|
Quote:
|
Has anyone heard about the weather system involved with the BP Oil Leak? I just shutter to think what is going to happen if a tropical storm hits any of the oil. This breaks my heart.
|
Quote:
"If we could find the guy from Rolling Stone we'd buy him all the beer he could drink! McChrystal was getting people killed and we're happy to see him gone. No one here can figure out why the guy was put in charge of this op in the first place. We'd much rather have Petraeus calling the shots than McChrystal. At least we know that Petraeus knows his ass from a hole in the ground." There's more in the email but I won't bore you with our personal correspondence. I don't consider an active war zone where my son is getting shot at to be a distraction. I was wondering about the whole 'distraction' too. Okay, Obama and Medvedev having a burger and the latter visiting 'Twitters' is a shaggy dog story but it's not as if it was fabricated. A general getting fired is certainly dog bites man, not man bites dog. And the financial reform certainly shows that the Democrats still don't *quite* get it but it's better than what happened with the extension of unemployment benefits. I would really, really like to know what is it we're supposed to be distracted from with all this talk of wars, oil spills, climate change, etc. Cheers Aj |
Quote:
|
There is a tropical storm in the Caribbean. It may make it to where the BP leak is at. I am not sure of who is running the show there now - The Coast Guard or BP or Fed. Gov't. What happens if a tropical storm hits it?
|
Quote:
Rufus |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Ahh! Thank you! I hadn't paid much attention to the weather in the last few days. I have a program called EarthDesk that shows you a map of the Earth (in whatever projection you like) as your desktop background with near-real-time satellite updates of cloud patterns so it's actually rather useful for tracking storms. I usually run it during hurricane season and had forgotten to turn it on. Thanks all for explaining and reminding me to run it so I can keep track of what this storm is doing.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Banks, Congress and 'Banking reform' critique done right
With all the talk of late of how the mainstream media just wants to distract us and my own criticism of just throwing flames of the 'all politicians are thugs throw 'em all to the wolves' I thought it might be helpful to post an example of critique of our political system that is useful. I'm not a Dylan Ratigan fan which, ironically, is why I chose this piece of his.
Here's the flames--right up front: The same Washington spinsters who have driven our country into the ground seem to be out in full force this morning, claiming that their latest policy "victory" is the most "sweeping change" of our financial regulatory since the Great Depression. Actually, it is nothing more than window dressing. But he doesn't just call them spinsters and leave it at that. Meanwhile, all involved in the facade try to pretend that this should be considered a success because, gosh, real financial reform is just too hard and those crafty banksters will just outsmart us anyhow. Many in the media are either too complicit, too confused or too lazy to contradict this spin, but the rest of us shouldn't buy that BS. Real and lasting financial reform is actually quite easy to implement -- and the last time we had a crisis of this magnitude, we kept the banksters in check for 70 years. Here there's a least the hint of solutions. My problem isn't with critiques, my problem is with critiques that are reactionary, fact-free or fact-poor and don't even suggest that the problem might be solvable, even in principle. Cheers Aj |
Quote:
I know I can always do more, read more, even care more and if things remain disfunctional, I better be willing to take some personal blame if I'm doing nothing but sitting on my ass, bitching. My stances may not be what ends up being adopted, but, I am part of a conscious effort to effect change. |
Quote:
http://world.bymap.org/OilReserves.html http://www.wired.com/special_multime...08/oilreserves http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/en...y-oil-reserves (this one ranks Nam as number 41) |
A Republic--if we can keep it
Quote:
Several things immediately leap to mind as to what we have lost. Firstly, an American President talked to the American people as if they could understand the complexities of the Pacific war. He wasn't talking specific tactics or actions planned. Just laying out the stakes. Secondly, the American people actually went out and bought maps so they could follow along and understand what was being said. Instead of deciding that it was too much work, or accusing Roosevelt of being just like Stalin, they went and bought maps and assumed that they too could understand what was happening. I'm not talking policy wonks, I'm talking people like my mother (18 in 1941) and my grandmother (35 with nothing more than a 4th grade education *maybe*). Farmers and mechanics, housewives, teachers and street sweepers assumed that they too could look on a map and evaluate what the President was saying. Their country was at war, the least they could do was know where and why. Can you imagine an American President--ANY American President--asking the American people to go and buy maps or download the CIA World Factbook (and if you don't already have it bookmarked then do so--it's a great resource for anything you want to know about a country that is quantifiable and/or empirical)? Can you imagine the hew and cry that would be raised? Can you imagine what would happen if the President were to give a radio or TV address where he asked people to listen with their map at hand? I can hear it right now. All over FOX the President would be accused of elitism, of