Perverting science for politics

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Any geology book, textbook or popular read, will tell you the Canyon itself is five million years old or a little less, and will tell you the age of the Vishnu Schist of the lower Canyon.

There might be such a thing as a young -- comparatively young -- schist. Somebody'd have to tell me about it, though...

Suncrafter, toe-tag Democrats may come by it honestly -- a very elderly New Deal Democrat is a friend of mine -- but they are the opposite of smart. The current crop of national-level Democrats aren't worth a vote nor a dime. They think like Socialists, and they are in too much of a hurry to find a substitute, any substitute, for victory in the War On Terror, which they believe in far less than the terrorists who actually killed some of us.

Expect the Dems to behave in one of two ways, and these only: stupid, or treasonous. Since I am neither, I suggest you join me in voting against the Dem candidates, and funding the campaigns of their opponents. The Republic is more important than any party.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Expect the Dems to behave in one of two ways, and these only: stupid, or treasonous. Since I am neither, I suggest you join me in voting against the Dem candidates, and funding the campaigns of their opponents. The Republic is more important than any party.

No bias there...

We can argue about what party is worse all day long and all you will get is both parties doing the exact same thing but with a slightly different twist. Both parties are power whores that will abuse their power the instant they get it, helping only a select few instead of the majority.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

The Republic is more important than any party.

I actually completely agree with that statement. It's just the train of alleged thought that follows that has me completely mystified.

I also believe that the Republic rests upon the Constitution, and that the rush to achieve perfect safety by weakening that framework is a greater threat to the Republic than any terrorist weapon. I do not agree with men who disparage individuals who disagree with the adminsitration, people who claim that those who refuse to meekly submit to authoritarian demands to abolish or bypass Constitutional guarantees to freedom are the enemies of freedom.

Unlike UG, I will not ask for anyone to join me in opposing all Republicans, just those who abdicate their roles in acting to require that the adminstration seek real advice and consent from Congress.

For a man who declares his love of a Republic, UG acts more like a serf in a fiefdom, looking to his lord to protect and command him.

For a country that prides itself on it's 'citizen soldiers', how did we end up with someone like him?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

My, Rich, speaking of alleged thought...

But I've compared your thinking to Mario Cuomo's before -- how does a guy clearly that bright stay so often wrong? And just where is "serfdom" in rejecting the thrust of a given party's policy habits anyway?

It's the Democratic Party's record that has me disenchanted with them. Intellectually, their socialism is all shoddy goods, unworthy of an intelligent electorate, and relying for its success on an electorate that isn't so intelligent.

The Dem Party has not been selling anything I wanted to buy since 1992 and before. My coming to Libertarianism from reading Murry Rothbard in 1983 has made me particularly resistant to the Dem Party's socialistic trend.

Then there's this party's inability at foreign policy: none of the present lot could win a war, though some few of them could probably start a war. But having started a war, then they flag, and as Ann Coulter remarks, declare that the war, whichever and any, is "unwinnable." Recall how utterly clueless the Clinton Administration was in its use of the military -- sporadic, half thought out activity, pursued halfheartedly, withdrawn muddledly. The last Democratic President to win a war was Truman. All since have uniformly dropped the ball. That's a long time to stay this incapable. Was Coulter right -- does the Democratic Party have a tropism towards treason? Or is this mere incompetence -- or would that be better evidenced by at least half of their decisions redounding in the national favor? John Kerry voted against the Contras, and thus for the good of the Communists -- and that one vote was no anomaly in the man's professional life.

If you want the nation to win, nowadays the choice is a Republican, until such time as we have enough Libertarians who think like I do. This is because a major power's political schools of thought have to be able to exert force when necessary, and have the intellectual and spiritual robustness to see it through. If any should lack this, they lack any prospect of attaining any position of power or influence.

I doubt that any Republicans abdicated any role whatsoever -- for they understood and I hope still understand that there's a mess out there to clean up. The Dems have adopted a posture of abdicating any responsibility to act in the Republic's interest vis-a-vis the anti-democrats that are our foes.

For a country that prides itself on it's 'citizen soldiers', how did we end up with someone like him?

I raised my right hand in 1977 and swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I stayed in a uniform and a short haircut until 1986. It is in considerable measure because of this experience that I speak as I do.

Now how about you, Rich? Did you commit so far -- or did you have "other priorities?"

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

I raised my right hand in 1977 and swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I stayed in a uniform and a short haircut until 1986. It is in considerable measure because of this experience that I speak as I do.

I took the oath in 1978 but I never wore a uniform (ok, maybe once but it was a training exercise). I never enlisted and it is because or in spite of this that I speak as I do. There are many people besides soldiers who take the oath - Public officials, naturalized citizens, some law enforcement.

Even people who never get the chance can still support the Constitution by simply exercising their rights. The Democratic wave in Congress, and the Republican wave that preceded it were examples of the people doing just that.

Being in the military does not give one special insight into the purpose and care of the Constitution. It also does not disqualify one from doing so. The founding fathers, in fact, created the 2nd amendment partially as a response to the creation of a federal standing army. Maybe they thought that it might be a good idea if local militias stood ready in case a group of guys like UG started organizing within the Army.

