Fairweather

Maybe not consciously. Still, a soldier's mission is different than that of a police officer. Citizens should be able to tell the two apart--and the hardware and tactics employed by the latter is making this more and more difficult.

[video:youtube]JUDSeb2zHQ0

Well, there's always that young lady's Bulger 100 celebration thread--where you're free to continue wearing any lampshade that fits your ego.

not so suprising really - very popular ideas at the time, no? can't argue w/ the basic premise in the clip though "you must know a dozen or so people who are of no use" anyhow, worth pointing out a line from his wiki entry: "Shaw often used satiric irony to mock those who took eugenics to inhumane extremes and commentators have sometimes failed to take this into account." Once again, Ivan, you are taking a snippet and running with it. And, not surprisingly, I see your meat-filled haul-bag has chimed in on yet another topic he knows little to nothing about. Eugenics was entirely bankrupt--even then--so it's surprising to see you are defending Shaw's "layered" version. In any event, my original point was a response to your question about national leadership. Hard to imaging a more arrogant ass than Shaw. (Well, with the exception of cc.com's rotund megalomaniac anyhow.) Here's the whole entry; there's plenty to go around: Shaw delivered speeches on the theory of eugenics and he became a noted figure in the movement in England.[80] Shaw's play Man and Superman (1903) has been said to be "invested with eugenic doctrines" and "an ironic reworking" of Nietzsche's concept of Übermensch.[80][81] The main character in the play, John Tanner, is the author of "The Revolutionist's Handbook and Pocket Companion", which Shaw published along with his play. The Revolutionist's Handbook includes chapters on "Good Breeding" and "Property and Marriage". In the "Property and Marriage" section, Tanner writes: To cut humanity up into small cliques, and effectively limit the selection of the individual to his own clique, is to postpone the Superman for eons, if not for ever. Not only should every person be nourished and trained as a possible parent, but there should be no possibility of such an obstacle to natural selection as the objection of a countess to a navvy or of a duke to a charwoman. Equality is essential to good breeding; and equality, as all economists know, is incompatible with property. In this Shaw was managing to synthesize eugenics with socialism, his best-loved political doctrine. This was a popular concept at the time.[82] Shaw in 1905 When, in 1910, Shaw wrote that natural attraction rather than wealth or social class should govern selection of marriage partners, the concept of eugenics did not have the negative connotations it later acquired after having been adopted by the Nazis of Germany.[83] Shaw sometimes treated the topic in a light-hearted way, pointing out that if eugenics had been thought about some generations previously, he himself may not have been born, so depriving humanity of his great contributions.[84] He seems to have maintained his opinion throughout his life.[83] As with many of the topics that Shaw addressed, but particularly so in his examination of the "social purity" movement, he used irony, misdirection and satire to make his point.[75][85][86] At a meeting of the Eugenics Education Society of 3 March 1910 he suggested the need to use a "lethal chamber" to solve their problem. Shaw said: "We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill. We should have to get rid of all ideas about capital punishment ..." Shaw also called for the development of a "deadly" but "humane" gas for the purpose of killing, many at a time, those unfit to live.[87] In a newsreel interview released on 5 March 1931, dealing with alternatives to the imprisonment of criminals, Shaw says You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can't justify your existence, if you're not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you're not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can't be of very much use to yourself.[88][89] Shaw often used satiric irony to mock those who took eugenics to inhumane extremes and commentators have sometimes failed to take this into account.[80][90] Some noticed that this was an example of Shaw satirically employing the reductio ad absurdum argument against the eugenicists' wilder aspirations: The Globe and The Evening News recognised it as a skit on the dreams of the eugenicists, though many others in the press took his words out of their satirical context. Dan Stone of Liverpool University writes: "Either the press believed Shaw to be serious, and vilified him, or recognised the tongue-in-cheek nature of his lecture".[90][91]

Nothing--and I mean nothing--gets the pure-blood science geeks riled up more than a lowly Saganesque popularizer raking in that capitalist dinero effectivo. As for Shaw, yes, he was a supporter of the eugenics movement. And a socialist.

