Alright. I have found that I am not alone in wondering about McCain's almost indifference towards women. His voting record is terrible. He hasn't voted for a single women's issue since he has been in senate including the Equal Work, Equal Pay bill or the bill to force those who cover Viagra to cover contraceptives too. Now they found that terrible joke about a woman enjoying being beaten, raped repeatedly, and left to die by a gorilla. It makes no sense that no one is out screaming in the streets over this. I hate to bring this up again when talking about something McCain said, but if Obama had said this, he would be in more trouble than can be imagined.
His handlers just shrugged it off. I guess this is what really makes me mad. They just said that this shows McCain being McCain. Yeah. That is what I want for president. What is he going to do next? His sad attempts at rumor never seem to get more than half-hearted chuckles from those around him. When he said that the cigarettes we export to Iran might be to kill people, that was bad enough. I could already guess from things he has said that he would be tasteless when it came to his xenophobia, but now he is turning more and more chauvinistic and increasingly xenophobic. I am just waiting for him to call Obama "Boy" next so we can all add bigoted to the list of his characteristics which are pure McCain and reasons for us to make him president. Oh yeah, and he's OLD!!
Friday, July 18
Thursday, July 17
Freedom of Speech vs Scientific Inquiry
As part of the Bill of Rights, we, as citizens of America are given a right to freedom of speech in circumstances where it doesn't infringe on the rights, or safety, of others. The problem we have now is that people are trying to make scientific debates democratic and free-for-all. This is most obvious in contraceptives, evolution, and stem cell research.
The framing of no argument and insertion of no facts after very loudly and forcefully complaining that something is "unproven," a "theory," or just claiming that it is "ridiculous" has somehow given credence to people whose ideas are based on a personal belief supported by a "strict interpretation" of a controversial document with questionable origins and history. This acceptance of these arguments completely baffles me. After studying the arguments I have found that I can almost cut and paste words into their arguments and disprove anything, even their arguments. The problem we have now is that they are claiming to be unheard and ignored when trying to talk to scientists, because they are not worth engaging. If a scientist does confront someone, they are given the win not matter what they do in the argument. I think some of the debates come down to a scientist and someone just standing there saying "God" and "Jesus" and "Bible" over and over.
Scientific Inquiry works off of the presentation of facts and studies and a review of the material presented. The biggest problems with most of these controversies is that when they are criticised, even in a professional manner, the response to the criticism is either to ignore it, insult the person giving it, or the argumentative equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and going, "La, la,la,la,la. La, la, la, la, la." This would not be an issue if they didn't then go crying to people that they are being suppressed by the evil scientists. It is ludicrous.
I just wanted to point this out right now as it has been driving me up the wall for a few days.
The framing of no argument and insertion of no facts after very loudly and forcefully complaining that something is "unproven," a "theory," or just claiming that it is "ridiculous" has somehow given credence to people whose ideas are based on a personal belief supported by a "strict interpretation" of a controversial document with questionable origins and history. This acceptance of these arguments completely baffles me. After studying the arguments I have found that I can almost cut and paste words into their arguments and disprove anything, even their arguments. The problem we have now is that they are claiming to be unheard and ignored when trying to talk to scientists, because they are not worth engaging. If a scientist does confront someone, they are given the win not matter what they do in the argument. I think some of the debates come down to a scientist and someone just standing there saying "God" and "Jesus" and "Bible" over and over.
Scientific Inquiry works off of the presentation of facts and studies and a review of the material presented. The biggest problems with most of these controversies is that when they are criticised, even in a professional manner, the response to the criticism is either to ignore it, insult the person giving it, or the argumentative equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and going, "La, la,la,la,la. La, la, la, la, la." This would not be an issue if they didn't then go crying to people that they are being suppressed by the evil scientists. It is ludicrous.
I just wanted to point this out right now as it has been driving me up the wall for a few days.
