I was not really very interested in this election because all I saw were 3 Liberals running on both tickets, and quite frankly I’m tired of it after 20 years of liberal fiscal policies in the Federal Government.
Of course I agreed with more of whom and what Sen, John McCain is and stands for, but I still felt like I was voting for the lesser of two lessers (I don’t believe any of them are evil just quite misguided).
However, when Gov. Palin was chosen for the VP republican spot, I instantly became energized. Now I can be involved in earnest.
Though I definitely agree with her fiscal policies, I can not totally agree with her Social policies, for we do have a couple spots where we differ. ** Footnote
1. I believe in Pro-choice in the first 12 weeks (even though I am basically anti-abortion, especially for family planning), or until there is a viable fetus, whichever comes first. Until that time it is all between the woman, the father, their doctor, and their God: until that point it is no one else’s business, especially the Federal Government. There is an argument to be made for possibly a state involvement but that too is questionable. That is sufficient time to make up your mind. After there is a viable fetus or 12 weeks, it should definitely be classed as infanticide.
2. Creationism should be taught in schools, but not in science class, for it is faith not scientific study. It belongs in a comparative religion class, and I believe that class should be mandatory for everyone. You could never in the past, and can not now understand the workings of different cultures and their minds without knowing their religious outlook. Religion is far too often the basis for conflict and war and therefore is most profoundly important.
Because of Gov. Palin’s family situation and make-up she has been excoriated in the liberal press and internet blogs. The horrific, vehement, vitriolic, and done-right nasty filth that has spewed forth is turning off America as fast as any wildfire I have ever seen.
A perfect example is the unbelievable article written in the Baltimore Sun by Susan Reimer: A Woman – but why this woman? She should be totally ashamed of herself, but of course libs never are. As of this minute it has spawned over 7800 comments nationwide, mostly in defense of Gov. Palin.
You libs (and you know who you are) will never learn. When you try to destroy someone instead of arguing ideologies, it most always backfires, and this is no exception. Whether she is competent or not is irrelevant. (I believe of the 3 she is the most competent and well-grounded, and has the best chance of increasing her abilities, being young and smart.)
What is relevant is that decency and kindness is the “Mother’s Milk” of humanity, and your total neglect of that has bitten you in the butt one more time. You are the Mccain/Palin ticket's most ardent supporters whether you like it or not, and you will very likely insure their elections.
** Since writing this, it has come to my attention that I may have been misinformed. There appears to be little disagreement on this 2 issues, and she is more in line with my opinion. I will keep on eye on this and update as information becomes available.
Thanks,
The Hammer
Copyright Crickard Publishing 2008. All rights Reserved
|
|
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 95
Why is 12 weeks your cut off point?
Great article, by the way.
This is why the whole business is sticky and does not belong in a government (Federal) that is so removed from the people.
I believe that this is just a way of dividing the country, and that is just as immoral as either side of the argument.
I also do not understand a woman who is against allowing other women to decide how to control their own bodies.
You have me on the first point. I don't ether. The Libs seem to want a woman only if she is a liberal. But, they had a much more qualified candidate in Hillary. go figure.
As to the second point, people will always differ, but that has nothing to do with government and does not belong in government. That is a social issue that belongs in the home, church, and social organizations.
My stance exactly. I've always said women should have a right to choose, but at that 12 week point there is definitely a being with a central nervous system... and you don't need religion to argue this point. And of course, there are some extreme circumstances where the mothers -established life - takes precedent.
As far as Gov. Palin is concerned nothing. I was just noting a couple differences that won't get in my way.
I am pointing out how the absolutely rudeness and vitriol of the Libs (as per normal) and how it is going to help elect the Mccain/Palin ticket, of which I am eternally grateful.
I will never understand why we can't just discuss things. The Libs typically rant and rave, call names, etc., and simply aren't intersted in discussing ideas or facts.
I guess that is what I am most in objection.
Aside from that, she'll be gone within a week or two, due to the onslaught of scandals collapsing on top of her. Then, you're gonna feel pretty silly once again, because you're gonna have to pretend that you didn't really want her anyway, and get yourself all worked up over McCains' NEXT lousy, unvetted selection.
This article hit the nail (you) right on the head.
I want to thank you personally for all of your efforts.
I don't think we'll ever live up to the wackiness of the left. Sorry.
