antibiotic-resistant bacteria."

Those two quotes do not make any sense. The mere facet of the first one is cynical, and requires one to circle in thinking, which could be true if something else was true along with it.

"Why do we need a new baccine every year? In a word, evolution."
Yes, one could argue that, along with our over-use of antibiotics. But what I am trying to figure out is what that has to do with Bush.

"Isolationism did not work in an interdependent world."
I do not quite get that part. Is that saying that Britain is isolationist, or the United States? Because in both cases, there is a strong case to disprove that.

Tim,

Let me start by saying that I dislike talking about politics and I disapprove of anyone using science to prop up their personal politics or morality.

I completely leave aside the point that I personally despise Bush. Whom I love or loathe is irrelevant.

That said, I think the point that George Bush is elected is not entirely the full story. Yes, we collectively, voted for him. However, he is making decisions on a global scale that will effect the progeny of many, many nations for many decades to come. There are a whole lot of people in the world who did not vote for GW.

I don't think he is competent and I think he and some of his allies are a bunch of bullies. That is also irrelevant to a science forum. The fact that my fellow americans could TWICE vote for such a goober fills me with shame and imbues me with an unshakable depression. Also irrelevant to a science forum.

My opinion is not directly related to a war in Iraq which I could have supported even on such scant evidence as was supplied were it not that .... well, it's all irrelevant.

This guy - these guys - may 'listen' to others, but they don't pay attention. They pick and choose among the voices in the crowd - oil companies deciding national oil policy; tossing out CIA reports till they find one that supports what they want to believe; contradicting what his own science adviser says about evolution; firing an army chief of staff (Shinseki) who gives him an answer he doesn't like and overlooking his peers to bring on a former AF 4-star (Schoonmaker, a brilliant man, but with no experience to judge ground issues) to oversee the army; ignoring the best counsel of close allies and long-forged and hard-wrought friendships to forge a coalition of the willing. His selective use of 'information' is so infuriating, so contrary to the spirit of scientific inquiry, so utterly asinine that it's barely possible to hold one's head up.

I won't write another post on the topic of Bush unless it is sufficiently related to science, but I wanted to lay out a few things that have been bugging me.

I agree with TFF's remarks above. However, it's not easy to separate politics any other aspect of society - it seems to find its way into everything. Bush has been a major influence in undermining science, and seems to value it mainly for its potential to develop the most efficient war machines.

Tim: "The mere facet of the first one is cynical, and requires one to circle in thinking, which could be true if something else was true along with it."

Perhaps you might rephrase that in terms that even I can understand?

Tim: "I do not quite get that part. Is that saying that Britain is isolationist, or the United States...?"

Tim, you will notice that Britain has no wish to pursue an isolationist route. The British people objected to Mr. Blair's complicity with Bush's foreign policies, to the extent that he was compelled to leave office. I predict that you will see, with Mr. Brown as the new British PM, significant changes in UK foreign policy.

"...Because in both cases, there is a strong case to disprove that"

It doesn't much matter what you and I may think about the issue. What does matter is the reality that unfolds, and the consequenses, not only for your country, but for the world.
__________

Tim: "I would think man would have learned after Vietnam"

Perhaps humankind never will learn - that there's nothing glorious in war. There remains the eagerness for the most gross and hideous violence, and a total disregard for the sanctity of life. Is that the lesson that Christians learn from the teachings of Jesus? The Old Testament bloodlust has survived the Sermon on the Mount.

Your comments would be welcome.
__________

Tim: "Yes, one could argue that, along with our over-use of antibiotics..."

I recommend that you read the article and do some research, if you can find time. It's a solid case, not simply a matter of "one could argue that".

From the article:

"Scientists in my lab and others can tell you that developing a vaccine for the flu absolutely requires that we understand its evolution. We can also tell you that the flu doesn't "care" if we believe in evolution. It will keep evolving anyway, and it will kill us if we ignore it."

Tim: "But what I am trying to figure out is what that has to do with Bush."

I suggest that you follow the link and read the article. That's where you'll find the answer to your question. Mr. Bush's has shown evidence of failure to distinguish science from religion.

I read the article, which was very well-written. But there was one thing that caught my eye: "Another recent poll revealed that less than half of the U.S. population knows that the earth revolves around the sun."
I would doubt that poll's authority. Perhaps it was a small pool intended for school-aged children, because I know that in my local area practicaly all beleive that the earth revolves around the sun.

