TnT says:
=============
I live in NYC, and if I want, I can travel to California without
getting anyones permission, or carrying papers, and having to bribe
border guards to let me pass. It is trully amazing.
==============

Well, I don't know about amazing. If you and I want to visit (I'm in
Canada), we'd both have to wait in infernal lines at the border and be
subjected to interrogation by boder officials. Our friends in Europe
can travel from, say, Germany, to Holland, to France, to Spain, and
NEVER have to stop at the border. That, to me, is more amazing.

You may have thought my response to comrade Weiser was funny, but he
truly did nicely articulate some socialist truths. Very clearly,
governments, representing the people, have to make some decisions
deemed to be in the strategic interests of the nation. Scott happens to
think corporate welfare to agri-business constitutes such a strategic
interest. I don't know. Only the people of America can be the judge of
that.

However, I challenge all right-wingers who are of like mind (that is,
agree with Scott) to consider that nations which they consider to be
"socialist" may have made similar, democratic and strategic choices.

They may have decided that it is in the nation's strategic interest to
have an educated populace. Consequently they may fund free schools and
universities in a strategic interest. I do not consider it far fetched
for a people to decide that it is in their strategic interests to have
a healthy populace -- and to fund medical care. Other nations see the
ability of people to travel with ease as a strategic interest -- and
fund public transit.

Look, if THE PEOPLE choose to fund a variety of activities, that is a
democratic choice. I think it matters little what you call it. Call it
socialism if that pleases you.

Me, I'd rather pay welfare to the poor that welfare to corporations.
I'm hoping my fellow citizens agree with me.

Cheers,
frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:
OK, I guess I misread your question. Nonetheless, global or not, I'll
venture that most of us outside of the USA would prefer a president
more in tune with our own values. Like so many in the blue states, we
"don't get" the value systems of red state voters. We get New York.
We
get LA. We understand SF, Boston, Seattle, and Portland. But we're
left
scratching our heads at what goes on in Kansas.

You're of course right, whether or not a Kansas school board mandates
the teaching of creationism in science classes, is of no global
consequence to the rest of us. In a similar sense, whether women in
Afghanistan are required to wear a burka or not seems of little
global
import. Or maybe not.

Perhaps you felt outrage at the sight of women in Afghanistan being
required to wear burkas. Now bottle that outrage and think about it.
That's the outrage many feel when they hear that intelligent science
teachers in Kansas are forced to teach religious doctrine in science
classes. This is SCIENCE fer crissake! This is about the scientific
method and a canon of knowledge derived through that method. The
dictates of the Kansas school board are as medieval as the dictates
of
the Taliban. If you want religion, set up religion classes. But don't
ask science teachers teach what they know to be blatantly false.

I guess I still haven't answered your question regarding things of
major "global" import (I'll get to that another time, perhaps). Right
now I'm giving you an example of the visceral reactions your
president
and his FC followers evoke in people around the globe. We don't want
to
be dragged back into the Dark Ages. we're quite comfortable in our
post
modern world.

frtzw906

I almost missed this post, and I really do appreciate your time.

What the Kansas school board does is based very little on who our
president is, but on their freedom to decide what they want for their
children. Not some Government program with enforcement police. Your
science teacher in Kansas is also free to find a classroom where he is
free to teach as he likes. I don't necessarily agree with the school
board, but I do agree that it is their choice, and I live a couple
hundred miles away, in the same country, and its not my business. As
far as the scientific method, sometimes it was not so scientific, but
that is another discussion.

If a woman in Afganistan wears a burka, that is a cultural expression,
no out rage here, from me. As long as she is free to go else where, and
not wear one if she desires, she is free. Now she is also free to stay
and not wear a burka. That liberty is what I value, and would like to
bottle.

I spent three years in southern Mexico right where the Zapatistas are
fighting now for their freedom. I understand cultural differences!

As far as political climate in the blue states, keep in mind that they
were blue by only the smallest margin, even requiring recounts, with no
hanging chads. Those blue need to pay attention to the red in their
district, less the tide turn. Then your head will really swim! TnT

BCITORGB wrote:
TnT says:
=============
I live in NYC, and if I want, I can travel to California without
getting anyones permission, or carrying papers, and having to bribe
border guards to let me pass. It is trully amazing.
==============

Well, I don't know about amazing. If you and I want to visit (I'm in
Canada), we'd both have to wait in infernal lines at the border and
be
subjected to interrogation by boder officials. Our friends in Europe
can travel from, say, Germany, to Holland, to France, to Spain, and
NEVER have to stop at the border. That, to me, is more amazing.

