#whatever: Absolutely no one who's not a registered Republican buys the Ayers "controversy"

[Edited on October 11, 2008 at 10:18 AM. Reason : ]

10/11/2008 10:18:12 AM

Paul Krugman: Nobel Prize winner

10/13/2008 8:28:02 AM

Milton Friedman: Also Nobel Prize winner.

Your point?

10/13/2008 11:54:06 AM

*cough*

11/4/2008 11:03:35 PM

Wayne Gretzky:

Quote :

"The key to my success? - I skate to where the puck is going."

W. Edwards Deming:

Quote :

"You don't develop vision by asking people what they want."

Henry Ford:

Quote :

"If I'd have asked my customers what they'd wanted, they'd have asked for a faster horse."

I thought I would appropriate to bring this thread back to the top in light of current gas prices, the market crash, and the auto bailout. Are market forces still working?

Gas prices are down, but the need to reduce reliance on foreign oil hasn't changed. Should we go back to focusing SUVs? Now that the car companies are begging for a bailout they have suddenly found religion - "Getting a bailout is the only way we can tool up to build cars for the future". What!? They've had 30 years to build cars for the future. The only time they do it is when they are forced to (see General Motors EV1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1).

The "invisible hand of the market" knows nothing about national security, energy policy goals, etc. Car companys have been focusing on short term profits for 30 year, all the while losing market share to foreign auto makers that have been, "skating toward where the puck is going". Thank God that we now have an administration with some vision - who encourages debate and uses experts instead of ideologs.

Right now it's very easy to say, "I told you so", about too much reliance on the "free hand of the market" to solve all of our ills. Short term greed isn't always good, in the long run.

12/22/2008 11:48:01 AM

The problem is, you god damn economic liberals have long prevented the "free hand of the market" from actually existing.
You break the country by fucking with capitalism and destroying the free market, then you have the fucking nerve to blame capitalism for what you've done. All of you can fucking suck it.

12/22/2008 12:42:27 PM

yes, that's what Alan Greenspan's take on all this is too.

oh wait......

12/22/2008 12:46:11 PM

Huh? You blame the whole thing on over-regulation? ...

12/22/2008 12:47:35 PM

Quote :

"I thought I would appropriate to bring this thread back to the top in light of current gas prices, the market crash, and the auto bailout. Are market forces still working? Gas prices are down, but the need to reduce reliance on foreign oil hasn't changed. Should we go back to focusing SUVs? Now that the car companies are begging for a bailout they have suddenly found religion - "Getting a bailout is the only way we can tool up to build cars for the future". What!? They've had 30 years to build cars for the future. The only time they do it is when they are forced to (see General Motors EV1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1)."

They're going bankrupt/begging for bailout.

Market forces working as intended. Gov't needs to step aside.

12/22/2008 4:54:12 PM

awesome first post.

12/22/2008 5:36:47 PM

^^ i'm wouldn't be too certain that all the US automakers going belly up simultaneously is the market at work.

The concurrence of the failures implies some other mechanism, to me.

12/22/2008 5:42:14 PM

oh shit! so honda, toyota, nissan are going bankrupt, too!!??


oh wait... no.

12/24/2008 5:06:02 AM

Quote :

"^^ i'm wouldn't be too certain that all the US automakers going belly up simultaneously is the market at work. The concurrence of the failures implies some other mechanism, to me."

Like how they aren't as bad off as they say? It already became appearant that Ford was doing as bad as they first said several weeks ago. Kinda funny they came clamoring for a "bailout" after the bank bailout.

Cause you're right, why would all three crash at the same time? The economy is bad, but not catastrophically so... Makes you wonder.

12/24/2008 7:13:31 AM

Quote :

"The "invisible hand of the market" knows nothing about national security, energy policy goals, etc. Car companys have been focusing on short term profits for 30 year, all the while losing market share to foreign auto makers that have been, "skating toward where the puck is going". Thank God that we now have an administration with some vision - who encourages debate and uses experts instead of ideologs. Right now it's very easy to say, "I told you so", about too much reliance on the "free hand of the market" to solve all of our ills. Short term greed isn't always good, in the long run."

How can you even say this with a straight face? Have we had capitalism? Have we had "free markets"? Have we had anything remotely resembling capitalism/free markets? Of course not. We can point to the federal reserve and actions of congress for every economic problem we're facing right now.

Automobile manufacturers going out of business isn't a market failure. Capitalism doesn't say that every business will make money, or that every business will continue indefinitely. Certain American businesses deserve to fail - regardless of how many employees they have - because they make terrible products. Products that people don't want to buy. That's the only explanation necessary.