Your gal is a loser, just like the old, old, old, old man that chose her. She'll last two weeks, tops. Then, you'll be pissing yourself over his next disastrous choice. You people are a phucking joke.
The only thing Palin brings to the election is more neocon baggage.
The republican supporters of the neocon ticket need to get use to seeing responsible leaders for the next 8 years.
Bush created 60% more government and now the democrats will fix the failed policies of this brain dead drunk.
The left is wacky because it believes in responsible government and the left does not sit back waving flags from their easy chair while the best of our youth die in blood for oil wars.
Personally I think picking a President, especially at this point in time, is not a game. We've had enough game playing.
You have all just proven my point. It seems to me you just don't care about this country or the people that live here. You just seem to want to complain. Isn't 20 years of Liberalism enough?
Why do you want 8 more years of intense increase in government and more control over the private lives of people. I for one am fed up with it. Freedom and Liberty are too precious to let Liberalism destroy it.
I don't give a crap about Republicans or Democrats. I care about the people of this country, the average work-a-day Joes that have to put up with all of this nonsense.
The only thing I'm pissed about is that none of you have any business in my life or anyone else's.
Liberalism and Libs is an Ideology not a personal attack. I'm sorry you don't know the difference.
Thank you for a bit of civil discourse.
I see your point, Bert. It sounds like you are saying that as soon as life begins (in your opinion 12 weeks, central nervous system considered) you'd not be supportive unless there was a compelling reason like health or life of the mother. 12 weeks though... I had ultrasounds before that (8 and 9 weeks) and I think 12 is very late. I think 8 and 9 would be too late. I look at those pictures and it's already an amazing being.
I'll have a lot more to say about this in the future. I have been there when they opened the vacuum bags and it not a pretty sight. It changed me.
It isn't a mullet. It is a ponytail. Sorry you can't tell the difference.
It'a Harriet Myerslike nomination. Just for shits and giggles. If it isn't...then the wingnuts are just looney. I mean really now people. Seriously......President?
I surely wouldn’t try to explain Bert’s comments, but I didn’t read anything negative into the article title. It simply suggested to me that he felt that the “Libs” who seem opposed to McCain and Palin were doing things that would contribute to others voting for them.
The article Bert link to surely suggested to me that the author was very superficial by the things she focused on (“woo women like me,” “Palin is insulting on many levels,” “look like a maverick,” “reads more like a pitch for a movie than a resume for a national leader,” “least make a choice that doesn't give the gag writers,” and so on).
As far as Bert’s point about how attacks on Palin are working for Palin, until we hear her and see more of her, it is sure working for me. The latest I have heard is that there are those opposed to her are saying that the new born (the 4 month old) is actually the daughter’s (the one that is 5 months pregnant). If the detractors can’t even do the simple arithmetic, why should why should I give any credence to whatever they say?
As far as the game of Presidential politics, what do I know with all of the “koos” that the media keeps bring up like ESPN’s 10 best moments of the week, they sure seem to be making it a game.
They're also asking for a DNA test on Sarah's 4 month old baby who has Down Syndrome to prove that the baby is hers because she didn't show that much when she was pregnant. They think the baby belongs to Bristal!
And that is nothing compared to what the lefty bloggers are saying. They say that she named her children after witches! It's just bizarre the way they have attacked her. I don't think I've ever seen anything like it.
But it just goes to show you that they are scared and desperate.
How about "McCain Promises Pardon if VP convicted"
Or, "Karl Rove exposed in drag, Impersonating Alaska's Governor"
Ha, ha I love the repub circus, what's next?
Poor Clark -- once again you've got it all wrong. Be afraid... be very afraid ;)
You should have let her speak before you opened your dumb mouth. Now everyone knows just how much of a moron you really are, moonbat! It's gotta suck having your boy Obama become yesterdays news in an instant.
God forbid the 4 time 72 old cancer patient should kick the bucket while in office"if" he/they should happen to steal the election again?
are you mocking Limbaugh or are you emulating him? If you are emulating him you need to increase your oxycontin dosage.
She's only energized the wackiest of the wacky fringe element of the wacky wingnut party of losers
Your gal is a loser, just like the old, old, old, old man that chose her. "
Did Bert hire you to prove his point? Or is it just too hard to resist the bait?
