Tim, good one.

Tim — right on. I had the exact same thought when I first read that quote from Magic. Unfortunately, this fact, seems to have gone right over the heads of the rest of the political press corps.

I have reservations about Obama, but not being intimately familiar with how to lie, cheat and steal is not one of them.

Let’s put this into context. There is NO such thing as experience for the position of chief executive for the most powerful nation in the world. It all boils down to what the man is made of. JFK had ‘The Right Stuff,’ and Shrub does not. A brief look at the lives of the two, privileged men, and you can get some clues as to why.

There is no way to predict what sort of Prez Obama would make. There’s only one way to find out. I have a sense, however, that he’s made of slightly tougher stuff than the Silly Putty Prez we’re forced to currently endure.

Foreign policy experience?

How much foreign policy experience did Kennedy, Raygun, Clinton or Dubya have when they were elected President? Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee?

Hey Merk, it might as well be the same. The Republicans have a history or nominating celebrities. Yes, I consider Stub a celebrity who had ‘zilch’ foreign policy. How else do you explain his ability to fail UP his whole life??

i’m not going to vote for the guy just because he’s “better” than bush…thats a ridiculous waste of a vote…you’re not voting for the candidate, you’re voting against whomever else, which is a big difference

the great questions for the next decade, at least, will be foreign policy experience…on the democratic side Biden and Richardson fit the bill the best, and McCain on the repub side…Ron Paul has his own stuff going on

but Obama has been a senator for all of two and a half years…so while i do respect his message, now is not his year, he’s too green…the republicans, the other democrats, and even the media, will hammer him about it

Merk: You’re still infering that Bush was experienced. Did anyone hammer him about that? No. Bottom line is this: In today’s climate, foreign policy experience is just another wedge issue. In a democracy, Congress is supposed to have the final say in foreign policy, so why does the President need to have ANY experience? Sure, he’s the commander in chief, but that’s it. He needs to be more of an ambassador and less of a politician. Therefore, a ‘rookie like Magic Johnson’ could do just fine. But, in today’s climate, with the judicial system politicized, and foreign policy hijacked by defense industry, experience would certainly help keep things the way they are, that’s for sure……..

sorry, but to clarify…i think it would have been better if bush had been hammered about his foreign policy experience…its not that he doenst have any, its just that his particular style, gunboat diplomacy, is from a bygone era, or was

still, that was then, and this is now, and unless a time machine is built in the near future, theres not much one can do about the past, except learn from it…so, democrat or republican, i think foreign policy experience is a must…

after one dupe, do you really want another, even if they have a “D” next to their name? in terms of that kind of experience, Biden or Richardson is the best bet, though i prefer Biden

sorry, but to clarify…i think it would have been better if bush had been hammered about his foreign policy experience…its not that he doenst have any, its just that his particular style, gunboat diplomacy, is from a bygone era, or was

still, that was then, and this is now, and unless a time machine is built in the near future, theres not much one can do about the past, except learn from it…so, democrat or republican, i think foreign policy experience is a must…

after one dupe, do you really want another, even if they have a “D” next to their name? in terms of that kind of experience, Biden or Richardson is the best bet, though i prefer Biden

Merk,

Get real. What kind of foreign policy experience does Biden or Richardson have that would adequately prepare them for making the decisions demanded of a Prez. The only experience preparing you for Prez IS Prez.

And like Coach says, it’s supposed to be Congress’ call.

What we want for a Prez is someone who will put together a highly qualified administration (Hillary?) and someone who can think on their feet (Obama?).

Part of the whole ‘business’ of a primary is to see who puts together the most viable campaign and who can both take a punch and counterpunch. That’s about all a primary is going to tell you. After that, it’s pot luck.

I sure didn’t want Nixon to be Prez, but after watching the comic opera of McGovern’s campaign, I concluded that the ‘best team’ won. If you can’t run a campaign, how can you run an administration? Rhetorical question.

all i meant was that in terms of listening to the candidates, the ones who make the most sense in their views on foreign policy are Biden, who seems to be the only one with some sort of future plan for iraq other than pull out pell mell or stay there indefinitely

and yes congress does have say when authorizing war and the like, but the vast majority of foreign policy isnt warfare…theres diplomacy, having to read other leaders intentions, complex negotiations between parties who may hate each other…and thus far, everything Obama has said and done has had an undertone of naivete when it comes to such matters

again, i’m not saying im going to vote for Biden either…aside from Ron Paul, no other candidates excite me…i just consider Biden and Richardson the best of a weak batch

If foreign policy was the only thing the Prez had to do I ‘might’ be swayed. But it’s not. As I said, I’d opt for someone who surrounded themself with top-notch folks and could take care of themself. Biden and Richardson may or may not fit that bill I like and respect them both. Probably more than Hillary. Doesn’t mean they’re the best choice, however.

Whoever rounds up all the Libertarians and throws ‘em in the slammer gets my vote.

Coach and Dirty Dennis, you two are very confused about the foreign policy of the United States, perhaps owing to youth and inexperience. I really do not have the foggiest notion of what passes for civics these days. To put it simply, no one branch is established as the sole arbiter of foreign policy. Some would argue that this ambiguity exists for a reason. “Congress’ call” is a perfect example of the kind of reductionism that marks the decline and fall of political discourse in this country. With respect to lack of foreign policy experience, I believe that you both are correct. It is not essential that a candidate be able to demonstrate a track-record of foreign policy experience. Sound judgement is paramount in my view. So far, it appears to me that Obama has demonstrated this strength exceptionally well (even for a Democrat). Perhaps the only test with respect to foreign policy is whether or not a president surrounds himself with experienced advisors and a cabinet of accomplished public servants. When it is all said and done, sometimes even the best minds are not adequate to a given task. The complexities can be to vast to fully appreciate; the flow of information can be incomplete; smart people can make bad decisions. Referring back to the original point I set out to make, these reasons are precisely why the executive branch is often the best-suited branch to advance foreign policy. A Congress of over 500 individuals with their attendant staffs do not have the ability to react to complexities that can change by the hour or with the choice of words in a private conversation. The ambiguity contained in the Constitution is a blessing, and though the current President might have abused it, he will leave office in just over a year. In the future, the tables will most certainly be turned, which might be advantageous to a more enlightened President.

