Comments on: Newton’s Third Law of Politics

By: WhyamInotsurprised?

WhyamInotsurprised? — Thu, 21 May 2009 04:23:01 +0000

#44 Master of Puppets – Don’t be such an intellectual bully. Ms. Attitude is just expressing her “opinion” which is valid even if she is not a scientist.

In fact, your definition of “theory” would have her believe that when you use the word “theory” that you are stating “fact.”

Below is the definition for “theory” that I found on Wikipedia:

“A theory, in the general sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations. A theory does two things:
it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.”

The following is also stated:

Theories are abstract and conceptual, and to this end they are never considered right or wrong. Instead, they are supported or challenged by observations in the world. They are ‘rigorously tentative’, meaning that they are proposed as true but expected to satisfy careful examination to account for the possibility of faulty inference or incorrect observation.

The key word used above is “tentative.” Theories are open to change over time based on new data. They are not fact but suppositions made on a set of observations, e.g. flat vs. round earth. (don’t nitpik, I know the earth is not really “round”), but you get my drift.

Beyond that, creationism is based on the Bible. Accepting the “theory” of creationism is, in the case of believers, an act of faith. It is belief in a God who created all. So as a liberal, your mind is made up … based on current theory. Gravity is a fact. Maybe someone will come up with a different explanation of what it is, but that, everyone accepts as not just theory but fact. Evolution is still open to dispute. But this argument will never be settled. Ms. Attitudes’ point is that there are still differing “theories” about how we came to be. You just don’t want to discuss it because it is a “religious” belief.

Did you know that while there are things in the Bible that have yet to be proven, or where contradiction may occur with current scientific thinking, nothing, and I mean nothing, has ever been disproved or shown to be inaccurate in the Bible. Over time, discovery and research has only augmented the documents veracity. There is more proof for the “reality” of the Bible than for Shakespeare’s works, original manuscripts, in the orginal Greek and Aramaic.

So don’t be angry and don’t be a bully. I know that is the liberal fallback position but it is very uncivil and you degrade yourself.

By: Warren Bonesteel

Warren Bonesteel — Tue, 19 May 2009 19:30:00 +0000

As a metaphor, think of our struggle
for liberty as the same struggle the
media has endured in the marketplace
of ideas. If we marginalize half of
the Americans who might ‘purchase’ our product and then insult most of the rest, we cannot expect to be successful. Left, right or center,
ideology attempts to define who should and should not be free. The
definition of ideology is that it is a socio-political program, that is, it is a form of group think. Socio-political programs and group think are not the foundations of a rational or freedom-loving society.

The minute we think that there should be a law restricting what others may or may not do in the privacy of their own homes and with and on their own property, we have embraced tyranny. Regardless of our political party, our rationalizations or our excuses and reasonings, when we use the government to decide what others may or may not do with or on their own property, we have become tyrants.

For nearly one hundred years, as a people and as a nation, we’ve used
the government to engage in such tyranny over others and yet we are offended when the government we’ve
created is used to engage in tyranny over ourselves. That is irrational behavior. If we think the government is acting insanely or irrationally, we need only look in the mirror. We’ll see our government looking back at us – We the People…

To embrace ideology over the ideals of reason, and over those of freedom and liberty, is to embrace tyranny. This is why the Republicans have failed and will continue to do so. This is also why the Democrats will also fail – rather spectacularly, I might add.

By: Pastor of Muppets

Pastor of Muppets — Mon, 18 May 2009 17:13:47 +0000

20. Ms. Attitude: “I am a Christian but I don’t want the government pushing my religion on anyone nor do I want another religion pushed on me. Creationism should be taught a long with all theories, heck, even the dadgum alien, planet x, theory. Let the parents stress their preference at home.”

Sorry, but you don’t have a complete understanding of what a “theory” is, which is exactly what is part of the problem with non-scientists trying to influence science, especially science that is taught in school.

In the world of science, a “theory” is not just some guy’s idea of the truth; it is beyond just a hypothesis. A “theory” must stand up to scientific scrutiny in order to be named as such, and therefore a “theory” in the science world is held up to much higher standards than a “theory” in the layperson world. What you are attempting to do is change the language of science so as to give your idea of Creationism some merit, although it has earned none.

Evidence of evolution can be observed and reproduced in a lab. Creationism cannot.

The bigger picture here is that there are some ideas that are better than others, because some ideas actually have been generated by years and years of research, observation and testing before arrving at a conclusion. The actual theory of evolution has been observed and researched, whereas the hypothesis of Creationism has not been tested, nor can it be supported by any data.

To say that “all theories” should be presented is just wrong and shows how little you care about fact, science, and education. NO teacher should be allowed to present non-scientific, unprovable hypothesis as equal to a supported, provable scientific theory.

The right wing rails about the evils of a public school education, but sees nothing wrong with discrediting science in order to force religious views into the science classroom. It is an insult to science and robs our children of an education.

Once you begin teaching kids that any harebrained hypothesis has equal weight with obervable science, you may as well just not educate your kids at all, because you’re bascially telling them that there is no truth, that you can just make it up and let kids decide what they want to believe.