I think the overriding thing about Obama is that he is primed and ready. I agree he is light on experience, but he has a huge backing, support and following at this point. He has had some foreign policy experience, and national experience that Palin totally lacks. Palin has important executive experience. However neither of them have distinguished themselves in a way I'd like to see a President do.
I can say that of McCain as well. And I have to say Biden in terms of resume beat all on both sides but Chris Dodd, buy somehow the people just do not seem to care.
I do hope that you reconsider an arbitrary "death-frame"...an act of "love" designed to give Life should be indicative, to the Discerning, that Life begins at Conception. The Human Heart begins beating within 18 Days...
A Man of Principle, and an excellent suggestion. A pity Kent hasn't the Courage...I rather like having you around!
My goodness, man; wake UP!
Palin has more Executive experience than ANY of the "paragons" currently running this race.
Suffer it!
How's that sound? "
Kinda pathetic, actually. Sounds like somebody is terrified of me, and is desperate to find any way possible to not have to face me.
How do you wacky wingnuts feel about her association with an anti-American seperatist movement? And, have you heard what her minister said, while she was sitting in the pews, a couple weeks ago? Ouch.
Did you notice that she wasn't wearing a flag lapel pin last night, also? Hope you're ok with that.
I had no intention of watching any of the convention but I got tired of reruns and tuned in Sarah Palin.
WOW!
As for your opinions on abortion and creationism, we are not that far apart. My take on it is "let the people decide". I am willing to live comfortably with any decision reached by referendum on difficult moral and social matters.
But most important.....is the process that people go through to decide these issues. We have not been able to get past the issues of abortion and science v. creationism, and a whole raft of other issues because lawyers, not citizens dictated policy.
Keep at it Bert, glad to hear from you.
;)
I have taken a vow to avoid Bert's posts, but I was urged to comment by another. This must not be the right thread because I don't see anything of interest here.
'We're on a mission from god'
Great line from Ghostbusters, but scary as shit when said in sincerity.
Anyway, Palin says we are on a mission from god, she is scary shit and unfit.
You're a coward. All you're interested in is running your mouth with idiotic predications."
Just as I knew, billy bong. You're a coward. Put up or shut up, little boy. If I'm right, you immediately enlist to go to Iraq. Coward.
How telling that you're so anxious to censor my free speech. That speaks volumes.
"If you can't back up your poltical predictions then I suggest you refrain from making them in the future."
Gee, I wonder why I never see you make the same comments towards all of the pathetic wacky wingnuts who're predicting that she's going to be the messiah for this diseased, collapsed McBush campaign? Hmmmmm? Hypocrisy much?
You're a pathetic fool. When are you going to army up, toughie?
The media is horribly biased. No one talks about Biden's son the lobbyist, only the soldier. Ignorant "journalist" last night could not identify which daughter was which and said she was not wearing a flag pin! Lets get back to reality. Look at the issues, focus on the facts and move aways from personal attack and sexist commentaries.
I believe the 10 largest would be a good starting point. I have studied a lot of religions and there are more common grounds than differences.
I really don't give a darn what the GOP thinks. The vast majority of the people in this country just want to be left alone. When the GOP lets the fringe groups like the Neocons (the radical right) and the Rockefeller elitists run the show, they deserve to lose.
I believe Gov. Palin is the closest one to that ideal I've seen since Pres. Reagan and Barry Goldwater. We all have our failings (and I'm sure there will be a liberal out there to tell us about them), but all we can do is try to do the right thing.
Right. She only wants to ban women from having the right to choose what to do with their bodies, force our children to learn her religion in public schools, ban funding for unwed mothers, shut down planned parenting, and God only knows what else. The LAST people in this country that want to leave Americans alone are the reilgio nazis. She tried to ban certain books from the library while mayor of mayberry, for cripes sake.
Raygun was the first neocon president, and that whole wicked agenda has been trying to force morality upon this nation ever since. Goldwater was probably more in line what what you seem to be describing, but in reality, the last high ranking politician close enough to even call a CONSERVATIVE republican in this country was Eisenhower.
I have to say you have outdone yourself. There was absolutely nothing in your diatribe that was anywhere near the truth, just complete distortions.
Why waste your time? No one is listening to you. Stand on a street corner with your "World Will End" sign and a tin cup.