Noam,

You’re probably new hereabouts. Neither Coach nor I would qualify as Spring Chickens. Be that as it may, your point(s) is/are accurate and well made. As for me, I was merely addressing a single issue, not attempting to paint the spectrum of geopolitics one color.

Foreign policy SHOULD be (and is) the purview of the Executive branch. Foreign policy of late seems to be involved mostly in war making, which is why I allude to the impact of Congress.

COMSKY: Thanks for the kudos. I love being told I’m an inexperienced youth. I also love hearing how ‘complex’ foreign policy issues are. As if invading a sovereign nation unilaterally is a ‘complex’ thing……perpetrating fear is a ‘complex’ thing…….torturing is a ‘complex’ thing……

Obama’s good, ‘even for a democrat’??? Did you show your true colors there? Just curious……

BTW: If the executive branch was the sole proprietor of foreign policy, which it mostly is now, then it’s safe to say we live under a dictatorship. If that’s what you want, then congrats. But, it’s not the way it’s supposed to be. The reason Congress is, and should be, responsible, is because they represent the people. The President represents ‘groups’ of people (electoral college).

But, I guess I’ll go back to my desk now, it’s almost recess!!! Teatherball anyone???

COMSKY: Thanks for the kudos. I love being told I’m an inexperienced youth. I also love hearing how ‘complex’ foreign policy issues are. As if invading a sovereign nation unilaterally is a ‘complex’ thing……perpetrating fear is a ‘complex’ thing…….torturing is a ‘complex’ thing……

Obama’s good, ‘even for a democrat’??? Did you show your true colors there? Just curious……

BTW: If the executive branch was the sole proprietor of foreign policy, which it mostly is now, then it’s safe to say we live under a dictatorship. If that’s what you want, then congrats. But, it’s not the way it’s supposed to be. The reason Congress is, and should be, responsible, is because they represent the people. The President represents ‘groups’ of people (electoral college).

But, I guess I’ll go back to my desk now, it’s almost recess!!! Teatherball anyone???

Also, for the record, Bender is my roommate, in case DD and Comsky are confused…….

I was. But I was gonna let it pass in case you let slip dual identities.

Belive me DD, that dipchit Bender looks or acts nothing like me. He’s my girlfriend’s little brother who needs to use his own PC! He posted last night, and his name was still on the ‘post a comment’ screen unbeknownst to me!
Oversight has begun……..

That Dipshista. Slap him around a little to get him to show respect where it’s merited. In the future I’ll watch for his posts and ask, “Is that your Mommy’s PC?”

Coach, I deeply regret having offended your span of years and accumulated wisdom.

I would like to point out that the foreign policy of the United States is indeed a very complex issue. If you believe that problems which arise on a global scale have solutions that can be reduced to common sense notions of right and wrong, then it is likely you will remain confused for the rest of your life with respect to the workings of geopolitics. It is precisely this kind of thinking that resulted in the invasion of Iraq (which, by the way, was NOT unilateral). The Bush administration implemented a foreign policy descision based on a caricature of Iraq that, as it turns out, failed to provide a basis for securing the peace. Reducing the complexities of Iraq as a state, a place, groups of people, cultures, etc. to a caricature of reality has turned out to be a disaster of epic proportion. If you assume that your reductions are not similarly incomplete then you delude yourself.

I’ve seen Coach post quite a bit and I’ve seen him DEduce often, but if he’s REduced, I’ve missed it.

Anytime anyone screws up, it’s ’cause the issues are ‘complex.’ Gimme a break. We’re all born with a moral compass, whether we reference it or no. We KNOW right from wrong.

Invading Iraq, whether we coerced others to join us or no, was wrong.

If it makes you feel better to contemplate issues on the most complex scale, overlooking the obvious, then go ahead on. Just don’t expect some of us young ‘uns to be as equally impressed.

Dennis, I am glad to know that you are confident that right and wrong are so self-evident. I find that people like you tend to be dependable and loyal comrades. I for one, over the years, have come to believe that right and wrong are usually quite subjective. The greatest tragedies often result from the best of intentions. Contrawise, unintended positive outcomes can emerge from negative motives.

Still, I am not thinking about morality when I refer to foreign policy. I do not believe that the US can act or not act with some sort of negative consequence. Every decision presents its own dilemnas in that case. IN other words, there is no all right or all wrong decision.

Reducing policy decisions to the right and wrong is a most dangerous game. It’s a trap. When you are right, folks with a different view must be wrong. Perhaps this is something you can appreciate, given what I am assuming is a strong distaste for the current administration. Indeed, one might ascribe the administration’s stubborness to this very same delusion.

I concur (hard not to).

The difference may just lie in passive morality vs aggressive morality. It was morally wrong for us to invade Iraq. It was NOT morally wrong for us to go to the aid of South Korea.

I am not so naive is to believe that things are so simple. The more perspectives to a problem, the greater the number of ’solutions.’ What I do not, do, however, is project my beliefs upon others.

For example, if the rest of the world was united in the belief and conviction that military action was the ONLY solution to the Sadaam ‘problem,’ I might b-u-y into it. But if I were the most powerful country in the world, I would not act with such cavalier disregard for the rest of humanity as evidence by our recent actions.

It IS a complicated world. As such, you’d better have EVERY damned moral duck in a row before you shoot.