Don’t like atomic theory? That’s fine, you can just believe that our atoms are really made of up tiny heavenly cupcakes!

….but good luck getting into any molecular physics program at any accredited school spouting that crap.

By: WhyamInotsurprised?

WhyamInotsurprised? — Mon, 18 May 2009 16:49:20 +0000

#39 Aaron – Post election analysis determined that blacks had a “high” voter turnout and was Pro-prop. 8? Sorry but this doesn’t jive with the fact that blacks are only 6.7% of California’s population.

(Seehttp://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html)

I know it is popular to credit blacks for everything these days but I doubt their capability to carry a statewide proposition so convincingly. Face it, “most people” are in favor of a traditional definition of marriage.

By: JED

JED — Mon, 18 May 2009 16:41:07 +0000

Comparing science to politics is like comparing sanity to madness. Sanity can easily waste its energy in trying to analyze or predict chaos, when in effect it can only limit chaos in a relative way. Try Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle for the prediction of the ever constant fatal flaw. That 3% can radically change the outcome of the entire equation.

By: G Alston

G Alston — Mon, 18 May 2009 02:14:13 +0000

#39 — …Prop. 8 was successful due to high African-American turnout. On most social issues African-Americans tend to oppose gay marriage and pro-abortion activists.

Which is precisely why social issues belong at the state referendum level and not as a national party plank.

By: Delia

Delia — Sun, 17 May 2009 22:27:35 +0000

39. Aaron,

“Prop. 8 was successful due to high African-American turnout. On most social issues African-Americans tend to oppose gay marriage and pro-abortion activists.”
~

Yeppers. That really messes with the Lib insanity when one ‘victim group’ punishes another ‘victim group’.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Sun, 17 May 2009 18:36:57 +0000

“If your major concern is the environment, the Democrats will provide you a comfortable home with many like-minded souls. But the key point is that there really isn’t a big pro-pollution group out there to oppose you.”

Right . . . As if the Greenies and the Unions aren’t in direct opposition on this. It was just personal difference that led John Dingell and Henry Waxman to competition for the chairmanship of the House Environment Committee, nothing at all to do with their respective constituencies.

The real difference between the parties is their basis: The Democrats are a party of identity (black, gay, jewish, female? It doesn’t matter what you believe, you belong in the Democratic Party). The GOP, on the other hand, is a party of ideology (if you have center-right views on most issues, you belong in the GOP).

Tree Huggers vs. Unions is only one point of contention. For another, look to Prop. 8 The Democrats have now decided to use the Mormons as convenient scape-goats, but in the early aftermath of the election, it was apparent that Prop. 8 was successful due to high African-American turnout. On most social issues African-Americans tend to oppose gay marriage and pro-abortion activists. Are gay activists likely to be card-carrying members of the KKK? No (No member of any particular group is actually likely to be such, anyway), but they did use some language one might expect to hear from an Aryan Brother after they weren’t allowed to get hitched in Cali anymore.

By: Fred Beloit

Fred Beloit — Sun, 17 May 2009 14:04:45 +0000

“…way too much time attacking other Republicans when the attacks should be on Obama and the Democrats…”
Sorry, Mr Byler, I believe the evidence shows that most of those who comment here have proven that the vast majority of their “attacks” have been against the Social Democrats now in power.
What elicits these attacks of which you speak are articles like the one above by Mr/Ms Shaw that lecture us to support Republicans like Romney, who favor socialistic proposals instead of market forces to contain medical costs, or like McCain, who has his name on an anti-free speech bill that should have been declared unconstitutional. You have the right to support them, happy wishes for you, but don’t look to me to aid you. Let’s all turn Left, then we can be joyful Socialist Republicans together. “Oh frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!”

First we get the money…then we get the power…then we get the women. (H/T Oliver Stone)

By: Phil Byler

Phil Byler — Sun, 17 May 2009 11:50:13 +0000

To RE: Olympia Snowe, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Susan Collins are certainly no conservatives and the Maine Senatorial liberal duo of Snowe and Collins deserve harsh criticism for making Obama’s budget possible. But Snowe, Schwarzenegger and Collins are not out there scolding social conservatives about how to win elections. Schwarzenegger has his hands full with California’s financial crisis, and you don’t hear much if anything from Snowe and Collins about anything. As to all three, though, conservatives should not waste time far better spent on attacking Obama and developing the conservative message.

Lindsey Graham is different because on many issues he is conservative and he is a defender of the military; he could not be elected from South Carolina otherwise. Graham was a supporter of comprehensive immigration reform, but so was George W. Bush. In any event, Graham is not out there scolding social conservatives. He has expressed concern about the GOP losing the Hispanic vote, but so what?

Consideration of your reference to Graham, Collins, Schwarzenegger and Snowe, then, only reinforces my point that some conservatives are spending way, way too much time attacking other Republicans when the attacks should be on Obama and the Democrats and when time needs to be spent on developing the conservative message that the GOP needs to deliver.