being out of touch with ordinary Americans, of having his nose stuck in the air(provided the POTUS was a Democrat). How many people do you know who would go to Google, download Google Earth (free) or go to the CIA and download the Factbook (free and takes up about 150 MB unzipped)? How many would actually bother to listen and follow along? I don't know what happened to us but once upon a time, in my parents (and for most of you reading this your grandparent's) time we really *were* these people. We actually behaved this way. Now, we could say that we lost it because we became a more diverse society but I don't buy that. We could blame TV--but again, I don't really buy that one although it's a little more plausible. Ultimately, I think we just became a culture that is lazy and in becoming so lazy we lost confidence in ourselves. Not the 'USA! USA!' confidence which isn't confidence but is braggadocio. Rather, I mean the confidence that it took to say "well, I'm not a college graduate but I can read a map, I have ears and eyes and I can follow this". THAT kind of confidence. There is a story, possibly apocryphal, from the Revolutionary period. After the Constitutional Convention, Franklin was asked what kind of government they had created. He responded "A Republic, if you can keep it". Notice that he didn't say "if the government can keep it" or "if the media can keep it" but if YOU--a citizen--can keep it. He was speaking to a man of his own time but he was also speaking to us in our time. This Republic does not belong to JP Morgan Chase or Goldman-Sachs. It doesn't belong to Rupert Murdoch or Roger Aisles. It belongs to you, to me, to all 300 million of us each individually. Yes, the Founders were all heterosexual, white men about half of whom were slaveholders and almost all of whom had very unflattering things to say about blacks and women and others. So what? They are dead and their bones are dust so it doesn't really matter. Yes, the Constitution was flawed and is still less than perfect. Find me one thing that humans have built that was perfect. This is our country, OUR Republic. The Founders bet that an educated and informed populace could keep a Republic going. I see no reason to doubt that this is true. The problem we face is that our public is no longer educated or informed and many do not want to be, preferring the quick fix of emotionally satisfying jingoism or pseudo-cynicism (which is really high idealism masquerading as cynicism). This is our mess. If any bums need to be thrown out, it's us. We let it come to this. Cheers Aj |
Quote:
Cheers Aj |
That little weather system in the Caribbean could actually make things better on the coastlines, depending on the direction it takes. It also could make it worse.
It's just too early to tell where it's going or what it's going to do or how strong it might become. |
The way we were
Earlier today I posted about an anecdote in Susan Jacoby's book "The Age of American Unreason" regarding FDR and one of his fireside chats. I got one or two facts wrong and Jacoby's telling is far more poignant than my writing skills can convey. So here it is, if you sit and think about this, really think about it, you'll start to see what we've lost and how we've let our country--that is to say ourselves--down.
Roosevelt's first fireside chat after Pearl Harbor came in February 1942, and he had asked Americans to spread out a map during his radio address so that they could follow and comprehend the geography of battle. The New York Times quoted one E. O. Schmidt, sales manager of a Manhattan bookstore, about the public response to the president's request. Schmidt had rounded up 2,000 copies of a new atlas to meet the demand, and, by the the night of the fireside chat, every map had been sold. Roosevelt told his listeners--who included 80 percent of all American adults--that he had asked them to use maps so that they might better understand a war being waged, unlike previous wars, on "every continent, every island, every sea, every airline in the world." In explaining the strategic situation to the public, Roosevelt was able to draw on his own extensive knowledge of geography, acquired early in life through his well-known hobby of stamp collecting. He had told his speechwriters that he was certain if Americans understood the immensity of the distances over which supplies must travel to the armed forces, "if they understand the problem and what we are driving at, I am sure they can take any kind of bad news right on the chin." This is a portrait not only of a different presidency and president but of different Americans, without access to satellite-enhanced Google maps but with a much greater receptivity to learning than today's public. (Susan Jacoby--The Age of American Unreason) But it's more poignant even than that. In 1940, only about a quarter of all American men and women had even graduated high school. The numbers for college graduates were both under 10%. That means that around 70% of all Americans had less than a high school diploma and still they behaved like this. We're not talking a population of intellectuals. Now, the overwhelming majority of Americans graduate high school and about a third of all Americans have a college degree. And yet, more than half of us couldn't tell you which coast of the continent borders the Pacific ocean and which borders the Atlantic. A nation of people who hadn't graduated high school thought it important to know where Germany, Japan and Italy were. A nation of high school graduates could care less to know and would look down their nose and call elitist--or worse--any person who did care to know. That's what we've lost. I was raised by people who grew up in that America, who remembered what it was like. They taught me that as a black woman in America it was my *job* to be informed and to