Anyone else having ‘problems?’ I just posted. Saw it out there. Now it’s not. Tried again and am getting told by MCP that I’m duplicating. AND Jed’s name is in my name place again. Sigh.

I think that this medium is the very essence of projecting one’s beliefs upon others.

Agreed, having one’s “moral ducks in a row” is a necessary precursor to something as agressive as a military invasion.

Dennis,

My theory is that Friday sees the
most traffic and insane/intoxicated/and-otherwi se-intolerable rambling on this site. Tim and/or his minions probably have a policy of reading this stuff before allowing it to stand posted when the traffic gets high enough.

Chomper,

But no one dies in this medium. At least I hope not.

Toohis,

Perhaps you’re right but I don’t think anyone actually reads these posts as they’re submitted. Maybe a truly egregious one might be ‘lifted’ after the fact. I just think they have turn-of-the-century (20th) hardware and software.

As to the more important issue, that may have been the second most interesting basketball game, second only to the previous year’s version of Magic v. Bird for the National Championship.

Yeah, I know, Boston and Phoenix had a multi-overtime game in the 70s that defied belief, but there was no character to Phoenix then and they disappeared as quickly as they appeared.

Actually, if you created a “Top 100″ basketball games, ninety would be college games and most of those had plot and drama (read championship implications). Duke beating KY on that last second shot. TW beating KY. (Poor KY.) UCLA beating Duke in ‘64. Duke/Houston, both games. Okay, a LOT of UCLA games.

Nohme: What I’ve ‘deduced’ in my years learning about geopolitics, is that when an an international issue is described as ‘complex’, it usually means that there’s a lot of hands in the cookie jar…..

I don’t think anybody’s arguing with you on your stance about the complexities of foreign policy. Sure, things are comlex, but certain things can be reduced and eliminated making it less complex. And, I’m not referring killing when I say eliminated. It’s much easier for me to list all the factors, then eliminate the ones that don’t belong. For instance, the oil/religion influence on foreign policy. What makes it morally wrong is this: If we’re using religion as a reason, even if it’s not the only reason, then we’re no better than the jihadists. If we’re using oil as a reason, then we’re morally bankrupt due to the fact that we know we can use something other than oil to fuel the auto industry.

So, the complexities are there. But, they’re easily identifiable, making it easy for me to deduce, making it even easier for me to admit what this war is/was about and come to the conclusion that we’re no different than all the other invading nations that we’ve villified.

Sorry, but nothing short of finding a nuclear stockpile in Iraq is going to change my mind.

Coach,

“we know we can use something other than oil to fuel the auto industry.”

If we could use something else for oil we would be doing just that. It amazes me how ubiquitous the false belief that viable alternatives exist. The key reason why the price of oil keeps going up is because there are no viable substitutes. There is nothing out there that can provide a cheap source of portable energy. Believe me, if there was an alternative, there would be droves of people racing to bring it to market. Indeed, there are droves aof people out there trying to solve this problem already, but no one has a real solution. Not hydrogen, not ethanol, not solar, not fuel cells….There is no alternative yet. Even if tomorow a golden goose crapped an egg that contained the magic fuel. That still would not change the fact that there are millions of internal combustion engines out there in the US that drink petroleum-derived fuel. Oil is here to stay. As I have stated many times before, I fully endorse moving forward on alternatives, i.e. building limited infrastructure, funding research, etc. The most important thing for all of us to do, in the mean time, is to fully understand the energy problem. If we coddle ourselves into believing that some greedy group of individuals out there is keeping us down, then we are doing ourselves tremendous harm. Eventually, we will run out of people to blame and realize that we are all at fault because we have failed to fully understand the nature and scale of the problem. Every time you repeat the kind of nonsense that I quoted above an energy angel loses its wings.

Blood: Are you guessing? Or what? FYI: I did a thesis on fossil fuels and their replacements. Had to speak with a production mgr for GM on the EV1. Had to speak to an California Air Resources Board member. After those interviews, I believe I fully understand the industry. So, for the sake of common thought and conversation, please take your pretentious bullchit approach to someone else. I know what I’m talking about. You’re defending your beloved president.

In case you’re wondering what those people said to me: Electric cars would work everywhere and the air resources board was bought out, so GM had to ‘destroy’ the cars.
And that seems normal to you??

I doubt the two of you would concede (deduce) that you’re both correct. We’re definitely hooked on petrol and it will be a LONG time before we’re not and we’ll NEVER be totally ‘clean.’

On the other hand, there are alternatives that will begin the process of change. Hybrids are the logical first step.

The reality is NO change will occur without incentives, for both comsumer and producer. The gov’t has to take the lead on this matter and it’s recent denial of several states’ request for more fuel economy demonstrates that they will not.

So, along with “Impeach Bushney,” shouldn’t we also call for “Nationalize Energy.” I mean for Christ’s sake, Bushney keeps telling us that oil is vital to our national security. Well, let’s put it under the DOD then, if it’s so ‘vital.’

At least then there would be some rationalization as to why ALL gas stations change their prices the same at the same time.

Here’s an interesting tidbit, Romney’s dad is a former executive at GM. Hmmmm!! I wonder if he’ll help us get away from our dependance on fossil fuels or bring back vehicles similar to the EV1.

Jed,

Actually, it was AMC, and as Cons go, George wasn’t so bad, which ultimately got him shafted by the party. He ran for Prez in ‘68 and things might have been a LOT different had he won. What am I saying? Things WOULD have been a lot different. How could they not?

AMC was probably the first American auto manufacturer to embrace compacts. Whether they did so out of concern for fuel economy or because that was the only ‘niche’ open to them is subject to debate. At that time VW was revolutionizing the industry and you ‘could’ say Romney was a visionary.

All in all, I have good recollections of the man.

