HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
June 16, 2005 This is Nuggets Vol.6. The last issue is here. All politics in this issue of Nuggets: global warming corrected, CAFTA, obstructionist Republicans/WMD's and Michael John McCrae, the faith trap holding Skip Toomaloo, better upward mobility in Canada and Western Europe than in the US, Shaivo – the Right was wrong again, the Right-wing non-lie, and some quotes. In Dan's bit on global warming, he said this: Liberal-leaning scientists have been blaming
"global warming" on American electric power
generation, automobiles, and similar industrial types
of activity in the Western World. Now China and India
are beginning to contribute to atmospheric carbon
dioxide, but we and the Europeans tend to get the most
blame. It is claimed that we already have a high
standard of living, and we don't need to increase it
further by our burning of so much "fossil fuel."
A bit of irresponsible writing, in my opinion. No need to put global warming in quotes Dan – it's real, whether it started with farming or not. The “Liberal-leaning scientists” quote highly troubles me. Science is science – are those scientists that worked on the farming study liberal? Conservative? Is any science that comes out against a policy of a sitting administration automatically political? The global consensus of scientists, including here in the USA, is that global warming is going on right now and that man is partially responsible. Gases that we release are part of the problem, and reducing them is part of the fix. If that doesn't sit well with tax rates or EU Constitutions or whatever other policy, it doesn't make the data itself “liberal” or “conservative”. We do have to be a tad careful and follow the money, however. All of these scientists are not in a global conspiracy for money – how would this work – maybe by funneling money into environmental groups? Environmental groups, with a political agenda, side with these scientists because they happen to agree. But they also disagree with a growing body of scientists which are now advocating nuclear power. If there is anything like a conspiracy to abuse science, surely it's from the current administration, which recently fired the man that softened global warming reports – reports created by scientists; he went back to work for Exxon-Mobil. Yes Craig, I remember NAFTA, I supported it, so did Clinton, and I'm a Liberal. Unions are the current top donors to the Democratic party, it's not hard to see why democrats would oppose CAFTA. Generally, liberals are in favor of free trade with provisos. Kerry was pro-free trade, and had an interesting plan to bring more work here as well, instead of just shipping it off. Globalism is a fact, but needs some liberal polices to be realized; I agree with Friedman that we need a new “New Deal”, for example. NAFTA would have been a good way to get some environmental regulation into Mexico, but the final piece was, well, something made by a committee. I don't know the details of CAFTA, I haven't been following it. I hope that it supports environmental sanity, and third world worker's rights. Trading with China is a mixed bag. I dislike buying something from Wal-mart, knowing a 14 year old kid made it after taking a nap on a concrete floor in the middle of her 16 hour shift. I don't mind so much calling a support number and talking to someone in India, because the evidence is out that Indian wages have started to rise as a result of this outsourcing. Eventually, it will reach a point where it will no longer be cheaper to move an operation to India, and we will have raised their standard of living in the process. Free trade agreements are fine, as long as both sides gain, and workers are respected. Michael John McCrae said: There is not one word about the coup undertaken
by Senate liberals to usurp the power of the majority.
Every nominee deserves a straight up or down vote and
the liberals found a way to circumvent procedure. Of
course you always make sure you can give whiny babies
a pacifier and the Republicans caved to the babies
when they could not hear themselves over all the
liberal whining of the leftists.
Michael, did you selectively forget that Republicans gave far fewer of Clinton's choices up or down votes? “Circumvent”? - you mean, similar to Bush sneaking in nominees while Congress was out? ;) Michael John McCrae piece, “WMD's That Don't Exist Stolen From Iraq Where They Never Were!”, presents a rather silly straw man argument. Why would you, a nice staunch Right-winger, set yourself up to be refuted by Micheal Moore? As Moore said, “We know Saddam had weapons because we kept the receipts!”. We gave Saddam aid, we sold him weapons because at the time, we didn't much care how he treated his own people – we were more concerned about the crazy Iranians. The Iranians are a religious controlled society – isn't that ironic, Micheal John McCrae? There are no WMDs currently or when we invaded; the devil is in the details. Skip, you seem like a smart and decent man, but you don't realize the faith-trap that holds you. When you say this: I want to discuss respect for a book. I want to
know why a book that leads people to cut the heads off
their enemies somehow deserves more respect than the
book that calls for love of neighbor.
Don't you realize the obvious answer? Why would WW2 Jap pilots commit suicide for eternal reward? Why would folks blow themselves up? Why would someone think that God would make us flawed, knowing in advance we would screw up, and then sacrifice himself to himself to save us – save us from what? From his own anger. The reasons for believing any of the above are all identical. Lets assume that Allah demands more blood than Jesus. Did you know that Muslims think that most people will go to heaven? Did you know that Muslim hell is temporary – that everyone can be saved? Why would you follow a faith that has a loving God who sends billions to an eternal Hell, when he knows in advance that they will go there? Likely for the same reason that other folks kill because their holy book was treated improperly. Skip, I also have some comments about your opinion of the Dark Ages. I oft hear Christians suggest that the rights we enjoy in America come from God. I wonder why it took 1700+ years for Christians to make this happen? Our rights came forth by man from several sources, primarily the notion of the Enlightenment, “Let reason and rational thought be your guide”. Many modern revolutions, including some with less than desirable results, such as the Bolshevik revolution, said, in various ways, that religion was a bad guy that needs to be done away with, or at least, removed from power forever more. Do not support a modern political view which seeks to undue this. That library which you say was burnt by Muslims in Alexandria, was burnt by Christians a bit earlier in history, and quite a shame it was. Evidence suggests that this library contained Babylonian history going back 10,000 years. Religion has some positive virtues, but often at the expense of knowledge; all too often, it breeds ignorance. In the Dark Ages, Christians came upon a Roman building, one that had central heating - those wise Christians thought it was a dragon roost. Further, your piece again assumes, somehow, that you are in the privileged position of being in some kind of True Faith, while everyone else is wrong. You are almost as much of an atheist as I am, Skip – there is much that you don't believe. If there are 1,000 faiths, then I disbelieve all 1,000, while you disbelieve 999. It seems that poor Europeans and Canadians have a better chance to pull themselves up and make a better life for themselves or their kids than we do in the US. Overall, the average standard of living is rising in the US, but so is the gap between rich and poor. Further, it seems that immigrants which often arrive with nothing and then make a decent living are a good chunk of upward mobility in the US. More often than we think - than even I thought, folks stay in the economic mode that their parents were in, good bad or otherwise. Listen here or read about it in the Wall Street Journal. The autopsy of Shaivo is complete, and it turns out that 15+ courts and their appointed physicians were correct. Terry was indeed incapable of recovery, having severe brain damage. She was also blind. Terry died 15 years ago, but her body was kept alive while Right-wing groups, which paid trial lawyers so that a corpse could be fed and watered. Here is the Right-wing non-lie for this issue, by Michael John McCrae: There were NO WMD’s. Thank you, and that was the Right-wing non-lie for this issue. Now, some quotes:
"When a gay person turns his back on you, it's
anything but an insult - it's an invitation. The
difference between Los Angeles and yogurt is that
yogurt comes with less fruit."
------------ About the author Frederick Smith: I enjoy writing about the positive virtues of humanism - humanists are the good guys. Email: dahlek65@yahoo.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