As far as the general theme of this thread, I can't really agree. Of course you're going to attempt to say that your side was right about everything, and the other side was wrong about everything. It's part of your mental prison; you can't help but think in terms of "us" and "them," like some sort of tribal warrior that doesn't even know why he's fighting the opposing tribe. I'll try to focus on the actual merits of the original "argument," rather than the blatant partisanship.

Evolution: This isn't, at its core, a political issue. Belief (or disbelief) in evolution is almost always connected to the religiosity of the individual. Statistically, individuals in the south or "red" states are more likely to be religious. Even if evolution makes sense, a Christian cannot openly admit that evolution is real, as it would essentially betray their faith. You won't prove to anyone that evolution is real, if they aren't prepared to depart from their religion. The fact that many liberals are creationists proves that this isn't a purely political issue.

Bush: Bad president. This doesn't give any credibility to liberals. To say that it does is a logical fallacy; it's akin to saying "evolution isn't real, therefore God, as I imagine him, exists." Bush has has ignored many of the principles that he ran on, also.

Climate Change: I'm not convinced. There isn't a consensus on "man-made global warming." I've seen a lot of the evidence, because I want to believe the correct thing, and it seems more likely that Climate Change is just a tool for environmentalists get their way.

Iraq War: This is the easiest one, and I don't even have to say why. I'm sure a lot of people wish that liberals had "told us so" before we invaded Iraq, and not 5 years later.

12/26/2008 3:25:44 PM

It can be argued that any company that becomes publicly traded has already begun the countdown clock to it's own demise.

12/26/2008 3:39:25 PM

Quote :

"Even if evolution makes sense, a Christian cannot openly admit that evolution is real, as it would essentially betray their faith."

Ok, that is bullshit. There are plenty of Christians who have no problems acknowledging that evolution actually happens.

12/26/2008 7:00:06 PM

^Some Christians do make the claim that you can believe in both. I think there are some irreconcilable differences. The argument is that God may have used the evolution "mechanism" to do his work. This may settle the issue in some people's mind.

Let's get real though. I can open up the bible, read the very first verse, and see that evolution won't work with Christianity. God created the heaven and the earth, it says. Not God allowed for creation, or God set into motion a series of events that would result in creation. Many of the specific ways in which he created things don't make sense in the context of evolution; he took a rib from Adam in order to create Eve. Ultimately, this "dual-belief" system falls back on the good old "God works in mysterious ways" explanation. It's a coping mechanism, nothing more. I'd say that a Christian that claims to believe in evolution is on the fast-track to becoming an atheist, even if they don't admit it.

12/26/2008 8:02:33 PM

No. If you open up Genesis and you believe that the Bible must be interpreted literally, then you will have problems. But then you will also have problems with science beyond basic biology; this was Galileo's problem, among other things. Genesis was written as a creation myth/metaphor for illiterate ex-slaves, not for the modern scientific mind. No professing Christian should interact with the sciences at all (according to your view).

Quote :

"I'd say that a Christian that claims to believe in evolution is on the fast-track to becoming an atheist, even if they don't admit it."

I still say you're spewing bullshit, even though you don't admit it. I know plenty of Christians who "believe" in evolution, and they're far from being on a "fast-track" to atheism. They're actually some of the most knowledgeable Christians I've met, several of whom have flirted with agnosticism/atheism.

12/26/2008 8:44:19 PM

Quote :

"Social conservatives are the Washington Generals of history"

12/28/2008 11:48:48 AM

Quote :

"Let's get real though. I can open up the bible, read the very first verse, and see that evolution won't work with Christianity... Ultimately, this "dual-belief" system falls back on the good old "God works in mysterious ways" explanation. It's a coping mechanism, nothing more. I'd say that a Christian that claims to believe in evolution is on the fast-track to becoming an atheist, even if they don't admit it."

First off, I don't appreciate having my belief system belittled in calling it a "coping mechanism." Ultimately we're talking about an issue of faith, which inherently involves believing in things you can't prove.

Second, only a relatively small fraction of Christians today believe the Bible should be interpretted literally word for word. Consider how many factions of Christianity there are today. The number 1 cause for that? Differing interpretations of the Bible.

Third, I think a lack of knowedge about both evolution and Christianity is a big reason why Christians turn to agnosticism and atheism. Shoot, uneducated Christians often are driven away by other uneducated Christians that choose to accept their religion on "blind faith." By "blind faith" I mean faith that involves a person accepts without a committment to learn ABOUT that faith. Faith is like a fire. Leave it unattended and it burns out. Tend to it, and you maintain it. Build upon it, and it grows bigger and brighter than ever before.

