More thread.
Make a new account
There is a fascinating new study coming out of the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. Its titled "$29,000,000,000,000: A Detailed Look at the Fed's Bail-out by Funding Facility and Recipient" by James Felkerson. The study looks at the lending, guarantees, facilities and spending of the Federal Reserve.The researchers took all of the individual transactions across all facilities created to deal with the crisis, to figure out how much the Fed committed as a response to the crisis. This includes direct lending, asset purchases and all other assistance. (It does not include indirect costs such as rising price of goods due to inflation, weak dollar, etc.)The net total? As of November 10, 2011, it was $29,616.4 billion dollars - (or 29 and a half trillion, if you prefer that nomenclature). Three facilities--CBLS, PDCF, and TAF-- are responsible for the lion's share - 71.1% of all Federal Reserve assistance ($22,826.8 billion).Bailout Total: more...
The researchers took all of the individual transactions across all facilities created to deal with the crisis, to figure out how much the Fed committed as a response to the crisis. This includes direct lending, asset purchases and all other assistance. (It does not include indirect costs such as rising price of goods due to inflation, weak dollar, etc.)
The net total? As of November 10, 2011, it was $29,616.4 billion dollars - (or 29 and a half trillion, if you prefer that nomenclature). Three facilities--CBLS, PDCF, and TAF-- are responsible for the lion's share - 71.1% of all Federal Reserve assistance ($22,826.8 billion).
How many times now could every mortgage in the United States have been bailed out 100% thus restoring the value behind the CDO securities wall street got themselves in so much trouble with?
The economy would have been rockin with consumer spending the past couple of years if every homeowner suddenly had had an amount equivalent to the value of his/her home to spend any way they chose.
Companies all over the country would be at top production rates to meet consumer demand and there wouldn't be enough people to fill all the open jobs. Negative unemployment anyone?
Some homeowners though might have been "undeserving", like some wall street CEO's were/are, and we couldn't have the undeserved receiving welfare from the government.... of course.
I hope people get a bit of change after all is said and done.
NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report) - In what stock market analysts are pointing to as a rare bright spot in an otherwise gloomy period for Wall Street, manufacturers of downward arrows posted record profits this week. While makers of cars, computers, farm equipment and practically everything else saw their fortunes plunge this week, producers of downward arrows notched double-digit gains, inspiring investors to snap up their shares like never before. Companies like National Plunging Arrow Corp and Consolidated Downward Pointy Lines saw their shares rocket as investors rushed to participate in the suddenly red-hot red-arrow sector. "We are seeing investors move out of Treasuries and gold and into downward-arrow stocks," said analyst Harland Dorinson, who covers plunging trend-line manufacturers for Morgan Stanley. "At a time when the world is facing extreme uncertainty, the one thing we know for sure is that going forward there will be strong demand for downward pointy things."
While makers of cars, computers, farm equipment and practically everything else saw their fortunes plunge this week, producers of downward arrows notched double-digit gains, inspiring investors to snap up their shares like never before.
Companies like National Plunging Arrow Corp and Consolidated Downward Pointy Lines saw their shares rocket as investors rushed to participate in the suddenly red-hot red-arrow sector.
"We are seeing investors move out of Treasuries and gold and into downward-arrow stocks," said analyst Harland Dorinson, who covers plunging trend-line manufacturers for Morgan Stanley. "At a time when the world is facing extreme uncertainty, the one thing we know for sure is that going forward there will be strong demand for downward pointy things."
In-depth analysis here... Parent
The thing is that no one I know, including my own mother, who got that good news-bad news speech, has ever heard anything past, "you have cancer;" the adrenaline and roaring of one's heartbeat just drown it all out.
In my mom's case, she is now 17 months post-diagnosis,and cancer-free. She had a lumpectomy, then a week of twice-a-day, for 10 minutes each session, radiation delivered directly to the site of the lumpectomy via a catheter-like arrangement.
I can only hope that the course of your treatment is smooth, and doesn't significantly disrupt your life.