I'm glad to meet another Canadian neighbor. I would love to travel up
there to visit, all the pictures are so pretty. The lines do sound like
a hassel though, so are you infavor of a North American Union? Where we
could freely travel without any border stops from Halifax to Chiapas.
Sounds interesting to me! A few details to work out.


You may have thought my response to comrade Weiser was funny, but he
truly did nicely articulate some socialist truths. Very clearly,
governments, representing the people, have to make some decisions
deemed to be in the strategic interests of the nation. Scott happens
to
think corporate welfare to agri-business constitutes such a strategic
interest. I don't know. Only the people of America can be the judge
of
that.

However, I challenge all right-wingers who are of like mind (that is,
agree with Scott) to consider that nations which they consider to be
"socialist" may have made similar, democratic and strategic choices.

They may have decided that it is in the nation's strategic interest
to
have an educated populace. Consequently they may fund free schools
and
universities in a strategic interest. I do not consider it far
fetched
for a people to decide that it is in their strategic interests to
have
a healthy populace -- and to fund medical care. Other nations see the
ability of people to travel with ease as a strategic interest -- and
fund public transit.

Look, if THE PEOPLE choose to fund a variety of activities, that is a
democratic choice. I think it matters little what you call it. Call
it
socialism if that pleases you.

Me, I'd rather pay welfare to the poor that welfare to corporations.
I'm hoping my fellow citizens agree with me.

We each have to decide what is in our strategic interest, and it is not
always the same. You in Canada have your concerns. You have mentioned
agri-business on a number of ocassions, as if it is a specific issue
with you. I am not totally aware of the related issues, but my in-laws
have a sugar beet farm in Minnesota. They struggle to stay independent
when many of the large corporate farms are taking over small farms one
after the other. They did not take any gov money to farm, so are not in
debt. but still feel the pressure of free enterprise (?) The biggest
effect they feel, is the price of sugar on the world markets. So now
their land sets fallow, couldn't afford the fuel to run the tractors,
or the seed to plant. Brother-in-law works on corporate farm, and self
employed. That was what was strategic for them. TnT

Cheers,
frtzw906

TnT says:
===============
What the Kansas school board does is based very little on who our
president is, but on their freedom to decide what they want for their
children.
================

I understand all of this local autonomy stuff. My point really was less
about freedom and more about general attitudes and values. I was using
the Kansas school board more or less as a metaphor for right-wing,
FC-influenced policies. I was exressing concern for values that I think
are taking us (you in the USA) back into the dark ages.

Of course the woman in Afghanistan under the Taliban didn't have
choices. And we should be reviled by that. Similarly, the science
teacher should not be required to teach anything that is not science --
you should not force the science teacher to tell lies and to deny that
dinosaurs once roamed the earth. To do so is to drag the teacher and
the students into the dark ages. Hell, it is not in the strategic best
interests of the USA to have an irrelevant science curriculum unless,
like the Taliban, your objective is to keep people stupid so as to
better manipulate them. The people in the blue states get this.

TnT, it's a metaphor for what those of us outside of the USA see
happening in your country. It's not our business, but it's only not our
business insofar as burka-wearing women under the Taliban were not our
business.

To argue that the teacher is free to teach elsewhere is simplistic.
First, the teacher shouldn't be asked to tell lies. Secondly, with
possibly a mortgage, children, etc, it is not that easy to move --
freedom is thus an illusion.

cheers,
frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:
TnT says:
===============
What the Kansas school board does is based very little on who our
president is, but on their freedom to decide what they want for their
children.
================

I understand all of this local autonomy stuff. My point really was
less
about freedom and more about general attitudes and values. I was
using
the Kansas school board more or less as a metaphor for right-wing,
FC-influenced policies. I was exressing concern for values that I
think
are taking us (you in the USA) back into the dark ages.