No one is saying Sen. Obama is a terrorist or a Communist. He seems like a decent guy, just totally misguided with left-wing socialist leanings. He believes government is the answer.
I believe in the people, not the government. Government is for the most part incompetent, wasteful, and absolutely non-productive and a drain on our economy. The last thing we need is more of it. We have for the most part had this type of behavior for the past 80 years. We don't need anymore. It is time for a change - Less Government.
Thanks for your thoughts.
I believe you are right. I think I was taken in by the very press that I usually berate.
I have since learned that she does not want to eliminate the abortion laws and said nothing about including it in the science classes.
I'll keep an eye on this for future writings.
Thanks
Why bother? You can't even use terms properly. If you can't read me and repeat things accurately, how can you do it with anyone? You don't even know what a Neocon is.
You certainly should know what a Neolib is. Look in the mirror.
They both believe the government is the answer to everything. Sorry, I can't live in that world. My life is my life, not yours, or anyone else's to control.
If the McCain camp ever lets her take a reporter's question, someone should ask her this point blank.
I do know that when asked on the 2006 Gubernatorial Candidate Questionaire which one presumes were policy responses, she was asked
11. Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?
JB: No.
SP: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.
That's all well and good and we do have bigger fish to fry what with quagmire in Iraq, etc., etc., but "under God" wasn't put in there by the founding fathers. It was during the McCarthy era, in 1954, that those two words were inserted. Apparently the pledge was good enough for our founding fathers without bringing God into it.
Words don't make you religious. Actions do. So her attack on Obama's goodness, his community service, struck me as a rather ugly and cynical low blow even for a Republican. Especially one who wants to insert religion into other people's lives.
HI, Carla. What do you mean here? Which type of birth control is --or could be-- considered abortion?
RUBBISH.
Palin is well-aware of the insertion of the phrase "Under God" in 1954. She was referring to the Foundations of Our Declaration. You say this to obfuscate.
Let us, also, have a look at the Preamble to EVERY Constitution for the State of :
Alaska
Montana
Wisconsin
Massechusetts
Idaho
New York
Connecticut
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Minnesota
Florida
Arizona
California
Nevada
Colorado...etc., etc., etc.......
Sorry attempt.
You are a Liar, and it is beginning to disgust me. Yes, Carla; I would like to know the answer to that, as well.
Carla G., and her lies:
"...this is not about gender or race. This is about issues. If your daughter was raped would you want her to be forced by the goverment to go through nine months of pregnancy and give birth?" End--
The overturning of the bench-legislated "Roe v. Wade" would certainly NOT include cases of crisis.
"It should not be the government's business to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies."--End
It should, however, take into consideration that TWO other lives are involved; therefore, your point is absurd bigotry.
"Do you want the government to stop all stem cell research because it is against the religious beliefs of some Christian fundamentalists? These are all part of the platform of Bush/Palin."--End
You are an idiot AND a LIAR. The Governments stance is to abolish the GOVERNMENT FUNDING of stem-cell "research."
Stop spreading Lies, Carla; including the most despicable one of all...that you know Him.
If you read the article, I am Pro-Choice completely for the first 12 weeks or a viable fetus whichever is first. If my daughter were raped, and wanted to abort, I would be there with her, hopefully the Morning After Pill would be enough.
I'm all for stem cell research, but the fetal stem cell business is no longer even a question as better avenues are in place.
Please stick to what I said, if you want to blame me for something.
Did you notice those who have nothing valid or pertinent to say have to resort to personal comments on your hairstyle?
Kinda' like they do to McCain and Palin.
Let me also say, that like any candidate, I've yet to see one where I agree with everything they do; and don't think it will be different with her. I do find her intriguing, and apparently so does the media, and the nation. You would think she was running for President at this point. I can't recall a "Vice Presidential" candidate being compared to the opposition "Presidential" candidate so heavily in my lifetime.
It has made me interested to see more I'll have to admit; I never much cared whom the VP was going to be in the past really.
As far as low blows in a speech, I heard plenty myself within the Democratic convention myself against McCain.... even for Democrats. I can only imagine what else would have been said if they had known Palin was McCain's VP selection.
You have captured much of my reaction to the conventions. A couple of other things that struck me about Palin. The VP candidate roles is to be the "attack dog" so the Presidential candiate cna be more issues and whole picture. I thought she was very smooth and and had such a sublteness to her presentation both in the way she let everyone know she was an attack dog, the comparison of a hockey mom to a pit bull, and how she did it all with a smile and not with an angry frown.