think deeply on the issues of the day, if for no better reason than so I could vote well and explain things to my children. I don't want America to turn into a bunch of policy wonks (okay, I wouldn't shed any tears if we did but I don't expect it to happen). I would like for America to get whatever it was we had in 1942 that we don't have now back. If we can't get it back (and who knows if we can but I doubt it) then at least let us know what it is we let go. Those Americans--who did not protect the voting rights of blacks in all the states and the women in the population had only been voting for two decades--demanded a president who solved problems and talked to them like they were grown ups. They demanded it and they got it because they *deserved* it and would settle for nothing less. We want a president who--I don't even know if WE know what we want but whatever it is, talking to us like we're grown ups and assuming that we could take bad news certainly aren't high on the list of they are present at all. They got the government they deserved in 1942. We have, I suspect, the government that we deserve--not the one we need--in 2010. Cheers Aj Cheers Aj |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Actually, I think a lot of us would welcome that. I think that you are assuming a lot of Americans would not bother. I think a lot would bother. I think you are underestimaing the American population. I think more Americans are tuned in, aware, and concerned than you could imagine. Google Earth is a famous and well used tool. The CIA factbook is no secret. It is well used website and research tool. Rufus |
Quote:
41% don't believe global warming is happening 25% don't believe in evolution, another 36% have no opinion These are both basic science stuff - no degrees required. Then there are folks who take Palin seriously, folks who think that deficit spending is not good for the economy right now, folks who don't think BP should pay for their mess, folks who don't understand that our economy would implode if every immigrant worker left tomorrow, etc. We're in two wars. How many folks still think Saddam Hussein was involved with the NY attack? How many can find Afghanistan on a map? For that matter, how many can even name all 50 states? You'd be shocked at the number of folks who think New Mexico is in another country. I try to console myself by thinking that it's the same group of people that are out of touch on all of the above issues. Sadly, it appears that they vote, since they have representatives in Congress who believe all of the above, too. |
Quote:
Not all scientists can agree if global warming is happening. Not all scientists can agree that if it is happening whether it is caused by human actions or is a natural occurence. The evolution debate is also linked to religion. Just because someone has religious beliefs that don't coincide with another person's belief in evolution does not mean they are uninformed or uneducated, it just means they have different beliefs. I'm not a fan of Palin, but some people think it is wonky thinking to take Obama seriously or Clinton seriously. The points you are making above have to do with opinion not how informed someone is on issues or how willing they are to learn about issues. Otherwise you are saying that anyone that does not agree with you is uninformed. Surely you are not saying that? Perhaps someone's belief that Saddam was involved in 9/11 is due to being influenced by media stories and hype. Part of the issue is that most of us don't know what to believe because most of what we read is biased and skewed, lacking facts, or poorly written. So perhaps if the President did say take out your map, here are the facts, maybe many of us would. We spend our days sorting through so much misinformation that most of us no longer know which side is up. My larger point is not to point fingers at the masses or people who disagree with you, but to point out the problems with sources of information. I would also add that I think most of the problem is not to do with lack of knowledge of facts and info bites, but lack of critical thinkihg and analysis. Teaching people how to think is more important than teaching them what to think. Rufus |
|
Quote:
Evolution is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of scientific evidence. I know that this is going to insult some folks but there's really no kind way to put this--if you deny that evolution happened then you are manifestly and seriously misinformed about biology. That's harsh but it also has the virtue of being true. ALL of the evidence in biology is on the side of evolution and NONE of it is on the side of any other explanation which, let's be honest, is creationism. Intelligent design is just creationism disguised to pass Constitutional muster. Again, ALL of the evidence in biology is on the side of evolution and NONE of it is on the side of any other explanation. This isn't a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. Anyone who tells you differently is either lying to you or doesn't know the literature. All of the genetic evidence points to common descent. Incipient structures point to common descent. Transitional fossils point to common descent. That we can *reliably* calculate the distance between any two species for which we have a complete genome within a margin of error of around +/- 1% points to common descent. The fossil record points to common descent. Species in transition toward speciation (the northern ring gulls around the Arctic circle) point to the fact that our model of speciation appears to be correct. The fact that certain genes code for the same thing across phylum speaks to common descent. For example, the same gene that codes 'make eyes here' in fruit flies does the same job in rats, mice, humans in fact ALL of the placental mammals