All good thoughts being sent your way for a complete recovery! Parent
A Report On Curcumin's Anti-Cancer Effects (.PDF, 8 pages)
Imagine a natural substance so smart it can tell the difference between a cancer cell and a normal cell; so powerful it can stop chemicals in their tracks; and so strong it can enable DNA to walk away from lethal doses of radiation virtually unscathed. Curcumin has powers against cancer so beneficial that drug companies are rushing to make drug versions. Curcumin is all this and more. Curcuma longa is a ginger-like plant that grows in tropical regions. The roots contain a bright yellow substance (turmeric) that contains curcumin and other curcuminoids. Turmeric has been used in Ayurvedic and Chinese medicine for centuries. But it's only within the past few years that the extraordinary actions of curcumin against cancer have been scientifically documented. Among its many benefits, curcumin has at least a dozen separate ways of interfering with cancer. [snip] Certain enzymes enable tumors to create a blood supply for themselves. Known as "angiogenesis," this phenomenon allows tumors to invade surrounding tissue and spread. Working with blood vessels of the eye (where angiogenesis creates big problems for vision), researchers at Tufts University were able to inhibit blood vessel formation by using curcuminoids. Curcumin blocks AP-1, which enhances angiogenesis.
Curcuma longa is a ginger-like plant that grows in tropical regions. The roots contain a bright yellow substance (turmeric) that contains curcumin and other curcuminoids. Turmeric has been used in Ayurvedic and Chinese medicine for centuries. But it's only within the past few years that the extraordinary actions of curcumin against cancer have been scientifically documented. Among its many benefits, curcumin has at least a dozen separate ways of interfering with cancer.
[snip]
Certain enzymes enable tumors to create a blood supply for themselves. Known as "angiogenesis," this phenomenon allows tumors to invade surrounding tissue and spread. Working with blood vessels of the eye (where angiogenesis creates big problems for vision), researchers at Tufts University were able to inhibit blood vessel formation by using curcuminoids. Curcumin blocks AP-1, which enhances angiogenesis.
Also the phytochemicals in blueberries, apple juice, and any kind of red berries apparently are good...
Berries: Cancer-fighting super foods?
Anthocyanins are a group of phytochemicals that give many berries their red color. In laboratory studies, anthocyanins inhibit growth of lung, colon and leukemia cancer cells without affecting growth of healthy cells. Decreased cancer development is also seen in animals given anthocyanins. Ellagic acid is another important phytochemical in virtually all berries. More than a simple antioxidant, ellagic acid also blocks metabolic pathways that can lead to cancer. In animals, it has inhibited development of colon, esophageal, liver, lung and skin cancers stemming from a variety of carcinogens.
Ellagic acid is another important phytochemical in virtually all berries. More than a simple antioxidant, ellagic acid also blocks metabolic pathways that can lead to cancer. In animals, it has inhibited development of colon, esophageal, liver, lung and skin cancers stemming from a variety of carcinogens.
You have friends here, Ga6th, keep the faith. Parent
Take care. Parent
You're in a tough situation, but you seem like a pretty tough person. Cancer treatment is no fun regardless of the stage. Still, the odds are you will beat this.
You have many blog shoulders to lean on here at TL. Please don't hesitate to use us if you need us. Parent
And I've got other friends and family who were diagnosed at Stage 3 and Stage 4 and were given only months . . . and that was many years ago. So Stage 1 is going to be beatable, bet on it.
Another tip: All the stats that you will see on these here internet toobz about survival rates are based on several years ago, as up to date as the data can be. But survival rates actually are getting so much better every day, because of all of the wonders of great minds in medicine. So the only data that matters? Your own.
Take care of yourself in every way that you can and look forward to the feeling that you will have when you get the all-clear, when every day after that will be a new lease on life for a new you. Plan now for something amazing to do! Parent
And she puts it together that the PPUS has made a perfect excuse for timid action and "powerlessness".
When people say they want change it's not because they are tired of "partisan bickering" (which basically consists of derisive Republican laughter.) They're sick of a government that does exactly the opposite of what they want it to do.
U.S. calls on Russia to respect peaceful protests December 09, 2011
WASHINGTON -- The United States called Friday on both Russian authorities and protesters to remain peaceful as opponents of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin prepared major weekend demonstrations against his rule. Putin has angrily accused the United States of inciting the protests after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton raised concerns about the fairness of parliamentary elections that Putin's party won but with a reduced majority. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said that the United States supported the right to peaceful protest in Russia as it does "anywhere in the world." "We expect that those demonstrations will remain peaceful on behalf of all parties, whether they're the demonstrators or whether they are those keeping social order," she said. "So our expectation is that if there are protests, that they will be peaceful and that they will be allowed to proceed peacefully," Nuland said.