Not to mention that Tom Ogle proved in the 70’s that we could run our engines on fumes(!??!!?)… so they already know we could increase efficiency, but that would cut into their huge profits.
Tesla showed in the 1890’s the efficiency of electricity and it’s ease in production and distribution, even invented highly efficient engines and turbines, but his knowledge was Buried.
Same happened to Schauberger in the 1950’s.
We have individuals today pulling out hundreds of millions from the system for themselves. of course the systems will start failing.
When you have industries that are allowed to become an amazing source of hundreds of millions of dollars for a select few top officers, you have to realize the particular system will be depleated of it’s value and eventually will fail; furthermore, those individuals will use that money to inject themselves further into government and continue to corrupt the system.
That reality prevails in the transportation industries, health industries, pharmaceuticals, fuels, etc. as well as government.
We need to plug the holes through which our legislators have gained access to the treasury in order to enrich themselves personally and their friends directly and indirectly by the usurpation of our laws and institutions.
If there has ever been a time for you to use the pulpit and the legal system to protect your nation and ‘way of life’ from enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC, now is the time.

Can we possibly afford to continue to give our support in the way of votes and money to a party that wishes to prove that government doesn’t work and repeatedly does it’s damndest to sabotage it?

Jed: How’s this for a neo-revolution? Nationwide tax-out. Can’t call it a march, or a walkout. So, we’ll call it a federal tax-out. Those opposed to the current path of our government and the corruption should refuse to pay federal taxes. If you read deep enough into the constitution, they can’t throw you in jail for it until you’ve appealed all the way through the supreme court. And, they’re not going to do it to millions of people.

Just a thought, but it certainly would get their attention. Personally, I’ve had it with oil deciding our foreign policy, pharmaceuticals deciding our health care, and media deciding our presidents.

How about this for a start. We’ll start paying our taxes when ‘gubment’ eliminates lobbying. We’ll start there.

Jed,

Couldn’t agree more.

Coach,

Excellent idea but back up one step. We don’t pay taxes until they implement TRUE campaign financing. Some scale where Prez candidates get $1K a month to finance their campaign. Senators get $500, Reps $250 and so on down the line. Each taxpayer would then pay $1 a year towards the fund. Unused balance of the fund would go towards universal health care AND social security.

Then, adjust all salaries in reverse order beginning with Reps getting the same $$$ a month as elementary school teachers. U.S. Senators would be paid the average of that amount from their state.

Then nationalize the big business.

Let’s do what the rich do. Open a non for profit foundation, make a huge donation to that foundation in an amount that would offset out taxes and thereby take all the money that would go to the federal government and put it in the hands of a foundation you control to do with it as you’d like. If you can’t set up your own NonProfit, find another worthy charity or someone with a charity that is willing to give you kickbacks in the future.

If it works for them, let’s make it work for us. I’d much rather give my money to the red cross or something like that rather than the fed that seems more intent on giving it away to corporations and foreign countries.

Coach, what creates the electricity in electric cars?

Ole,

Coach is having a Merry Xmas with his lady and his curse.

To answer your question, the sun, the wind, the sea and the thermal heat below our feet.

Doofus MCP!! If I have a duplicate post, where the FUQ is it?

I said,

“Ole,

(Hope I can ‘mask’ it with parens)

Coach is having a Merry Xmas with his lady and his curse.

or characters ################

To answer your question, the sun, the wind, the sea and the thermal heat below our feet.”

Oops, apparently MCP is a tad slow on holidays. And DD may be a tad impatient. My apologies.

DD -

Is that supposed to be an asinine answer? If that’s the case, ok ha ha. If not, I think you are being a little too general. Of course wind, solar, and geothermal energy are the ultimate sources that we tap to create electricity (barring nuclear), but that’s EXTREMELY big picture. If you are suggesting that these sources are ultimately what gets stored as fossil fuels, then I agree. Gas-electric cars would provide a great boost in efficiency with a minimum of new infrastructure investment. On the other hand, if you are suggesting that electric cars will run on renewable sources, then you are mistaken. First, they are not portable. Second, if you are talking about plug-in cars, then you are just tapping into existing sources which are mostly fossil-derived. The key in making electrics a feasible approach to clean energy, in my opinion, is converting our infrastructure and power-generation to a system centered on renewables. Getting back to my original point, converting to a renewable-centered system has very little to do with getting the automakers on board. I definitely agree that there would be vested interests who would oppose such a sweeping conversion, but that’s an entirely different conversation.

Coach -

As usual you have little to offer in the way of substance, except for passing references to your’thesis’ and 2 conversations. You don’t even bother to identify the substance of these items. Note to Coach, lets see some references to publication if you are going to go on about some thesis of yours. Last, there’s the reference to ‘[my] beloved president’. Whereas I might have argued that certain policies of the administration are not accurately represented by you et al, I have no love for this president and I have stated this repeatedly. That’s beside the point, anyway. Your lack of understanding of this issue is what really threatens the future of alternative energy in this country. Morons like you think it’s a conspiracy theory, while the other side thinks its all in God’s hands. Regardless of which side you’re on, these points of view are rooted in a total lack of an understanding of energy science and how it relates to policy. Maybe you should stop buggering Bender and investigate the issue a bit further before you decide there’s some conspiracy theory at work. Energy policy continues to be a problem for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with good guys and bad guys.

Ole,

I may ‘appear’ asinine, from time to time, but I’d like to think I outgrew it. If I’ve failed, I’ll continue to work on it.

The Sun is not a renewable resource? The Wind? The Waves? All three CAN be harnessed to generate AND store electricity. Fossil fuels are NOT ‘required.’

That said, it’s going to be a cold day in hell before something like that replaces our current situation. And I endorse all that you say, save your the point mentioned.

Jed,

Sadly, you’re right. The auto industry is at the end of a row of dominoes. We have to start with something like public campaign financing and strict ethics laws for our elected and appointed officials before any meaningful change will occur.