Not that your choices represent anything close to reality, but I'd take the idiots over the arrogant. [video:youtube]xagSvfyFCWQ

isn't that what the whole platonic philosopher-king thang was all about? I'm thinking that Plato's disdain for democracy--a view commonly held by philosophers throughout the age of reason--bears a remarkable resemblance to the arrogance of scientists that is cited here. Come to think, it also looks a great deal like the arrogance of the theocratic despots who came before. May God and the Collective Consciousness and the Cold Universe somehow conspire to protect us all from the arrogance of these human beings.

Perhaps we should replace our republic with a directorate composed exclusively of the best and brightest scientists?

That's what binoculars are for. Not to worry though, the police are on the people's side. I think. baa

Don't know about the cop who shot the guy. But this cop otta be on trial. Along with his CO.

I think Lincoln's supposed fears were realized during the excesses of the Gilded Age which, in turn, were partially reconciled during the Teddy Roosevelt/Taft/Progressive/Fordism era, which, in turn, were offset during the Harding/Cal/Hoover days, which, in turn, were back-lashed under FRD's New Deal, which, in turn, were partially offset by a booming post-WWII industrial economy, offset by LBJ/Nixon/Carter, offset by Reagan/Bush, swing to Clinton, back to GW, and so it goes. The pendulum swings back and forth and I don't really think it takes much imagination or effort to make a case for presidential prescience. Still, the details remain important, IMO. By November of 1864 Lincoln pretty much knew the war was won. Nevertheless, I doubt that the rise of corporations was foremost on his list of worries.

Mr Crawford is practicing the trade of the historian, that is, synthesizing attributed data to arrive at a particular conclusion. This is quite different than putting one's conclusion into the form of a (mis)quote and passing it off as part of the record. Not saying this is what you were doing, rather, that preserving the record is worth more than scoring political points in the here and now. Particularly troubling when you look back on this thread and see how easily it was soaked up by doug (aka "d"), Astrov, others.

cool quote from one of abe's letters to a friend: "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the (Civil) war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." False. http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln.asp Ivan, respectfully you should know better than this. The temptation to tweak history in order to fit a contemporary world view is pretty normal. But passing along whole-cloth falsehoods is something I would expect from others here--not you. "The above quote, attributed to President Abraham Lincoln, has been periodically dusted off and presented to the public as a prophetic warning about the destruction of America through the usurpation of power and concentration of wealth by capitalist tyrants for over a century now, undergoing a renewed burst of popularity whenever wartime exigencies stir public debate over governmental policies. These words did not originate with Abraham Lincoln, however — they appear in none of his collected writings or speeches, and they did not surface until more than twenty years after his death (and were immediately denounced as a "bold, unflushing forgery" by John Nicolay, Lincoln's private secretary). This spurious Lincoln warning gained currency during the 1896 presidential election season (when economic policy, particularly the USA's adherence to the gold standard, was the major campaign issue), and ever since then it has been cited and quoted by innumerable journalists, clergymen, congressmen, and compilers of encyclopedias. . . . Why have these "money powers" words been put in the mouth of Abraham Lincoln? In a general sense, the reason is because dead people — especially revered leaders — make great commentators on modern-day politics: They can't be questioned about the legitimacy of their comments, interrogated about what they meant, or asked to elaborate about the subject at hand . . ." Read more at http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln.asp#S7ge6Ox6DSSybBVK.99[/i]

You've mixed a lot of issues together there, Jim. Not all of them science-related. But yes, I'll agree, any Republican (or Democrat) who fails to understand and acknowledge the logic of evolution is lacking. It's 150 years vetted--and no other model explains the diversity of life on this planet as completely. That said, there are a lot of Americans who weigh religion--or even philosophy--more heavily than science. Not sure they are worthy of the scorn you are serving up. Many of them are otherwise intelligent folks. Even Michelle Bachmann--a true ditz re science--somehow managed to earn an LL.M. from Ivan's old Alma mater. No small task. As for the other Republicans you name, yes, they are all the usual suspects. Here are a list of Democrats you might want to add to your list: http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/photos/5-democrats-who-dont-get-global-warming/nope-we-still-dont-get- No big deal; I appreciate your civil engagement. But, anyhow, what are your thoughts on net neutrality?