Of course the woman in Afghanistan under the Taliban didn't have
choices. And we should be reviled by that. Similarly, the science
teacher should not be required to teach anything that is not science
--
you should not force the science teacher to tell lies and to deny
that
dinosaurs once roamed the earth. To do so is to drag the teacher and
the students into the dark ages. Hell, it is not in the strategic
best
interests of the USA to have an irrelevant science curriculum unless,
like the Taliban, your objective is to keep people stupid so as to
better manipulate them. The people in the blue states get this.

TnT, it's a metaphor for what those of us outside of the USA see
happening in your country. It's not our business, but it's only not
our
business insofar as burka-wearing women under the Taliban were not
our
business.

To argue that the teacher is free to teach elsewhere is simplistic.
First, the teacher shouldn't be asked to tell lies. Secondly, with
possibly a mortgage, children, etc, it is not that easy to move --
freedom is thus an illusion.

cheers,
frtzw906

First, if the burka wearing woman was being raped, and was screaming
for help, would you interfere in another culture? If she said she did
not want to wear a burka any longer would you insist on her being free
to do as she liked. You say you are reviled by the lack of choice, but
would you feel justified to get involved to change the status quo?

Secondly, it seems that we must get into it, so I will a little.
Science has a theory, called Evolution. Lots of info, and not all
supported, so still largely a theory. Never yet proven.

Christianity has another theory called Creation, also lots of info, not
all supported so still largely a theory. Never yet proven.

Kansas (and other) school boards say that both theories have to be
taught equally as theories. Neither can be taught as the only
explanation.

Science deals with proven observable and reproducable facts, then tries
to establish a reasonalbe explanation for those facts. I have no
problem with true science, just theories mascarading as science when
there is little or no proof.

I have problems with faith mascarading as science as well. The Bible is
a book of faith, not science, though there are amazing observations
recorded in the Bible, that parallel the practice of science.

It is when we get into the explanation part of the observable facts
that we get into trouble, especially when Science tries to become
faith. If science were to restrict itself to pure science, there would
be little conflict. If the teacher restricts himself to equipping his
students to go into the field and observe facts, he will still have a
job to pay the mortgage, etc.

I say these things as a person who is first a Christian, and secondly
an observer. I am interested in Astronomy, Geophysics and Geology,
Archaeology, and other areas not so scientific, like UFOs and Crop
Circles, Lay lines and ancient structures like Pyramids of Egypt. I
wonder about Coral Castle in Florida, and the Granite Butterfly. We
live in a wonder-full world where I try to keep all my options open.
TnT

Once the Creationists acknowledge and explain fossil evidence I might
listen to them. Until such time, it is a fairy tale. The Evolutionists
at least have a plausible explanation.

frtzw906
============================

....stuff deleted


I almost missed this post, and I really do appreciate your time.

What the Kansas school board does is based very little on who our
president is, but on their freedom to decide what they want for their
children. Not some Government program with enforcement police. Your
science teacher in Kansas is also free to find a classroom where he is
free to teach as he likes. I don't necessarily agree with the school
board, but I do agree that it is their choice, and I live a couple
hundred miles away, in the same country, and its not my business. As
far as the scientific method, sometimes it was not so scientific, but
that is another discussion.

The freedom to practice religion mandates that the school teach only
what is supportable by secular interpretation. So called "intelligent
design" does not meet this criteria. It is, as is all mythology, not
based upon observed criteria. The myth that our founding fathers
believed in a government based upon religious ideals is equally
unsupportable. A president, who appoints judges based upon their
religious belief, as this one does, and will in the future, appears to
be someone who is trying to build a theocracy. When he selectively
enforces laws to regulate who has free speech and who doesn't, he
appears to be someone who is trying to be a facist (example: he called
some right-to-annoy others and offered support to their protests outside
the White House this week, yet he banned anti-Bush protesters from the
Rep. Nat'l Convention.

Frankly, I think both protests were legal and deserved to be heard,
despite my support for only one of these. The president, however, has no
right to foster a religious perpespective, whatsoever.


If a woman in Afganistan wears a burka, that is a cultural expression,
no out rage here, from me. As long as she is free to go else where, and
not wear one if she desires, she is free. Now she is also free to stay
and not wear a burka. That liberty is what I value, and would like to
bottle.


And you would think others would as well. However, this is not the
society we live in today. How someone dresses is, and always has been,
canon fodder for the intolerent. Our society, however, is one in which
few would support a women dressed in this manner (although the ACLU
would). You may have your differences with the ACLU, as many of us do,
but at least they support the constitution. Something I wish this
president did. To quote Molly Ivins, "I'd prefer someone who burns the
flag and wraps himself in the constitution to one who burns the
constitution and wraps himself in the flag."