Also how she, and even McCain, both personalize themselves and made it something I could feel and take pride in.
And frankly, even the stereotyping of what is "liberal" and what is "conservative" in itself begs for a clearer definition.
If we go back to 1939, we've had an equal number of years with a Democratic as with a Republican administration. The national debt has risen in that 70 year period by an annual rate of 8.7%. Broken down, the Republican years accounted for an annual rate of almost 10% of increased debt, and all Democratic years accounted for an annual rate of 8.3% increase in debt.
This statistic gets even more interesting when we only look at the years following World war II. Since the 2nd world war, Democratic administrations have only increased the national debt at an average annual rate of apx 3% whilst Republican administrations have continuously increased our fiscally irresponsible borrowing at a rate of 10% again. This doesn't yet fully include the national debt incurred under President Bush, but from all the statistics I've seen, it seems likely that he will be become America's all time debtor president.
Put another way, and here I paraphrase an economist, for ever dollar of debt that a Democratic president has burdened society with, a Republican president always somehow manages to triple that debt.
I could get into a very good discussion over how Reagan was one of America's least "conservative" presidents.
What truly needs to be done now is get beyond this idiotic stereotyping, which only generates xenophobia based on fantasy and spin. What we need is a president who understands that economic theories, including those leading to war, which only considers a human being in terms of cost-benefit analysis is going to have an incalculable consequence, especially in a globalizing world where the "memory of debt" and more fair redistribution of wealth sits sometimes in more indelible red ink than those noted by an accountant. We need a president smart enough to understand that one cannot alienate himself from geophysical systems by the force of any theocratic or geopolitical/economic system.
How many years in all of that time was there a Republican (and you can include the Liberal Republicans if you want, Nixon & Ford), with a Republican Congress and Senate? Let's keep it straight.
Then, ask yourself, how many times was there an all Democratic Government (there you can include Truman & JFK, as compared to today's Neo-libs, these guys were conservatives.)
Now, tell me who has a firm grasp of history.
Also, you should admit that Reagan got a lot done considering the Congress and Senate he had to work with. Of course he wasn't perfect, no one is. But history will show him as one of the greats when time has passed, and the hateful generations are gone, and clear heads can avail.
One can quite easily argue that the deregulations and privatizations enacted or inspired by Reagan led to the recent nuclear reaction from the mortgage speculation market.
No you can't argue that. It was based on legislation and relaxed rules after that.
Not all deregulation is good, that is for sure, and likewise not all regulation is good.
Example: The CFTC was put in place to "regulate" the commodities market as was the SEC for the stock market. But these rules are only valid when they want them to be.
In 1981 when silver hit $52 in the futures market Armand Hammer (ambassador to Russia and certainly not a conservative by the way), had his friends on the CFTC change the rules on silver trades to liquidation only, meaning you could only sell not buy (i.e. basically ceased any trading). Of course, the only thing silver could do was go down. They blamed the whole thing on the Hunt Bros. (who were out of the market at $12), and a Saudi prince (who was out at $16), both of whom eventually got screwed and lost everything, as did a significant part of the public.
Well, who made money? Armand Hammer and his friends who shorted silver before they made it liquidation only. If left alone, the market would have corrected itself, as it always does, without the total displacement of wealth that occurred.
The same thing is happening now with the manipulation of the market on restricting short selling on certain financials. Just follow the bucks. And, it does not matter which side of the aisle caused it because no one cares, it's money! And the public be damned.
So much for regulations. Deregulating the airline industry made travel affordable for a lot of us, me included. Why are the airlines in trouble? Because they let the Unions price them out of the market. Otherwise with a little proper management the oil situation wouldn't have been a major problem (oil is dropping because the "last fool bought the last expensive barrel".)
The buck definitely has to stop and we have no Harry Truman to catch it. I personally don't believe Sen, Obama is that man. I knew Harry Truman and he is... oh that one was used before.
BTW, my family did not like Truman (because they did not like FDR). I have grown to like and admire him. (Not FDR however, he was no FDR).
You do write one thing I need to instantly argue against. Why are the airlines in trouble? Because they let the Unions price them out of the market.