Recall how utterly clueless the Clinton Administration was in its use of the military -- sporadic, half thought out activity, pursued halfheartedly, withdrawn muddledly.

You do remember that it was Reagan who pulled out of Lebanon after the barracks bombing, right?

As for Clinton, he did pull troops out of Somalia, but he also managed to help successfully prosecute a war in Bosnia with real international support that didn't cost us 300 billion dollars and 3000 lives.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Expect the Dems to behave in one of two ways, and these only: stupid, or treasonous.

And here they come, as I expected.

[tw]

Even Quantum physics (the source of Gb disk drives and new computer memories) is being quashed by the mental midget and his Republican dominated congress. No reason for things to change. From the NY Times of 8 Jan 2007:

Congressional Budget Delay Stymies Scientific Research
Last year, Congress passed just 2 of 11 spending bills — for the military and domestic security — and froze all other federal spending at 2006 levels. Factoring in inflation, the budgets translate into reductions of about 3 percent to 4 percent for most fields of science and engineering.

Representative Rush D. Holt, a New Jersey Democrat and a physicist, said that scientists, in most cases, were likely to see little or no relief. “It’s that bad,” Mr. Holt said. “For this year, it’s going to be belt tightening all around.”

Congressional Democrats said last month that they would not try to finish multiple spending bills left hanging by the departed Republican majority and would instead keep most government agencies operating under their current budgets until next fall. Except for the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security, the government is being financed under a stopgap resolution. It expires Feb. 15, and Democrats said they planned to extend a similar resolution through Sept. 30.

Some Republicans favored not finishing the bills because of automatic savings achieved by forgoing expected spending increases. Democrats and Republicans alike say that operating under current budgets, in some cases with less money, can strap federal agencies and lead to major disruptions in service.

Only a dummy in the spirit of Urbane Guerrilla would approve as if only military and Fatherland Security were important. A classic cost control mentality forgets when we spend $2 Trillion on Iraq - a number that will increase because the mental midget is sending more (and too few) troops to Iraq.

Among the projects at risk is the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at the Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York, on Long Island. The $600 million machine — 2.4 miles in circumference — slams together subatomic particles to recreate conditions at the beginning of time, some 14 billion years ago, so scientists can study the Big Bang theory. It was already operating partly on charitable contributions, ... and now could shut down entirely, ...

Only a president with Urbane intelligence would call that a good thing.

When I was growing up, transistors were the promise of the future. Today, quantum physics is that same future promise.

“Things are pretty miserable for a year in which people talked a lot about regaining our competitive edge,” Dr. Aronson said. “I think all that’s stalled.”

Another potential victim is the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Illinois, where a four-mile-long collider investigates the building blocks of matter. ...

Congress and the Bush administration could restore much of the science financing in the 2008 budget. Scientists say it would help enormously, but add that senior staff members by that point may have already abandoned major projects for other jobs that were more stable.

Other projects ...
A $1.4 billion particle accelerator at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee ...

A $30 million contribution to a global team designing an experimental reactor to fuse atoms ...

A $440 million X-ray machine some two miles long at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center ...

In 2003, Gen Jay Garner accurately reported that we were losing in Iraq. When did you finally see what he knew that long ago? Wars are short term events. Science takes longer. But already American economic development is at risk. Do you see what is happening now, or do you wait for symptoms to become painful. Garner said what was obvious in 2003. And finally in 2007, people are finally 'feeling' reality. The destruction of science - especially to promote George Jr's legacy: finance a man to Mars - is significant and destructive. When does it appear in your pocket? Long after he is gone and famous?

[piercehawkeye45]

Advances in science and technology will help tremendously us in the next couple decades. It is extremely short sited not to invest in these and I'm pretty sure only Bush and his cronies have successfully done that.

[Ibby]

If you hadnt done it from your first post, I'd say you've just lost every bit of respect I have for you.

I still say youre somebody's puppet... at the very least, youve got somebody's hand up your ass.

[Griff]

Wow. You really did link to Ann Coulter. I think you can do better.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Griff

Wow. You really did link to Ann Coulter. I think you can do better.

You might have gone so far as to suggest someone. I'm currently reading Whittaker Chambers -- who was vivid, though now pretty dated. Instructive, though. Then there's William F. Buckley, who is damned near untouchable, and the late Erik von Kuhnelt-Leddihn. Sean Hannity is not yet a powerful social philosopher, but he is improving -- his second book is an improvement over his first, deeper thought and better written.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

You might have gone so far as to suggest someone.

Rothbard

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Griff

Rothbard

I read For A New Liberty, thanks. I found it seminal, though I don't share Rothbard's touching faith in anarchy.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Sean Hannity is not yet a powerful social philosopher, but he is improving -- his second book is an improvement over his first, deeper thought and better written.

Jamie Foxx took a Hollywood film role as a singer. Now suddenly for some reason he thinks he's a serious musician.

Hannity started putting his name on books. You follow the analogy.

[yesman065]

Thats a great read UG - perhaps something can be taken from a little history revisited. Then again these things are like statistics and will be twisted by both sides to make the other look bad. How disfunctional a system we have. Let me make myself look good by making you look bad.