Putin has angrily accused the United States of inciting the protests after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton raised concerns about the fairness of parliamentary elections that Putin's party won but with a reduced majority.
State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said that the United States supported the right to peaceful protest in Russia as it does "anywhere in the world."
"We expect that those demonstrations will remain peaceful on behalf of all parties, whether they're the demonstrators or whether they are those keeping social order," she said.
"So our expectation is that if there are protests, that they will be peaceful and that they will be allowed to proceed peacefully," Nuland said.
You remind me that I haven't availed myself of the many (often free) performances nearly often enough. I haven't even checked out their Christmas program. Shockingly lax on my part. Parent
Florida wins over Michigan in straight sets 25-21; 25-13; 27-25 Parent
--Dave Silverman, president of American Atheists, responding to a survey showing that atheists and agnostics know more about religion than believers.
¶ Fifty-three percent of Protestants could not identify Martin Luther as the man who started the Protestant Reformation. ¶ Forty-five percent of Catholics did not know that their church teaches that the consecrated bread and wine in holy communion are not merely symbols, but actually become the body and blood of Christ. ¶ Forty-three percent of Jews did not know that Maimonides, one of the foremost rabbinical authorities and philosophers, was Jewish. The question about Maimonides was the one that the fewest people answered correctly. But 51 percent knew that Joseph Smith was Mormon, and 82 percent knew that Mother Teresa was Roman Catholic.
¶ Forty-five percent of Catholics did not know that their church teaches that the consecrated bread and wine in holy communion are not merely symbols, but actually become the body and blood of Christ.
¶ Forty-three percent of Jews did not know that Maimonides, one of the foremost rabbinical authorities and philosophers, was Jewish.
The question about Maimonides was the one that the fewest people answered correctly. But 51 percent knew that Joseph Smith was Mormon, and 82 percent knew that Mother Teresa was Roman Catholic.
The article's pretty old. I remember it had a link to the actual questions but I can't seem to find it.
No matter. Religious belief is about faith. If you don't have that then being able to score 100% on this, or any group of questions, is meaningless. Parent
But I don't think that knowing that most people in Indonesia are Muslims is a question about religion. Parent
Many people become non-believers after they enter seminary, once they learn more about their sacred texts.
If you neglect the history, you might as well become a Hare Krishna or a Moonie, IMO. Parent
Researchers from the independent Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life phoned more than 3,400 Americans and asked them 32 questions about the Bible, Christianity and other world religions, famous religious figures and the constitutional principles governing religion in public life.
But the survey has nothing to do with religion. If it did it would address specific questions that a Muslim should know about Islam, not 3400 people what the largest religion in Indonesia is. Same for Protestants and Catholics... and other faiths.
Interestingly enough, no Muslims were surveyed. I wonder why. Parent
these statements are true & necessary at the level of literal reality, which crazy fundamentalist religionists have abandoned in favor of fantasies constructed from literal interpretations of bad and/or literal translations of foundational texts
then again, there's C. G. Jung, who famously said that, whether or not the virgin birth occurred in reality, the fact that many people believe it occurred does make the virgin birth a psychological reality
that psychological reality is what has become the target of activist atheists - that, & the church, another product & activity of human beings Parent
Everyone has certain things they're passionate about, for some it's religion, for others it's their occupation, politics, cars, music, whatever.
I do enjoy going to a mass on occasion, it's warmly nostalgic for me... Parent
I do like hearing mass now and then for the nostalgia of it too. I also had 12 years.. Parent
but the way that dogmatic atheists push their beliefs on others is quite provocative, not unlike the behavior of fundamentalist Christians
of course, Christine was talking about Edger's provocation Parent
what else could it be? "the Truth"?