All that I have read from the chief executive corporate voices of SAS, British Airways, North American Airlines and Air France-KLM S.A. state that it is the fuel price which has caused all their recent troubles, as you call it. Their own public documents and several others I've looked at from the corporate index indicates that the *problem* is based on fuel costs within an uncertain speculative market.
I wold accept you point on the fuel costs, except their are a few other elements to running an airline, capital cost and even labor costs. Trying to say it is only fuel sems to be sugesting that the employees are working for free and the planes were given to them by Airbus.
Since here the price of tickets isn't regualted then and the new more competetive airlines can start-up at anytime, I think it has to do with managemnt and how they manage all of the costs and service.
Duane, if you don't think I at least have a graduate level understanding of business management, you are extremely mistaken.
The same is with the airlines. If they can't run their show, someone else will. Protecting businesses and jobs in that way does not work and in the long costs us businesses and jobs.
We don't need to protect widgets and carriages anymore either.
The big problem with most who suggest they are fiscally conservative is that such *conservative values* tend to be stacked via the influences of special interests both on Capitol Hill and the White House, such that it becomes welfare for the multinational corporations. These bailouts and government packages that come under all sorts of misleading nomenclature help pay the salaries of even CEOs who bankrupt an industry on speculation, all based on that trickle down, pie-in-the-sky theory of a compassionate God who holds every employee's or investor's welfare in his heart, chairing every board meeting. If a welfare mother tried *speculating* 100 dollars from the system (public investment of tax dollars) to help feed her baby, she'd likely serve a jail sentence if she were black and inner city Dallas, based on the statistics I've read. If a Dallas CEO *speculated* away millions of dollars from that *system* (investors etc) statistically he might very well retire with a multi-million dollar annual retirement package as the federal government variously stepped in with a package to cushion the corporation within its peer group.
The problem in America, and much of the world now, is we are living not only on borrowed money, but on moneys that are spun out of non-consumables speculation. These unregulated risks on investments keep building and keep being spread out into more concrete resources/goods/services regions of the marketplace, who often have no idea that their hard capital is not so hard, and as with the Fannie/Frankie issue, once that bubble begins cracking, it infects the entire marketplace.
We have an additional problem helping undermine rational speculation in the marketplace, which both Eisenhower and Kennedy strongly warned the US electorate about. Since Nixon and especially since Reagan, there is a hard boiled group of special interests - whose corporate members have graced the current and several past Republican administrations. Inextricably entwined with the fossil fuel industry, the current military industrial complex thrives on the types of international conflicts we have seen develop through the policies of Bush, and of course, those suggested by McCain.
If all we are doing this November is still arguing stupid personality spin issues between McCain and Obama as to whose lapel flag is biggest, then we have no hope of addressing several major global issues, including the geophysical ones, that are threatening us just as realistically as a Manhattan-sized meteor about to strike Washington DC. I bet if we could see those dangers as clearly as a threatening meteor in the night sky, the world would instantly muster its collective ass to survive it.
All these challenges, including even the very ability to understand the dynamics now threatening the world, can be seen as part of what is going on at the simple level of human evolution. Over the past 3 and a half million years, since a primate began branching towards the hominid (human) branch of today, we've step by step temporarily mastered countless bits of nature's threats. What we have yet to *master* is the unintegrated bits of our natural mind, which often cannot yet fully see the patterns that many scientists can see empirically.
A hundred years ago in Vienna, the cafés teemed with philosophical and scientific debates by those who later lay the cornerstone to much of today's society and technology. One of them, Einstein, saw very early on a simple relationship between time, space and the content it held. But the pattern did not clarify for a great many of his time's physicists, since nothing in Newtonian physics seemed to predict such outlandish natural patterns. But once those scientists in the early 1900's began exercising their gray matter a bit more, especially after Einstein won a Nobe Prize in 1921 for work basically unrelated to relativity but which held the promise of incredible future technology, suddenly Einstein's two theories on relativity made incredible sense to his peer.
Like one of those drawings that were popular in the 1980's, where the image would keep eluding the brain's ability to *see* it until suddenly it glares at you, the *natural patterns* now being discussed by a lot of multidisciplinary scientists deal with the possible extinction, or regression into a serious dark age, of the human species.
We need not only to step out of the box, but entirely out of even that dimension of mind that holds the box.