Joe would be so proud... Context. Snippet. Reading comprehension. Yes, little d, it's a complicated world out there. Especially in green and socialist and racist Wisconsin. Take it slow.

[video:youtube]G790p0LcgbI hmmm...

Our Nero:

Insults? Sorry, Matt, but you are like many others on the left who deny economic reality here. In any event, I don't know any of these evolution-denying Republicans you speak of. Of course, they exist, but are largely on the margins. Probably on par with avowed communists on the margins of the Democratic Party. Straw men are easy to build and knock down--and Democrats have mastered the art. It appears, for this last election anyway, that their fictitious "war on women" boogeyman failed to work.

No sleight intended. When you mentioned the word survey I figured it was safe to assume you weren't handing the birds questionnaires or conducting avian interviews.

Jim, absolutely disagree with everything here. First, it's no secret the GOP favors less regulation of industry. And I really don't think you can find anyone who thinks they don't do exactly what they say vis-a-vis limiting the imposition of additional environmental regs. In fact, I'd say it is the Democrats who hide their agenda--and the Keystone pipeline is a case in point. Harry Reid is finally letting it come up for a vote--albeit only to salvage the electoral hopes of his Louisiana colleague who now plans to vote yes. Very cynical. Secondly, I'd point out that each and every one of the "war on science" examples you cite are environmental. Of course, there is more to science than the niche you occupy. I'm not trying to be an ass here, rather, just point out that you are painting with a broad brush. Yes, there are many Republican "global warming skeptics"--who in turn represent skeptical American citizens. Finally, it's hard to believe your contention that the message about global warming hasn't been heard. The problem is, IMO, that instead of "selling" your message in the marketplace of ideas, you've approached the issue by trying to force delegated agency regulation and judicial interpretation down the American people's throat. Never. Gonna. Work. Not only because scientists tend to make lousy salespeople--and often think the art is beneath their dignity--but also because they so often put on public display the contempt and arrogance I mentioned in my last post. In short, the party in power represents the weighted aspirations of the American people. I believe this is what Jay is trying to say as well. I'd go further and say if you want your message to get a fair hearing next election, be willing to negotiate, be willing to listen, don't lie or play politics with your own science, and don't take falsifiability off the table. Unless you plan on throwing out our whole system (good luck with that) you're going to have to sell. Back to the net neutrality topic? Obama wants to "regulate the internet like a utility." This is a big, big problem. Of course, our idiot-in-chief doesn't think much of free speech and constitutional limits to begin with. Have fun counting gulls. Beats the hell out of what I'm doing today.

Jim, you've hedged here, but I think you are far, far off base. Particularly re surveillance. In fact, from the conservative perspective, it is the American left that is hell-bent on spying on the citizenry. Obama's NSA is exhibit A. And his efforts to stifle speech (spying on and investigating numerous reporters) lends itself to the idea that we should probably just take our chances with the market's invisible hand--rather than a bureaucracy with an agenda. In fact, imposing a new version of the "Fairness Doctrine" has been a dream of those on your side of things for some time. "War on science?" Not even worth a response. Related, I've always considered the left's habit of looking down on the electorate as uneducated, fickle, and stupid a very strange (and untrue) dynamic. Your lament about ordinary Americans voting contrary to their own self-interest is particularly telling. It belies, IMO, what the left just can't seem to grasp: that middle-class American voters generally tend to practice one of capitalism's finest features--enlightened self-interest. This makes sense, of course, since the left generally fails to understand capitalism or rejects it outright.

Just chiming in to take this opportunity to *agree* with Mattp on a political thread. In 2014. Ditto.