Greed IS at the root of the problem but our politicians are no less guilty. Mahaps worse.

And where does accountability for that situation lie? With thee and me. Actually, no, we cleared that up. You and I have the high ground. It’s all the idiots who voted for Bush and his ilk that are responsible for the problem. A democratic form of government would succeed if there was some sort of Mendoza Bar to qualify.

Jed -

Electricity is indeed ‘created’ and electricity is not energy. It is an effect that arises from differences in potential energy. Electricity is the flow of current which exists because of differences in potential (charge differences). These differences in potential are created through application of kinetic energy – e.g. building charge with a dynamo. Come on man, even Dr. Vik could have told you that.

Wow Jed!! Electricity has always amazed me. How it’s created, stored and transported. And how you can use electricity but not use it up. Don’t even talk about the whole wave thingie.

I chalk it up to phenomenon like time and distance, something I can’t comprehend in this life. Sure hope I do better in the next.

Oh, you didn’t mention the electricy in our body. Care to expound?

Jed –

You are pathetic.

Jed, thank you for your continued devotion to my body of work. I will have you know that while working with the Nazis, I learned that the word electricity is meaningless from a scientific standpoint. When lay people use the term, they are referring to the flow of current which they can tap to deliver power. I understand that the sheer lunacy of my work represents to you a need to question established science, but you musn’t let it get the better of you.

Jed, thank you for your continued devotion to my body of work. I will have you know that while working with the Nazis, I learned that the word electricity is meaningless from a scientific standpoint. When lay people use the term, they are referring to the flow of current which they can tap to deliver power. I understand that the sheer lunacy of my work represents to you a need to question established science, but you musn’t let it get the better of you.

Jed, thank you for your continued devotion to my body of work. I will have you know that while working with the Nazis, I learned that the word electricity is meaningless from a scientific standpoint. When lay people use the term, they are referring to the flow of current which they can tap to deliver power. I understand that the sheer lunacy of my work represents to you a need to question established science, but you musn’t let it get the better of you.

Excuse me? THAT was pathetic?

If it was SO pathetic, the most you can do in response is THAT?

And have you been double-monikering?

I always do

double, triple, quadruple, quintuppppple, I can’t keep track

This is way to confusing.

This is way too confusing.

This is way tooo confusing.

Jed,

I love it. Keep ‘em coming.

But I don’t think Ole is all that dumb. He knows a lot more about some things than I. Of course, everyone has their limit, and when your position as king of the hill is threatened, we revert to primordial responses. It’s all pretty fascinating.

I thank Zeus that this medium was developed in time for me to witness it. ALL have a message; the weak/the strong, the bright/the dim. What we view herein is but a microcosm of our people.

And boy, is THAT ever depressing.

Jed -

Tell us the story again about why you dropped out of MIT!

ah yes, when all else fails and you risk being upstaged, ridicule your oponent in order to keep your standing by lowering someone elses. Kid, you sure youre not a repuglicant politician, you sure know how to use their tactics well. Then again, it’s probably the effects of a higher coordinating force working to the detriment of the majority… congratulations in allowing yourself to be used as such. You must be so proud you can be useful… translation: your’e a tool, not an operator, inventor, creator or originator.

I am really getting tired of being stuck to Jed’s head. The most cuckoo things are going on in there and I’m begining to think that every time he passes gas, I turn a different deeper shade of green. If someone would be so kind as to suggest to Jed that he go to the barber to liberate me from this meaningless existence, I would be much obliged.

Did anyone see that Huckabee add with the floating cross? It turns out that if you play the thing backwards it says ‘Ron Paul is dead’. Isn’t that corny?

Jed -

Upstaged, yes, I admit it. The level of erroneous detail and passion that you put into your responses is indeed a spectacle that cannot be matched. Forgive me for not responding with a point by point refutation of the pseudoscience that you effuse; I don’t really think it’s necessary to enter into that kind of discussion and I do not share DD’s opinion that all points are valid. I recognize that you have a lot wrapped up in some of these beliefs about science and nature, but when you present these ideas as if they rise to the same level of rigor of so-called accepted science, then you are degrading yourself – and possibly even the ideas themselves, if they actually are valid and simply not tested. What distinguishes science from pseudoscience is method. This method makes science THE superior approach that us H. saps use to satisfy our material needs and wants. Scientific method relies on a method that involves repeated testing by a community of practitioners – and assumes that all hypotheses are inccorrect until alternatives are ruled out. Indeed, this community can eschew new ideas, but eventually those ideas, if valid, generally come to be accepted as other scientists successfully replicate original findings. This methodology has its own inherent limitations. Indeed it creates a certain orthodoxy, but if you examine the whole of scientific history, I think you must admit that this orthodoxy is extremely flexible relative to other similar institutions/cultures. For example, Continental Drift when first proposed by Wegener, was scoffed at by geologists for decades. The reason why his theory was received so poorly was because he was unable to provide a mechanism to explain continental drift. Without a mechanism, he could not devise or even propose some sort of test that would support the validity of his unorthodox claims. When you cite the work of VS and others, your assertions come off to me, a trained scientist, as extremely arbitrary because they are untested. It’s not to say that they lack the potential for validity, but without acknowledging that these ideas are untested and not speaking to how your beliefs might be tested with respect to whatever issue is being discussed, you are propagating fallacy. You are also arming your oponents with the ammunition they need to reject real science. Pseudoscientific buffoonery does more damage than anything Bushney or the other villians in your comic book world could ever render. While they might reject science, you actually create misunerstanding and skepticism. What’s worse? I tend to think it’s the latter because it makes the former that much easier.

Obama contionues to be a threat to national Maturity.

Fresh man rookie Obama with his big ego and little experence, continues his up hill struggle for the Democratic nomination.