An old acquaintance from when I was a college student went on to be a doctor that helped put an end top polio in the world. He and a group of other scientists have formed an NGO that works hand-in-glove with the CDC, pretty much all governments of the world, and medical staff everywhere. What it is is a system within the Internet that can swiftly enables the analysis of countless individual bits of input values on the emergence of various old and new viral epidemics on our horizon. It could be a nurse in Mongolia that sends a data SMS of a bird flu victim. Or of an itinerant worker in Louisiana that caught the Dengue fever from a mosquito. From that analysis, the group then advises the CDC before going into gear to mobilize a local response, based on the latest technology. Since such epidemics are parcel often to huge population pools of humans or domestic animals in warmer, humid climates, the group integrates their research with the other multidisciplinary work tackling climate change.
There are countless other NGOs and even innovative capital functions primed to interact in this way. Interestingly, I spent some time last year with an economic-based group that utilizes the Internet much like that - Fair Trade.
McCain doesn't even come close to being a viable candidate on any level.
I would never question your academic acumen on any topic. And I surely don’t have your worldly experience.
My perspective is mostly US based. The US airline problems haven’t occurred only over 18 months of the oil price surge, they have been growing for years. To simply repeat the most recent remarks of a group of CEOs (with less than record of success) suggested that you were over weighting recent events. Some (myself included) may even suggest there was a degree of self-serving in those CEOs remarks.
From my naïve perspective, I have to agree with Bert that many of these companies that are having such difficulty should be allowed to fail.
For me the one weakness in you argument of how people upon thinking saw the patterns Einstein describe those patterns were of things that had no discretion in the patterns while the politics is made up of individuals with personal discretion of actions and those action are influenced by an ever changing society. As much as you feel “stupid personality spin issues between McCain and Obama” is less than valuable, but personality is a major influence on individual actions so it seems to be a justified part of the process.
I do think that self interest has been a driving force in Washington politics long before Eisenhower. Though not doubt that this first occurred here before it spread to any others.
AS far as I can tell, financial abuses have been happening throughout recorded history. These recent abuses maybe more apparent because of the communication technology, but these abuse haven’t had the drastic impact of any of the past events.
I look at your examples from a different perspective, I see systems being managed, and people are led. The examples you offer have been accomplished by relatively small groups of people with a common goal. When we speak of a country, we are looking for a leader to create a common goal. In the US selection is made by the masses rather than an elite, and here it is the things that the masses are interested in are what we discuss. You may feel that we o it wrong, but until a technical description of the knowledge and skills necessary to be the US President and there is a standardized method of mentioning these criteria we will rely on the soft issues and personal choices.
You know, it's pretty simple. Perhaps one way to look at what is happening with the human species is think of it in terms of a social insect colony that has suddenly gone into a swarming frenzy. Most of those who become a part of that swarming frenzy serve no purpose other than as brief carriers and competitors of genetic information. There is a huge population explosion, and then the whole process begins anew, with most of those male carriers of genetic information a bygone memory, the new queens and her female colony back to business as usual.
But see, there is a huge difference. Natural selection has provided us with a cognitive brain that can discern and communicate patterns like no other species.
Well, you know what. I'm beginning a discourse here, and I don't want to do that anymore. It's neither fun nor does it really make any difference to most people who come by here... and way too busy.
I'm just really suggesting that tomorrow's doom sayers won't be long haired freaks with signs, but razor sharp economists and scientists. The thing that is frightening is that when I first studied environmental science, most models (including the various pandemics and other social issues) suggested we had well over a century more of selfish behavior left on the planet. Even ten years ago, the rate at which our oceans and glaciated regions were changing seemed to give us several more decades of this narcissistic behavior before some really irrevocably scary shit started happening. The whole climate change machine is accelerating in ways not previously anticipated.
Human beings are getting stressed from every angle. Denmark, CBS' happiest nation on Earth, has the lowest life expectancy among female groups in Europe. The life expectancy of the average Dane has actually declined in the past decade, mostly in the past 5 years. This is behavioral including cigarettes, most suggest, but it is tied to the stress of raising a family where both parents juggle jobs to keep up with the Jones. But stress does many other things, including disabling our immune systems and thus helping viruses evolve ever more treatment-resistant strains within ever larger human population pools that have increasingly fewer resources to simply survive.