Webster's defines the word "atheism" as follows (emphasis added):
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity
my own belief system is that the truth of deity's existence or nonexistence cannot be known by human beings
i don't understand the basis on which anyone can be so positive one way or the other Parent
myth is one response
prehistoric cave paintings may be another, as are the shamanistic & other rituals of small-scale societies
codified, organized religion is yet another response
other responses include atheism, New Age "spirituality," & agnosticism
by "deity," i don't mean a bearded old rageaholic in the sky, or anything as childish as Santa Claus or a moon made of green cheese - frankly, i had hoped you might give me more credit than that
i mean something more on the order of an intelligent, generative, organizing, encompassing, living, immanent (not transcendent) nonhuman consciousness with which it may or may not be possible for human consciousness to establish direct, deliberate communication of some kind
in my experience, thoughtful people who believe in a deity also regularly weigh the possibility that no deity exists, & such people also ponder the implications of that negative possibility - but they choose to throw in with the positive possibility (the I Ching: "the Superior Man stakes his life on following his will"), & that's the leap of faith (Pascal: "le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît pas")
i find such people infinitely more intelligent & humane & intellectually supple than the Richard Dawkinses and Sam Harrises of the world, who strike me as rigid, dogmatic, one-dimensional, unsubtle, literal-minded, condescending, & quite intolerant of both ambiguity & intellectual disagreement Parent
how is it condescending? Parent
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
Second, for me "belief" or "disbelief" doesn't even enter into the equation. That is a framing that the church would like people to argue over because it offers the opportunity for calling disbelievers "sinners" - another frame that has no meaning outside the churches framing.
Instead I rely on observation. First, I observe that there is a universe. A reasonable and I think unarguable definition of "universe" would be "all" that is, has been, and will be.
The universe is everything, in other words. And being everything, there can be nothing that is outside it. If we were to say that the universe is "contained" within something larger, we would only be saying that the universe is larger.
So, there is nothing that is not "the universe". Everything that we see, including ourselves, is an expression of the universe. A being of the universe. Or to put it another way everything we see is the universe doing something, expressing itself.
Now, people - you, me, everyone - are therefore the universe doing something, expressing itself. Again, the universe is everything, therefore so is everything within it, including people.
There is nothing separate from the universe. Everything is the universe.
To find "god", all we need to do is look in a mirror. Belief or disbelief is irrelevant.
However, one of the problems we have as people is that...
The root of the matter is the way in which we feel and conceive ourselves as human beings, our sensation of being alive, of individual existence and identity. We suffer from a hallucination, from a false and distorted sensation of our own existence as living organisms- Most of us have the sensation that "I myself" is a separate center of feeling and action, living inside and bounded by the physical body--a center which "confronts an "external" world of people and things, making contact through the senses with a universe both alien and strange. Everyday figures of speech reflect this illusion. "I came into this world." "You must face reality." "The conquest of nature." This feeling of being lonely and very temporary visitors in the universe is in flat contradiction to everything known about man (and all other living organisms) in the sciences. We do not "come into" this world; we come out of it, as leaves from a tree. As the ocean "waves," the universe "peoples." Every individual is an expression of the whole realm of nature, a unique action of the total universe. This fact is rarely, if ever, experienced by most individuals. Even those who know it to be true in theory do not sense or feel it, but continue to be aware of themselves as isolated "egos" inside bags of skin. -- Alan Watts
This feeling of being lonely and very temporary visitors in the universe is in flat contradiction to everything known about man (and all other living organisms) in the sciences. We do not "come into" this world; we come out of it, as leaves from a tree. As the ocean "waves," the universe "peoples." Every individual is an expression of the whole realm of nature, a unique action of the total universe. This fact is rarely, if ever, experienced by most individuals. Even those who know it to be true in theory do not sense or feel it, but continue to be aware of themselves as isolated "egos" inside bags of skin.