We all know Edwards or Hillary are the ones to beat the Republicans

Ole,

Once again I find myself agreeing with you AND disagreeing, all apace. I have NO credentials/background to address the validity of the discussion you and Jed are waging, save to comment upon the players, their style and what little history has taught me of life.

All you say is true, as far as it goes, and yet in your truth you acknowledge that orthodox science is often far behind the acceptance of many ‘suggestions.’ (I hesitate to use hypothesis or premise for fear they have scientific connotations.) I pick up snippets that some of Einstein’s ‘beliefs’ are being validated to this day. Fifty years later. Given that, I think we would be remiss to discount as ‘pseudoscience’ (must be an esoteric term) any ‘suggestion’ which could not be supported by the scientific method. Held in abeyance, yes, but not discounted.

Moreover, what does the scientific method require to prove or disprove a ‘suggestion.’ In two words, time and money. And where does the scientific community get such means save either the government or industry, neither of which has any inclination towards anything remotely novel? I give you climate change as a case in point. Their approach to the findings of the scientific community was, like yours to the assertions that Jed makes, to reproach the findings. Oddly ‘unscientific.’

As an avowed member of the scientific community, I would have thought that your position would be to encourage ANY challenge of orthodoxy, given how many challenges have been proven correct in the past.

For me, I embrace any concept that is born of a visionary approach. Many fail to meet the test of time, to be sure, but enough are validated to justify their existence. There IS a place for art in science.

DD -

I am NOT suggesting that science is behind in the acceptence of a large number valid ideas that have been relegated to the bins of fringe science or pseudo-science. I certainly do believe that it is possible that a few stray ideas out there fit this bill, but this is overwhelmingly the exception not the rule in my opinion. It’s actually unknowable, so any debate on the subject should start with that in mind. The basis of my argument is that I choose to believe the simplest explanation (see Occam’s Razor) until evidence can be presented which suggests otherwise. In other words quack science is quack science because this is the consensus in a particular field of experts. Assuming ulterior motives for a field of experts eschewing a particular idea is a much more complex proposition and is therefore unlikely to describe most cases. I point to the fact that the scientific community has had tremendous success in finding new ways to solve a vast range of problems. It is unlikely that a community entrenched in erroneous beliefs would be so successful. People like Jed, and possibly you, who tend to see conspiracy in every shadow, are making assumptions that rely on instincts that have developed from personal experience. This is reasonable and probably a more or less adequate approach to living one’s life, BUT IT IS NOT SCIENTIFIC. Personally I live my life this way – I would loathe being scientific about everything – until I am faced with a constrained problem, and then I try to approach it scientifically. But that wasn’t really my point anyway.

My point was that an approach to discovery in the natural world must rely on principles and observations that are generally accepted as valid so that within the a community of scientists, (novel) results can be verified. I’ll give you a hypotetical pseudoscientific approach:

A scientist starts with an observation (which may or may not accurately describe reality): people behave more agressively as the ambient temperature increases. He hypothesizes: global climate change can be measured by trends in Speeding Tickets, Traffic Deaths, Homicides, Assualts, Rapes, etc. The scientist gathers a bunch of archived data and analyzes it. He sees increases in all of these categories and concludes: the Earth is getting warmer.

Very logical, in fact it is the classical logical construction known as modus ponens:
If P, then Q
P
thus, Q
Poor premises make this hypothetical bad science. For example, one should first ask ‘how sensitive are Homo sapiens to changes in the ambient temp and how does this sensitivity manifest in behavior.’ In fact, this might be unknown or at best highly speculative among behavioral scientists and physiologists. What would turn this into pseudoscience – at least by my definition – is some persistent belief that this question is not important for some stupid reason like ‘it’s obvious’.

Concerning Einstein. While his theories are still being validated EMPIRICALLY, the ideas themselves extend from well-documented observations and proven mathematics. Einstein is in fact a great example of what was describing when I mentioned method. Take Special Relativity…He arrived at conclusions that seem very counter-intuitive, very unorthodox (ca. 1905) even. Nevertheless his approach was methodical and scientific. His theory extends from some simple propositions, and the mathematical reasonning that develops it is very straightforward – it is completely accessible to a second-year physics undergraduate student. The conclusions are inescapable, eventhough they defy our workaday understanding of how space and time works – they create paradoxes. Moreover, Special Relativity can be (and has been repeatedly) verified empirically through a properly designed experiment.

DD -

I am NOT suggesting that science is behind in the acceptence of a large number valid ideas that have been relegated to the bins of fringe science or pseudo-science. I certainly do believe that it is possible that a few stray ideas out there fit this bill, but this is overwhelmingly the exception not the rule in my opinion. It’s actually unknowable, so any debate on the subject should start with that in mind. The basis of my argument is that I choose to believe the simplest explanation (see Occam’s Razor) until evidence can be presented which suggests otherwise. In other words quack science is quack science because this is the consensus in a particular field of experts. Assuming ulterior motives for a field of experts eschewing a particular idea is a much more complex proposition and is therefore unlikely to describe most cases. I point to the fact that the scientific community has had tremendous success in finding new ways to solve a vast range of problems. It is unlikely that a community entrenched in erroneous beliefs would be so successful. People like Jed, and possibly you, who tend to see conspiracy in every shadow, are making assumptions that rely on instincts that have developed from personal experience. This is reasonable and probably a more or less adequate approach to living one’s life, BUT IT IS NOT SCIENTIFIC. Personally I live my life this way – I would loathe being scientific about everything – until I am faced with a constrained problem, and then I try to approach it scientifically. But that wasn’t really my point anyway.