On the "irreconcilable differences" argument, I offer an article used as the basis for a workshop I attended last summer. Please PM me for a copy.

Note - the author is a priest who spent decades serving in the Vatican "science laboratory" (can't recall the exact name of the department). Very enlightening presentation. Enjoy.

Quote :

"THE DANCE OF THE FERTILE UNIVERSE George V. Coyne, S.J. Introduction Did we come about by chance or by necessity in the evolving universe? The first thing to be said is that the problem is not formulated correctly. It is not just a question of chance or necessity because, first of all, it is both. Furthermore, there is a third element here that is very important. It is what I call the "fertility" of the universe. This is the dance of the fertile universe, a ballet with three ballerinas: chance, necessity and fertility. What this means is that the universe is so fertile in offering the opportunity for the success of both chance and necessary processes that such a character of the universe must be included in the search for our origins in the universe. In this light I am going to try to present in broad strokes what I think is some of the best of our modern scientific understanding of the universe, and then ask the question at the end: What does this say about the God who loves us and who made this universe? For 13.7 billion years the universe has been dancing a fertile ballet. One of the ballerinas is chance. When we speak about chance we mean that it is very unlikely that a certain event would happen. The "very unlikely" can be calculated in mathematical terms. Such a calculation takes into account how big the universe is, how many stars there are, how many stars would have developed planets, etc. In other words, it is not just guesswork. There is a foundation in fact for making each successive calculation. A good example of a chance event would be two very simple molecules wandering about in the universe. They happen to meet one another and, when they do, they would love to make a more complex molecule because that is the nature of these molecules. But the temperature and pressure conditions are such that the chemical bonding to make a more complex molecule cannot happen. So they wander off, but they or identical molecules meet billions and billions of times, trillions if you wish, in this universe, and finally they meet and the temperature and pressure conditions are correct. This could happen more easily around certain types of stars than other types of stars, so you can throw in all kinds of other factors. The point is that from a strictly mathematical analysis of this, called the mathematics of nonlinear dynamics, one can say that as this process goes on and more complex molecules develop, there is more and more direction to this process. As the complexity increases, the future complexity becomes more and more predetermined. There are also necessary, deterministic processes occurring. But there is a lot of chance as to what the exact conditions are when certain molecules meet, so that the necessary process may take place. There are definitely both of these processes, but they are happening in a universe that is so fertile that the eventual outcome has a kind of predetermined nature. This predetermined nature may be represented by a tree, the Tree of the Universe. It is a strange tree in that everything that ever happened in the universe, from the making of quarks to the making of toenails, is all here. Even those processes that never succeeded, that failed, every dead leaf and dead branch has been conserved. Every meeting of molecules in inopportune circumstances is there. The tree has never been pruned. But blow a quiet breeze through this tree and what will you see? You will inevitably see something that resembles the bare trunk of a tree with certain branching to various forms of life and ending at the top with the human being. The result is inevitable because with a combination of chance and necessary processes in a very fertile universe with so many opportunities there is a narrowing down of the evolutionary process due to the nature of physics, chemistry, biology and non¬linear dynamics. If we truly accept that there are chance processes involved, then the branching of the tree could be somewhat different. But since complexity proceeds towards an ever more determined direction the trunk of the tree could not be very different. The paleontology, biology and chemistry behind all of this are quite uncertain, but it is clear that something like this would happen. Why is the human being at the top? It is because we are ignorant. We do not know what else to put at the top. The human brain is the most complicated mechanism we know. Do we need God to explain this? Is there a certain finality, directedness, [and] purpose behind this? My personal answer is: "Absolutely not. I do not need God. Thank you, I can do perfectly well in trying to understand the universe by using the capacity that I have to put the universe in my head." I do believe, by the way, that such a capacity has been given to me by God. That having been said, then several approaches can be taken in the Science-Religion dialogue. Here is one approach that I would like to share with you. I truly believe that God is a person and revealed himself personally to us, to his chosen people and by means of his chosen people to all of us. He did that in history, in Church traditions and in Scripture. This is not the occasion to talk about this in any detail, but there are certainly good solid foundations for believing that God is revealing himself to us, in Scripture. And it is certainly very firm in the Christian traditions that God also reveals himself in everything he made in Creation: in personal creation and in objective non-personal creation. "

1/9/2009 12:53:54 PM

^^slave owners and hemp growers?

[Edited on January 9, 2009 at 2:35 PM. Reason : have wooden teeth?]

1/9/2009 2:35:47 PM