-- Alan Watts
Of course, there is also a great deal of fear of enlightenment going around. ;-) Parent
& you left out part b of the Webster's definition: the doctrine that there is no deity
i think discussions of the church are irrelevant to discussions of deity except
(1) insofar as the church (organized religion) is one response to the question of deity's "existence" (quotation marks here as a nod to your argument about the falseness of separating anything from "all that is"), and
(2) insofar as doctrinaire, evangelistic atheists reject the very notion of deity because they are repelled by human institutions & behavior
as an agnostic myself, i have no quarrel with nonbelief in deity or with belief in deity
but, contra observed (upthread), who thinks my "epistemology needs help," the passionate conviction that deity cannot exist because one has found no (grossly material? subatomic? historical? ___ ?) "evidence" of deity is a belief Parent
The existence of religion raises the question "is there a God"
& i reply
to my mind, the question of whether deity exists comes first, & then come the responses [such as religion]
i think the question of deity's existence belongs to the realm of meaning, not to the realm of empirical knowledge
knowing that we are mortal, or simply observing the wonder of the universe, we wonder why we are "here"
or, as we construct & maintain the fiction of an individual "self," we wonder how "we" "fit into" the vast universe of our perception, & "we" project a Deity with human characteristics
& then some people worship that projected humanoid Deity while others rage against it & all its works Parent
recommended reading for you (in exchange for your kind suggestions that my epistemology & i "need help"): the radical left-wing British critic & theorist Terry Eagleton on The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins
an excerpt:
Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins. . . . Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins . . . are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don't believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding. This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith . . . . The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be. If they were asked to pass judgment on phenomenology or the geopolitics of South Asia, they would no doubt bone up on the question as assiduously as they could. . . . There are always topics on which otherwise scrupulous minds will cave in with scarcely a struggle to the grossest prejudice. For a lot of academic psychologists, it is Jacques Lacan; for Oxbridge philosophers it is Heidegger; for former citizens of the Soviet bloc it is the writings of Marx; for militant rationalists it is religion. . . . Dawkins, who is as obsessed with the mechanics of Creation as his Creationist opponents, understands nothing of . . . traditional doctrines. . . . Dawkins considers that no religious belief, anytime or anywhere, is worthy of any respect whatsoever. This, one might note, is the opinion of a man deeply averse to dogmatism. . . . . He is like a man who equates socialism with the Gulag. Like the puritan and sex, Dawkins sees God everywhere, even where [God] is self-evidently absent. . . . These are not just the views of an enraged atheist. They are the opinions of a readily identifiable kind of English middle-class liberal rationalist. . . . There is a very English brand of common sense that believes mostly in what it can touch, weigh and taste, and The God Delusion springs from, among other places, that particular stable . . . at its most philistine and provincial.
you're welcome Parent
as for astrology, seems to me there has been more than the normal level of anger & outrage on blogs all over the internets for a couple of days - must be because Mercury has been retrograde ;) Parent
some people deal with a bottle of scotch by turning into tight@ssed prohibitionists
neither reaction in itself says anything inherently true about whether a locked box contains a bottle of scotch Parent
anyway, looks like Edger's "provocation" worked Parent
Mostly, observed, I confine religious discussions to explorations with mutually respectful friends and/or to general information-seeking or non-passionate discourse. Personal beliefs in such an intimate area as spirituality are better respected as personal.
If one looks around, one can locate unkind, uncaring actions by people of any spiritual outlook (Christian or atheist or whatever). The fact that a person(s) may act at variance with stated beliefs, tho, is a commentary on the person and not the belief itself. iMO, the anger or frustration one may feel and display toward another's beliefs (or the ridiculing thereof) says a lot about the person holding and displaying that acrimony...more than about the target of any such disdain. (Not to diminish whatever negative experiences individuals have incurred in the institutional religious area while growing up, keep in mind that very many experienced wonderful internal peace, solace, and spiritual oneness in that same belief. it would be even better if we could respect each other in our beliefs...true tolerance without disparagements, hostile jokes, taunts. True tolerance.) Parent
Religious institutions fear ridicule because it is a very effective tool. Why is ridicule of religious beliefs effective? Please ponder this question. Ridicule of the theory of gravitation would not have the same impact. Parent
Kohlberg's six stages are as follows:
this commenter appears to be (or be stuck) at stage 4 - see, inter alia, his comment #56
at stage 4,
it is important to obey laws, dictums and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society. Moral reasoning in stage four is thus beyond the need for individual approval exhibited in stage three; society must learn to transcend individual needs. A central ideal or ideals often prescribe what is right and wrong, such as in the case of fundamentalism. If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would -- thus there is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws and rules. When someone does violate a law, it is morally wrong; culpability is thus a significant factor in this stage as it separates the bad domains from the good ones. Most active members of society remain at stage four, where morality is still predominantly dictated by an outside force.