My point was that an approach to discovery in the natural world must rely on principles and observations that are generally accepted as valid so that within the a community of scientists, (novel) results can be verified. I’ll give you a hypotetical pseudoscientific approach:

A scientist starts with an observation (which may or may not accurately describe reality): people behave more agressively as the ambient temperature increases. He hypothesizes: global climate change can be measured by trends in Speeding Tickets, Traffic Deaths, Homicides, Assualts, Rapes, etc. The scientist gathers a bunch of archived data and analyzes it. He sees increases in all of these categories and concludes: the Earth is getting warmer.

Very logical, in fact it is the classical logical construction known as modus ponens:
If P, then Q
P
thus, Q
Poor premises make this hypothetical bad science. For example, one should first ask ‘how sensitive are Homo sapiens to changes in the ambient temp and how does this sensitivity manifest in behavior.’ In fact, this might be unknown or at best highly speculative among behavioral scientists and physiologists. What would turn this into pseudoscience – at least by my definition – is some persistent belief that this question is not important for some stupid reason like ‘it’s obvious’.

Concerning Einstein. While his theories are still being validated EMPIRICALLY, the ideas themselves extend from well-documented observations and proven mathematics. Einstein is in fact a great example of what was describing when I mentioned method. Take Special Relativity…He arrived at conclusions that seem very counter-intuitive, very unorthodox (ca. 1905) even. Nevertheless his approach was methodical and scientific. His theory extends from some simple propositions, and the mathematical reasonning that develops it is very straightforward – it is completely accessible to a second-year physics undergraduate student. The conclusions are inescapable, eventhough they defy our workaday understanding of how space and time works – they create paradoxes. Moreover, Special Relativity can be (and has been repeatedly) verified empirically through a properly designed experiment.

Ole,

I don’t feel there’s a conspiracy, rather that proving or disproving quack-science is not high on the priority list of legitimate science. As such, the failure to disprove doesn’t discount. That’s all I’m saying, although rather poorly. I am NOT of a scientific bent and am only speaking from a lay point of view. To wit, I’d like a few romantics in the field stirring up conventional wisdom. The fact that 90% of their assertions are quack, deters me not.

Remember, I am liberal. That means, among other things, question all that we know and believe. ESPECIALLY if someone else tells you so.

I believe, as well, that if some sort of ‘answer’ was scientifically feasible, say, nuclear fussion, then there’d be a stampede to be there first. (I’m not implying fussion is NOT scientifically feasible, I haven’t a clue. Remember, I’m a liberal.)

I’m in over my head and know it. I’ll defer to Wild Thing to continue my theme.

So, Ole, do they have lab romances? Aside from Greg(?) Larson, whom I miss, do they have a sense of humor? My brother has a PhD in physics. He’s followed the mainstream, and the rules, all his life. He may or may not bespeak the genre, but he’s my only personal reference. Oh, he’s a conservative too, as, I would expect, are most ’scientists.’

Yes ‘lab romances’ are common. Not surprisingly, scientists like to f uck just as much as the rest of the world. Most even have a sense of humor: e.g. t-shirts reading ‘geologists do it with a hammer and chisel’. Fortunately, my sense of humor grew out of different experiences; I don’t have a ’schist happens’ bumper sticker or a stupid t-shirt.

From my experience, your brother is probably not an accurate example of the culture of scientists. The ability to participate in that culture does not preclude all manner of nonsense. Not to say, there aren’t quite a number of the aspbergerish, single-track-mind rule-oriented nerds in science, but those people are everywhere – think career bureaucrat.

Last, I would have to say that the overwhelming majority of scientists that I have met are liberal to the Nth degree. I think this is for two reasons. First, they are used to controlling parameters of their experiments. Second, they become accustomed to the top-down management style of academia. Scientists, therefore, naively seek a society that strives to IMPLEMENT prosperity and harmony. Of course, they will tell you that it is because they are just better educated than the average person (i.e. they equate liberalism with some sort of enlightenment); being a scientist also requires a certain degree of ego. This is probably the most important reason why orthodoxy will never triumph over valid ideas. The people who propose these ideas are just too wrapped up in their pet ideas to relinquish them – even if it comes at great personal cost.

You know, R&D is about observation.
Experimentation produces results and from those results we get insight.
Scientists of today have b*ught the science ‘hook line and sinker’ and straying from that rigid adherence for some is risky and detrimental to a career, when their experiments give results that don’t fit in with their theories they suspect a problem with set-up or in one of the variables. Usually, it takes alot of time to test all those theories and arrive at a conclusion, Tesla would ridicule Edison for this, Saying that if tasked with finding a needle in a haystack, Edison would pick every blade of hay, examine it carefully, catalog and store it and then proceed to the next when a learned individual could actually use math and intelligence to come to a quick simple solution. He always wondered why Edison and friends would ignore discrepancies in their data and attribute it to a mistake. In his eyes, the learning was in the discrepancies. You learn not from the things you already think you know, but from the things that seem anomalous that under closer scrutiny reveal new knowledge.

Our ‘Contrarian’ here belongs to the category who thinks he knows it all at his young age. His superiority complex is so complete that it puts him at the top of the knowlege pyramid(no being superior to him in his philosophical repetoire), trumping all including nature. Since he believes he knows it all and that all learning has already been achieved he discounts any new observations as quakery and proceeds to ridicule. Yet he fails to make the simplest observation about his world.

If a new born eats 3 or 4 feedings a day of about 4 ounces each. And he must adhere to the second law of thermodynamics which states that no system can output more than has been inputed. How is it possible that on this meager input the child is able to triple, or more, it’s size in a few months. Now some may tout the energy content of baby formula, but frankly, the child would have to be drinking a couple of gallons of gas a day to equal the energy output in terms of growth, learning and observation. With a bit of sh*t and p*ss to boot. Wow, what an amazing system we are. Too bad we haven’t learned enough about it to keep it healthy, even worse, our society discounts thousand year old knowledge that could prevent disease. It amazes me to no end that some would defend the government that deprives them of knowledge, learning or savings, but I guess when you have hitched your wagon to a particular horse, you have to ride that fu*ker over the edge because he’s a champion and wouldn’t lead you astray, regardless of how ill he’s gotten.