I spent three years in southern Mexico right where the Zapatistas are
fighting now for their freedom. I understand cultural differences!

As far as political climate in the blue states, keep in mind that they
were blue by only the smallest margin, even requiring recounts, with no
hanging chads. Those blue need to pay attention to the red in their
district, less the tide turn. Then your head will really swim! TnT


Uh, no. The blue states were mostly over 51% against Bush. Some were as
high as 62%, and most were in the 54% range. Not as close as you paint
them to be. Bush won by only 3 million votes, and in many states, the
poll results are more than slightly suspicious (including the several
thousand Afr. American votes which were illegally invalidated).

Rick

....stuff deleted
Science deals with proven observable and reproducable facts, then tries
to establish a reasonalbe explanation for those facts. I have no
problem with true science, just theories mascarading as science when
there is little or no proof.


Do you understand the nature of a theory? A theory, such as say,
gravity, is one which has no scientific evidence disproving it. In other
words, theories are backed by solid, repeatible, and reliable scientific
proofs. The inability of religion to discredit a theory, say, evolution,
does more to support its foundations than to weaken them.

I have problems with faith mascarading as science as well. The Bible is
a book of faith, not science, though there are amazing observations
recorded in the Bible, that parallel the practice of science.


Oh? Give me a single instance where an observation in the bible
parallels one of science. Mendel did wonders for science, but he
provided support for evolution, not for the existence of a god, but his
work isn't recorded in said bible. The bible is, at best, a good parable
for how a society can be structure and survive the test of time. If
everyone were to follow the words of Jesus, I have no doubt that our
society would be greatly improved. Sadly, as is always the case, the
self-righteous always outnumber the righteous.

It is when we get into the explanation part of the observable facts
that we get into trouble, especially when Science tries to become
faith. If science were to restrict itself to pure science, there would
be little conflict. If the teacher restricts himself to equipping his
students to go into the field and observe facts, he will still have a
job to pay the mortgage, etc.


Science doesn't try to become anything. Scientists interpret their
observations, report them, and those results that cannot be reproduced,
are discarded. Those who poorly understand science, however, often made
assertions based upon their incomplete understanding of that work.
Sadly, those who reinterpret these results for the masses, often make
errors or use poor anologies which confuse the results. Hence, many feel
that Darwin said that humans evolved from apes, when he did not. He
stated, however, that due to our similarities, humans and apes probably
had a common ancestor (which may well have been neither human, nor ape).
Genetics has proven that we share about 98% of our DNA with chimps,
hence providing support for his hypothesis (which is one of thosands of
reasons why it now has the status of theory).

Lacking a scientist on hand to witness the birth of the universe (or any
other being, for that matter), any explaination of "creation" can only
qualify as mythology, or at best, hypothesis. When you invent your time
machine and make those observations, please send us a report.

Rick

TnT says:
=================
Science deals with proven observable and reproducable facts, then tries
to establish a reasonalbe explanation for those facts. I have no
problem with true science, just theories mascarading as science when
there is little or no proof.
================

Please review the scientific method. Theories don't mascarade as
science, theories are what drive science forward into new frontiers.

Envision, if you can, science without theories. If we didn't
"theorize", based on sound empirical data, how or why would we venture
into new scientific domains.

And today's empirically verifiable "facts": where did they come from?
Were they not, at some point, just so much "theory" driving scientists
to verify their veracity?

Galileo started with hypotheses and theories. Einstein had a theory. If
science didn't have theories we wouldn't have technological advances.

It is critical to remember that today's theories (likely tomorrow's
"facts") are based on a huge foundation of data verified through
experimentation. These theories are not the result of fanciful notions
taken from an interesting book of myths.

As an aside, I find it interesting that virtually every culture has
it's own creation mythology -- from Adam and Eve of Christian fame to
the Raven myth of the coastal First Nations of the North American
Pacific coast. These myths are often of local interest only. But, the
scientific theory has fairly universal acceptance. I wonder why?

Cheers,
frtzw906

On 11-Feb-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:

As far as the scientific method, sometimes it was not so scientific

Don't confuse the scientific method for the nonsense that some people
practice.

Mike