the way that dogmatic atheists push their beliefs on others is quite provocative, not unlike the behavior of fundamentalist Christians
that comment does three things:
speaking of beliefs, i believe that the moon is NOT made of green cheese, because people have stood on the moon & because the moon's surface has long been visible through a telescope - the evidence is in: there is no green cheese in the composition of the moon
i believe that Santa Claus is NOT an actual person because i saw my parents setting Christmas presents under the tree in the wee hours of Christmas morning - the evidence is in: there is no Santa Claus
in other words, there is actual evidence - material, scientific, historical, social evidence - that the moon is not made of green cheese & that Santa Claus is not an actual person
i cannot give you comparable evidence that a deity does NOT exist or that a deity DOES exist - my conclusion is that the actual state of affairs regarding this issue cannot be demonstrated at this time: that is what i believe to be true
nor have you given me evidence that a deity does NOT exist or that a deity DOES exist - your conclusion is that no deity exists: that is what you believe to be true Parent
anyway, i'm not even sure what you mean at this point by "this question"
1. do you mean the question of whether, "lacking evidence for existence of some entity, we must treat existence and non-existence equally?"
well, that depends on the context, & on what you mean by "treat equally"
consider the Immaculate Conception - are you obliged to accept the notion that belief in the Immaculate Conception is rational? in the domain of rational discourse, of course you're not
but in the domain of civic discourse (which is itself often irrational), it's irrelevant whether belief in the Immaculate Conception is rational or not - in this domain, civility & the First Amendment oblige us to (1) respect others' right to believe in the Immaculate Conception & (2) ensure that others' belief in the Immaculate Conception does nothing to infringe on our right to categorically reject, for ourselves, belief in the Immaculate Conception & everything that goes with it
2. do you mean the question of whether "lack of evidence of existence IS evidence of non-existence"?
again, the domain of logical discourse is one thing - but consider the domain of scientific discourse, where evidence is routinely lacking (until it isn't) - there was no evidence for microscopic bacteria as agents (rather than effects) of disease until Louis Pasteur, despite withering ridicule from his scientific contemporaries, undertook the experiments that eventually brought us vaccines & antibiotics - that's because Pasteur's hypothesis could be empirically proved & because, as a hypothesis, it was by definition also open to being empirically disproved
the question of a deity's (non)existence cannot be proved or disproved in the materialist sense because that question doesn't belong to the domain of rational, logical, scientific discourse, & so i couldn't agree more with you here:
What is not possible is to put the question of god's existence into the framework of ordinary human knowledge and experience.
all i'm saying is that, as an agnostic, i take a position of not knowing what is true with respect to the possibility or impossibility of a deity's existence
i don't claim that my position of not knowing constitutes evidence for anything other than my having taken that position Parent
i think you & i agree that atheism itself is nothing more or less than simple "disbelief in the existence of deity," as Webster's has it (defintion 2a)
but to move from simple disbelief in deity to the authoritative denial of all possibility of deity, one needs to believe in the superior "nature and grounds of [one's own] knowledge, especially with reference to its limits and validity" (i'm sure you'll recognize Webster's definition of the word "epistemology")
that is the leap of faith i see in those atheists whom i compared to fundamentalist Christians - both groups are compelled, for whatever reason (safety in numbers?), to seek converts
i see this behavior as possibly expressive of a fanatical temperament, not as something that necessarily proceeds from belief in/disbelief in deity - after all, there are plenty of religious & nonreligious people who are not fanatics
i must go now & gather seed for my bird feeder Parent
For some reason, I picture Lily Tomlin as the phone operator, only with an acid tongue and after partaking of perhaps one-too-many martinis. Parent
Not sure what the term for a woman is.
And nobody wants to lose their copies of all those hot obama speeches now, do they? ;-)
Google/YouTube emailed a reminder with instructions about this to all YouTube account holders who were not using gmail accounts back on October 21
Hopefully it will be provocative enough to provoke thought rather than complaints about being provoked to think.
National guard soldier arrested for not wanting to fire on American citizens December 08, 2011
It isn't Edger here that I see making digs. Not that he hasn't. Not that I haven't. Not that we all haven't. We have. But here, you are the digger.
Btw, I did listen to it. As of now there is no documentation (that I know of) to substantiate the the event(s) that he is describing. But, if they are true, the implications are frightening. And his analysis of those implications are well reasoned.
Some people might listen to it, and, because of his accent, dismiss the content. That's on them. Parent
But, to the extent that you called me on that, I'll acknowledge that I should not have taken the cheap bait. My goof. Parent
This would take us back to the stone age.....except no fires allowed in the cave.
Double-heh. Parent
Are you claiming that the content is wrong?