use the same gene (memory slips me if the marsupials use that gene but I believe they do). This doesn't specify what KIND of eyes grow in the location it simply specifies "whatever kind of eyes are going to be built, build them here". The HOX2 gene is ubiquitous in the animal kingdom (HOX2 is one of the genes tasked with building the overall body plan.) I could go on and on but you get the picture. Evolution is the only *reasonable*, testable explanation subject to falsification going. Might an intelligent designer have created all of it? Sure, it's *possible*. But just because something is *possible* doesn't mean it is at all reasonable to assume that it happened. The problem with intelligent design is that it can't be falsified. Intelligent design proponents avoid the subject of falsification because they *know* they don't actually care if it can be falsified or not. If it can't be falsified it's not science. It might be art, poetry, religion or drama but it isn't science. Evolutionary theory can be falsified and has withstood every single challenge thrown at it in the last 150 years. Every anomaly so far has been accounted for. Look, if someone said that the Sun orbits the Earth every single person here would say that person is ignorant of physics. If someone said that Abraham Lincoln was never President of the United States every single person here would say that person was ignorant of U.S. history. If someone said that space and time are two separate things then anyone who knows Relativity would say that person was ignorant of the that subject. And if someone maintains that evolutionary theory is wrong then that person is demonstrating their manifest ignorance of biology. I'm sorry, I know that's harsh, but it is still true. Yes, I know that there are biology teachers who claim that they don't accept the theory of evolution--they are either lying or they got their biology degree from a Christian college that taught them lies about the science of biology. Yes, I used the term lies because they are lies. To say that there are no transitional fossils is to lie. To say that there are irreducibly complex structures is to lie. Quote:
These are not hidden or classified sources. They are totally open sources and so if someone believes that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 or even thinks it is plausible it is because they didn't take the time to Google some terms that they were probably not familiar with before 11 Sep 2001. Terms like Wahhabi and Baath party and Sunni and pan-Arabism. If information is available--and it is--and the information is important--and it is--and someone doesn't take the time to go out and confirm for themselves that is THEIR fault, not the fault of society or the media. Cheers Aj |
Quote:
Gulf War I. I am about a year out of the military when this war jumps off. People at the office I worked at made statements like "we have to get Saddam before he can get over here". Now, there has been no 9/11 attack so no one is thinking about flying planes into buildings. They're thinking along the lines of the United States being invaded by Iraq. So I go my bud Bubba's house and get out his atlas and some tracing paper. I trace the relevant region leaving out the names of the countries. Not a *single* person could find Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Israel or the PERSIAN GULF on the map. I then showed them a map of the globe, pointed out where Iraq was, pointed out where the Persian Gulf was, pointed out what it would take to get ships or airplanes from Iraq to the Eastern United States and then asked how they could reasonably think he was any kind of threat to the US. 9/11. I'm teaching at a business school. Three of us try to give our students some context as to why people in, say, Palestine and Iran were jubilant over the attacks. My boss calls us all on the carpet. In the course of the conversation, we tell her what we said and she did not know that the US government overthrew the *rightfully elected government of Iran in the late 50's, installed a brutal dictator who ruled Iran for another quarter century before being over thrown in the Iranian revolution in 1979. None. This was something she was *alive* for! When I reminded her about the hostages who were held for 444 days, she remembered that! Oh yes, she certainly remembered that. But did not realize that the two events were correlated and was, in fact part of one another! As far as Google Earth and the CWF, I'm not saying that people don't know about these tools. I'm saying that people wouldn't use them and would look down the nose of those who would think it important to do so to have the context of a presidential speech. |
ALL OF THIS IS PUBLIC INFORMATION AND THEY WANT US TO SHARE IT:
The Internet is about to be taken down in America !! Internet kill switch plan approved 6/25/10 http://news.techworld.com/security/3...enate/?olo=rss Blueprint for De-population - declassified passed in Congress http://www.theinterim.com/july98/20nssm.html This explains how we lost our government: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...0711843120756# Lindsey Williams - The Elite Speak - tells us their plans for us and what this oil spill is about: [nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHMtHvODtoQ"]YouTube- Lindsey Williams - The Elite Speak - DVD 1 Part 1 - Jan/Feb 2010 (To Seduce a Nation)[/nomedia] In DVD 7, Lindsey Williams talks about how these elite have a moral code to tell us what they are going to do before they do it. Such as, the movie "Oil Storm" came out 2 weeks before hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans - Port Fourchor, which the script was written under their direction. Williams says there are some things in that movie that have not happened yet, that we should watch it. He basically confirmed our