BTW- Maxwell, worked out the formulas that make electricity experimentation possible. conservative, religious, outstanding public service record.

Tesla, studied the new science of electricity. Gave us AC power transmission and generation. Gave us wireless communications, including multiplexing and frequency division. Definate conservative. Not religious yet very spiritual and aware that there is more to life than what is perceived. Gave up great wealth to give his inventions exposure and marketing.

Tom A. Edison, great physicist that gave us some very interesting theories that have helped understand our world. Somehow, despite his genius, he could not make his theories fit, he could not unify his theories in a way that was provable and made sense. He was missing a part of the picture. Luckily, he never accepted the established theories and developed his own through observation and experimentation. He was a conservative, somewhat practicing jew, and undoubtedly provided a great service to humanity.

Hmmm, seems that scientist do tend to be conservative. Apparently these people were not concerned at all with wealth and riches, unlike the morons that lead industry. The true conservatives, not this new fangled conservative that puts itself above all others and feels that any knowledge besides his own is worthy of derision. From what I’ve learned from studying the religions of humanity, these are the very things we are being warned about that the enemy of humanity makes use of. Well, at least the contrarian is useful to something. When you read that he equates romance with f*cking and fails to understand what was being written, you know exactly where he came out of.

Jed -

Some simple arithmetic:

4 ounces x 4 times daily x 60 days

=

960 ounces, or 60 pounds

Even accounting for excretion and the energy requirements of infants (who tend to sleep most of the time and don’t get around much without being carried), it is not surprising to me that an 8lb baby can triple its weight in several months.

I do not claim to be an expert in physiology, nor do I claim to have ascended the pyramid of knowledge (whatever that means). I do know a little bit of arithmetic and it seems to me that what you are proposing is not very mysterious at all. If I consumed a portion of my weight equal to what you are proposing that a baby does, I too would be quite husky after a few months – even with a strenuous exercise regime in place.

I don’t need to re-write the 2nd law of thermodynamics to make sense of this little problem you have posed because I have at my disposal a scientific tool (arithmetic) and some basic knowledge about the behavior of babies to guide me. If you could show me some observations made in a controlled environment about babies increasing their body weight disproportionate to what they have consumed and excreted over a certain period of time, I would be willing to reconsider that something more complicated than my little calculation describes the model for baby growth. Still, I would not be ready to re-write the 2nd Law. I would first try to find someone who knows something more about physiology to explain this apparent paradox. If in fact an appeal to a physiologist to resolve the paradox through some explanation which draws on the root sciences of physics and chemistry was inadequate to the task, I might be willing to consider the fact that living systems are able to convert/store energies that are available outside of what is supplied through nutrition and respiration. I still would not be ready to re-write the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. I would need a much less tangential observation to consider re-writing the 2nd Law.

My unwillingness to re-write the 2nd Law is not the result of some system of faith I have in it or worse, faith in my education. Rather, my experience as a scientist has shown me that the 2nd Law is an excellent model of reality; it allows for prediction and control in a vast array of applications, more importantly nothing in my experience constitutes a violation of the 2nd Law. In the case that I were to encounter a violation of the 2nd Law either through my own work (highly unlikely) or through my review of scientific literature, I would be satisfied that a revision to the Laws of Thermodynamics would be in order. I would probably start with a few back of the envelope calculations in the same manner as above.

ah, most of that formula is water. so yea, baby is ingesting ~60 pounds, but 1) not all of it is usable as energy 2) The energy in formula, much less than that in mothers milk, is mostly wasted because the baby does not yet have the appropiate enzymes and bacteria in it’s stomach to process it.

I do enjoy reading your posts however, they provide quite entertaining reading in the duplicity therein.
When you describe scientists as liberal, you bestow upon them conservative traits. Was that projection or an inability to see yourself in the mirror?

Jed -

Good point, most of that weight is water. Similarly, in a newborn baby, in a severla month old baby, in a Jed, in a blood for oil of olay, most of the weight is water too.

I am probably one of the more politically conservative scientists, compared to the majority of scientists I know. Anything I say about scientists comes from my experience and my own bias, so I don’t expect anyone to go along with my analysis, but I am confused about the point you are trying to make with regard to my allegedly projecting conservative values onto scientists?

It appears that someone at RS unposted you for some reason.

“they are used to controlling parameters of their experiments. Second, they become accustomed to the top-down management style ”

“naively seek a society that strives to IMPLEMENT prosperity and harmony”

Those are neocon values projected to the Nth degree by the current administration.

It also seems you have it backwards… it takes a certain level of enlightenment to be liberal. Buddha and Jesus are known to be very enlightened individuals, yet theyr philosophy is more liberal than conservative. Of course the definition of the lable you like to use in a denigrating nature when refering to those who have a different view of this mystery is very important at this juncture. If you would like to give your definition, I would be thrilled to have some more humor in an otherwise boring day.
While we all have a certain degree of EGO, a scientist(researcher rather) would need to have a great deal of control over it, since failure is more common than the occasional success.
From your writings and the way you express yourself, it’s pretty obvious you are not a scientist.

I suppose that my interpretation of the liberal perspective is debatable, but then again so is anyone’s. This tangent leads no where.

much like your attempts at seeming knowlegable about subjects you really have no grasp of.

Hard to define something you have labled to mean everything bad, huh?

Okay you two, you’ve milked this theme long enough. It’s clear you both have egos and both have vanity. That’s healthy. Preoccupation is not. Move ahead to more pressing matters and help me get this site back on track.

One of these guys sounds vewy vewy sensitive (the one who makes no sense). The other clearly knows what he’s talking about, but is a know-it-all.

Screw you buddy!