Of course, since you are so interested in the messenger:
To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest." - Leading greenhouse advocate, Dr Stephen Schneider ( in interview for "Discover" magagzine, Oct 1989)
- Leading greenhouse advocate, Dr Stephen Schneider ( in interview for "Discover" magagzine, Oct 1989)
Link Parent
Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest."
That says that it is okay to lie to the public. The context is that it is about man made global warming. Parent
Do you actually think that a scientist is allowed to lie?
I'll take a guess and say you don't.
Now, do you think a scientist who says it is okay to lie, which is what Schneider does, has any credibility and should be listened to?
BTW
More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report -- updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming "consensus" -- features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC.
Is that almost 2% of all the scientists in the world? Parent
The man made global warming hoaxers have done nothing but yell that they are right.
That doesn't work in science. Parent
Actually, the point is that we have a leading proponent saying that it is okay to lie.
Schneider was saying no such thing. You honestly think a prominent scientist would - in a published interview - say that it's okay to lie?!?
You're funny.
What Schneider was actually discussing was the difficulty in trying to communicate complex, important issues without adequate time during media interviews. IOW - talking about science in sound bites. Of course the wingers always omit the rest of his quote in order to conceal its true meaning:
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but -- which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
Schneiderman carefully explained what he meant, but the wingers persist in their infantile distortions.
What else would anyone expect/ Parent
That was easy. Parent
The question is, is the information he provided in this instance, correct?
And it is.
So quit trying to win by shooting the messenger. People are too smart for that argument to work. Parent
Although Monckton inherited a peerage, he did so after the passing of the House of Lords Act 1999,[22] which provided that hereditary peers would no longer have an automatic right to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Monckton asserts that the Act is flawed and unconstitutional, and has referred to himself as "a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature" in a letter to US Senators,[23] and also as "a member of the Upper House but without the right to sit or vote."
Link
So I find your attempt to shoot the messenger laughable and completely off the subject. Parent
Actually, if you claimed to be a non-voting President of Wingerland - that would be more believable. Parent
The only "settled on" in science is that nothing is settled.
I suspect the reason is that you put politics above science. You should know better.
There is plenty of evidence that man made global warming has been a hoax since before Mann put out his phone hockey stick.
As for Schneider, he said what he said and he has never refuted it.
In the meantime, we have this from Dr Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia:
He admitted withholding data about global temperatures but said the information was publicly available from American websites. And he claimed it was not 'standard practice' to release data and computer models so other scientists could check and challenge research
And he claimed it was not 'standard practice' to release data and computer models so other scientists could check and challenge research
Think about that. A scientist who doesn't want to release data/models so that other scientists can check them. Do you think that would be acceptable in any other branch of science? Medical research?
Do you think that would be acceptable in any other branch of science? Medical research?
And then we have this from Jones via a BBC interview:
BBC - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming (Jones) Yes, but only just.
(Jones) Yes, but only just.
Jones has written some other amazing things in his emails. None of which he ever thought would see the light of day. But they did:
Obama science advisers grilled over hacked e-mails Dec 2 06:17 PM US/Eastern By SETH BORENSTEIN AP Science Writer ..... Another Jones' e-mail read, "I would like to see the climate change happen so the science could be proved right."
..... Another Jones' e-mail read, "I would like to see the climate change happen so the science could be proved right."
Think about that, Donald. Dr Jones is admitting that it has happened.
What do I think?
I think we need more research into climate, and what causes change. Recent studies have indicated that cosmic rays have an effect and others have shown that carbon dioxide is a lagging indicator of temperature increase. That means that CO2 is not a cause.
The UN, which I supported for years and especially as a child, has become a cesspool of bureaucrats desperately trying to force money from the west via the phony claims of some.
Canada and Japan are withdrawing from the Kyota treaty. That should tell us all something.
We, thankfully, never signed. Parent
Offshore odds have Luck finishing 3rd in the Heisman voting behind winner Robert Griffin III of Baylor and just barely behind runnerup Trent Richardson of Alabama.
They don't often miss on this because there are limited number of voters, it's known who the voters are, and it's not hard to nail down a representative sample size.
Rounding out the top five are 4) Montee Ball (Wisconsin); and 5) The Honey Badger of LSU
Expect Griffin or the AL running back to win the Heisman. Parent