If we had more women in places of executive decision-making on this planet, we'd have had a lot more brainpower to problem solve many of these issues long ago. This is not an artsy metaphor. It is because the female is predisposed to have stronger neuronal pathways between the left and right hemispheres of the brain, along with some denser clusters of synaptic connections in the cognitive decision-making regions of the temporal lobe. How someone else explained this phenomenon in a simpler way is that women are predisposed to better anticipate the possibilities of tomorrow based on the stuff going on today.
See, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that selfish, exploitive, dominating behaviors hurts others. And if you institutionalize such selfish behavioral patterns within societies going global, then you wind up hurting others on that global, institutionalized level. It doesn't take a climatologist to understand that if you turn on the gas in your stove a bit more over a boiling pot of soup, that it'll heat up faster, and if not careful, it'll all burn up. The first extinction of a whale/dolphin animal in recorded human history occurred in China in the past few of years. It was a blind river dolphin species in the Yangtze River that did not survive that river's human exploitation, the final straw being the noise pollution that deafened the blind dolphin's echo-imaging. So it doesn't take any sort of scientist to know that if you randomly poke the eyes out of people, those folks are likely going to have deadly serious problems if left to their own devices to cross the DC Beltway at 4PM.
And it sure doesn't take any sort of scientist to see the pattern emerging here. All it takes is a brain that can shut down a bit of what some scientists might suggest is male dominated antisocial behavior and exercise those regions of the brain neurologically responsible for empathy.
Thank you, Thank you. It is such a pleasure to see rational, civil discourse on here.
Bent, I too welcome the day when women have a greater input into government. The great ones that had a shot accomplished many amazing things: Meir, Ghandi, and Thatcher for example.
There are many points that I agree whole-heartedly with you Bent (and some not so much), too many to go over now. I plan to write more articles that will actually cover or indirectly involve some of them. I would hope you join in on the discussion there.
I am sorry to be tiring, I am a slow and a struggling reader (I have read your comment four times already) it takes time for things to be digested. I truly appreciate your patience and thoughtfulness.
As you mention we humans are a different type of “swarm” not only do we have the ability to reason, we also don’t have to wait for generations of evolution to change and adapt to our environment. You seem to see predestination to failure; I see the seeds of change being planted even before we begin seeing changes we need them for. The human “swarm” doesn’t have to wait for evolution, individual and small groups of the “swarm” can create new ideas and tools that can be quickly assimilated by the “swarm” before the “swarm” succumbs.
All of my life and I suspect ever since recorded history there have been doom Sayers (in whatever form) and yet we are here and the quality of life has improved. If the only thing that changes is the form of the water on earth then we will adapt. If it changes the flora and fauna (as it has before) then we will adapt.
I do take exception about the selfishness and its being institutionalized. I do agree that an inordinate preoccupation with “me” and the immediate future will destabilize and lead to the downfall of those with that focus. However, the organizations that follow that path do and have failed and they are replaced with those that learn from that mistake. You can see that in business, there are many companies that have been around for over 100 years and are likely be around for many more cycles. Similarly the (majority of) individuals that take this approach suffer significant loses and their lessons are passed on to their circle of influence. Just as there are many companies that survive there are even individuals (a greater percentage of the general population) that have learned the lesson of planning for the future (have shown that to their circle of influence) and prosper even in the ebbs of society.
A further example of why I see the human “swam” more adaptable is based on both you and Bert believe in the contribution of women to all aspects of the human “swarm” (I whole heartily agree). In the past 40-50 years the “swarm” has changed in how the woman’s role in leading our society has been revolutionized from simply being controlled by the nature of monarchies to one of personality, drive, and ideas. In our current election cycle not only this example is playing out but so are the assimilation of other previously ignored members of the “swam.” Though based on my limited experience I haven’t seen a superiority of one gender or ethnic group or even social strata over another, I have met “idiots” of all stripes and brilliance in individuals of all facets of society, and the “swarm” is applying that to how it use its members.
What happiness is and how the pursuit of it causes stress, is another discussion, suffice me to say that your model has not played out in my sphere of influence.
The extinction of one animal or another and whether it was caused by some other species, is probably not unique to today or to man, it is simply more personal now.
Again than you for sharing your thoughts and your willingness to listen to differing views. By listening and responding continues to help me grow.