Thursday, July 3
The Faith in America
America truly is a nation of faith. I am not talking about any religious faith, though there are many. People in America have faith in more than they think. The monetary system is based on faith. It was taken off the gold standard in 1971 by president Nixon. There is no basis for our currency and with the new computer abilities. We must have faith that the money in our account and that which is direct deposited into our account is really there and really exists. Money trading on the stock market in futures is based on the faith that there will be product in the future. Terry Pratchett has this most graphically shown when he introduces the "pork futures warehouse" where pork-to-be goes backwards in time to the present when it is removed from the warehouse. Often the trading in futures actually shapes the future.
We hold faith that our electoral process works. Even though it is rife with mistakes and fraud, vote caging, and some voter discrimination. We are encouraged to believe that our individual votes count. We are told that it doesn't matter how much money a person has, he or she can become president (supposing they qualify per the constitution). All of this is true for a given value of true. Yes it is possible that each person's vote counts the same or that each of us could become president, but it is fairly unsound. If we were in a political vacuum where ideas were weighed against the constitution and there were no lobbyists then perhaps this would be true, but it really seems to be fluff to keep people content. The greatest example of all of this is the 2000 election where there is evidence that former vice-president Al Gore actually won the election.
The faith in law is a really important one. For the laws to actually regulate anyone and the police to be effective, people have to have a mental check in place to stop them from stepping over the line and breaking the law. This is one place where religion is useful as it has people pre-programmed for this type of thinking with the commands and punishments they teach. I am in no way saying that without religion people would break the law or not follow it. I am simply agreeing, I think it is with Marx, that religion is a way of keeping people docile and happy where they are ("the meek shall inherit the earth" IE keep your head down and don't make trouble). My point is that without mentally accepting the laws, people have no reason to follow them. The number of policemen in areas where people don't hold the laws as a barrier has to be greater than the overall average of policemen in the country. This is why there are problems with some laws and controversy surrounding them. If a law is considered unjust and doesn't fit into peoples mental image of where the boundaries are between law and preference, then we get riots and revolution (tea, anyone?). The faith in the laws and justice system in the country is tantamount to its survival. If people really started questioning the laws and fighting the police, there is no way the police would win, especially when they are outnumbered by their family and friends as well as the country.
In short America is a country of faith.
We hold faith that our electoral process works. Even though it is rife with mistakes and fraud, vote caging, and some voter discrimination. We are encouraged to believe that our individual votes count. We are told that it doesn't matter how much money a person has, he or she can become president (supposing they qualify per the constitution). All of this is true for a given value of true. Yes it is possible that each person's vote counts the same or that each of us could become president, but it is fairly unsound. If we were in a political vacuum where ideas were weighed against the constitution and there were no lobbyists then perhaps this would be true, but it really seems to be fluff to keep people content. The greatest example of all of this is the 2000 election where there is evidence that former vice-president Al Gore actually won the election.
The faith in law is a really important one. For the laws to actually regulate anyone and the police to be effective, people have to have a mental check in place to stop them from stepping over the line and breaking the law. This is one place where religion is useful as it has people pre-programmed for this type of thinking with the commands and punishments they teach. I am in no way saying that without religion people would break the law or not follow it. I am simply agreeing, I think it is with Marx, that religion is a way of keeping people docile and happy where they are ("the meek shall inherit the earth" IE keep your head down and don't make trouble). My point is that without mentally accepting the laws, people have no reason to follow them. The number of policemen in areas where people don't hold the laws as a barrier has to be greater than the overall average of policemen in the country. This is why there are problems with some laws and controversy surrounding them. If a law is considered unjust and doesn't fit into peoples mental image of where the boundaries are between law and preference, then we get riots and revolution (tea, anyone?). The faith in the laws and justice system in the country is tantamount to its survival. If people really started questioning the laws and fighting the police, there is no way the police would win, especially when they are outnumbered by their family and friends as well as the country.
In short America is a country of faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)