" Let's drop the artificial debate about evolution and intelligent design and teach our children what science really is. Let's teach them that science requires a skeptical mind and that scientific theories must be supported by objective facts. If we want to teach children about scientific debates, let's pick a real debate - there are plenty of them - rather than an artificial one. And let's equip the next generation of scientists to bring us new cures and new technology, rather than burying our heads in the sand."
Fine piece of advice, I respect that. I wish that more would take his advice to heart. But still I did not see anything condeming Bush in that article, in fact he claimed that Bush spent "more than seven billion dollars."

Tim: "I would doubt that poll's authority."

Yes, that also caught my eye. I put it down to the frustrated scientist sick of knocking his head against a wall of ignorance. It does let down an otherwise good article, and I guess it belies the idea that scientists are nothing more than emotionless robots

Tim: "But still I did not see anything condeming Bush in that article, in fact he claimed that Bush spent "more than seven billion dollars." "

Yes, you're quite right, that's the only direct reference to Mr. Bush. However, the entire essay concerns the debate regarding the validity of darwninan evolution v. ID as science. Since Mr. Bush, possibly the most influential voice in the US, gave verbal support for the teaching of both in the science classroom, the whole essay relates to him.

The $7 billion expenditure was, indeed, proposed by Bush. Maybe that's an indication that he's not as foolish as many suspect.

I tend to agree with TFF that:

"I disapprove of anyone using science to prop up their personal politics or morality."

But, like Redewenur, I accept politics and science are inseparable parts of life. Because of that I feel compelled to reply to one of Tim's comments:

"Instead of letting the terrorists -whose intent is to destroy Israel, Europe, and the United States- acheiving their goals"

I suppose it is impossible for you to see that those terrorists are a reaction to US and European imperialist ambitions. Their blind and biased support of Israel, their blind and biased support of several nasty dictators in the Muslim world and their blind and biased efforts to monopolise world trade.

TheFallibleFiend wrote:

"They pick and choose among the voices in the crowd"

It's certainly not my place to advise anyone how to vote but I'd suggest US citizens should not vote for anyone for Congress, the Senate or President unless they promise to investigate whose idea it was to pick and choose the evidence used to support the invasion of Iraq. We know a bunch of porkies was involved, so who made them up? Of course no investigation will ever materialise but just the suggestion of having one may open some citizens' eyes.

I just did a quick google (I believe on "earth" "Sun" and "revolve" and found references to a poll taken in the 90s that showed about 20% of respondents thought the Sun revolved around the Earth. I suspect that's the source of a lot of statements of this type, which I've heard in other places as well.

In my quick look, I didn't see any links to anything like an original or authoritative source, so I'm not bothering to post any. I suspect the poll actually gave results similar to what I describe here, though. Of course that was also in the 90s, and a lot of water has gone under the bridge since then.

"Never confuse with malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

Nice quote! And actually it fits in nicely with the theme "Why do people hate George Bush?" Maybe they are confusing malice with breathtaking incompetency too. It would be too cruel to assume anyone had MEANT this foreign policy mess to happen surely!

Ellis: "It would be too cruel to assume anyone had MEANT this foreign policy mess to happen surely!"

Yes, it's hard to believe, but I recall seeing the ominous clouds of foreboding when I saw Senator Bush campaigning in a bomber jacket. There seems to be plentiful evidence of incompetence, but also much more than that. I think the Caesar analogy is close to the mark, although history tells us that Julius was nothing if not competent. Try Nero.

Sorry I can't make any additional connection with the forum topic, it's just a blatant political comment. It is, however, a comment on behalf of the hundreds of thousands who have died through this "incompetence".

I only steal the best! I believe the original was from Napoleon Bonaparte, but am too lazy to confirm that right now.

In fairness to GWB, I think most of the problems he's created are due to incompetence, arrogance, and cronyism, rather than outright malice.

Redewenur wrote:

"I can't make any additional connection with the forum topic, it's just a blatant political comment".

Sorry. But the relevance for members of SAGG is that the methods of persuasion used to promote the invasion are familiar to anyone who has read creationist literature. The arguments relied on deliberately ignoring vast amounts of conflicting evidence, quoting experts out of context and even deliberately leaving out or changing relevant words. It's not surprising that the greatest support for the invasion still comes from those of us who are used to accepting this form of argument to support other beliefs we might have. In spite of MikeBinOK's signature I think malice was at work in this case.

Now back to science.

Yes, Terry, that's what I should have said.