suspicions that the elite do have the capability to steer hurricanes and steered Katrina into New Orleans. He says that this is done by heating the air in front of the wind which creates a path. We might assume that the chemtrail campaign which has been linked to HAARP is also somehow involved with this end game scheme of destruction, even though this wasn't specifally mentioned here. He recommended that we study the book, 'Angels Don't Play this HAARP'. In DVD 8, He talks about how we are being 'marked' with 'chips' by the vaccines, that the chips are put in the needles and are 'nano' in size. That the health care bill is about total government takeover, to read the fine print. In DVD 9, Williams says, "The Chinese are the strong ones. America is going to be relegated to third world status. The New World Order has made other nations their focal point. They have moved our industry abroad. We will be relegated to third world status after the elite complete their New World Order status." Johnson says, "The person they most respect is Dmitru Duduman. They put him on the electric chair twice to get him to tell how he was smuggling Bibles. When the electricity was going through his body, the angel Gabriel showed up in the room and said, 'You're going to America to give them a warning from God'. When he got here the angel Gabriel came to him and said, 'that the fall of America would begin by an internal revolution started by the 'Communists'. Some of the people will start fighting against the government. The government will be busy with internal problems. Then from the oceans Russia, Cuba, Nicarauga, Central America, Mexico, and two other countries will attack and defeat America within one hour. Revelation 18, Jeremiah 50-51, other verses in the Bible will be fulfilled." Revelation and Jeremiah compared: http://www.lastdaysmystery.info/reve...h_compared.htm Unbelievable - Guillotines in the FEMA concentration camps, passed in Congress... millions of coffins are sitting outside the FEMA camps. [nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1yaaW37CoM[/nomedia] http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com.../con_camps.htm "The Gehlen Organization, copying Hitler's New Order, established a concentration camp system in San Luis Obispo County. It was called the California Specialized Training Institute. It developed plans called the *King Alfred Plan, Operation Cable Splitter, Operation Garden Plot,* and *REX-84* and was later renamed as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). You can get more information on these subjects from Militia of Montana, Bo Gritz, *Spotlight Newspaper,* etc." Mandatory Counseling on Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/euthanasia.asp You won't be able to fly on airplane (leave the country)... nor own a gun, all it takes is any doctor to deem you 'unstable' with no psychiatric testing. Your tap water is mostly likely contaminated with pathogens from the oil spill. All food is suspect, look for black specks in your meat and vegetables, all fish is most likely contaminated to some degree: Kellogg recalls 4 cereals for odd odor, flavor Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/06/2...#ixzz0s0KnRRq3 Strange looking bacon "Opened a new package of Farmer John bacon to cook for breakfast this morning but the bacon looked so strange I was afraid to eat it. I have never seen bacon that looked like this." Report: Toxins found in whales bode ill for humans http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100624/ap_on_sc/whaling 250,000 Oil Spills in U.S. Waters, 1971-2000 http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/3V33Hh...-2000.html/r:t Supposedly only 3% of the Press is not corrupt, you have to search them out, they are trying to make a difference. Safely Storing Emergency Water http://firstaid.about.com/od/emergen...ter_supply.htm |
Quote:
I should have done better than I did but I did ok.. |
*shakes my head*
I don't know what to say that will not be taken wrong, but all I can say that's fit to read is REALLY????? Good grief. |
Quote:
I've been doing research on Lyme and Morgellons and I stumbled on all of this, there's reason to believe that these "mystery" diseases will be in the water, too. I have been on a site researching and this is where my research lead me... I don't work for them!! I've been allowed to continue but I can't mention the diseases because they aren't public knowledge yet. Tell the Hopi that the chemtrails are their 'spiderwebs', it creates a fungus that looks like a web, and the dispersants are the 'rivers of rocks' and that people should be flocking to them soon. The air and water are going to be contaminated and to get into their caves and to store lots of water. |
Kam I really don't have a clue what you are referring to here. Are the Hopi going to tell you anything? Um probably not. I don't understand why you are posting this stuff, and what it has to do with anything. Are you referring to the End time? 'Cause if you are it isn't about diseases and the sky falling, really.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
ROFLMAO!!!! My goodness, doesn't anyone ever do critical thinking anymore? The Gulf of Mexico is SALT water. I am not aware of any American city that gets its municipal water from desalination. So you *cannot* have specks of oil in your drinking water from the oil spill because you aren't DRINKING water from the Gulf of Mexico. No one is irrigating food crops with that water either. Now, I want you to do this--because it's clear you didn't do this before--get a map of the area, notice the large river running north-to-south through the continent called the Mississipppi. Now, why on Earth would people living either off the Mississippi OR on top of a large aquifer get their water from a SALT water which has to be desalinated AND cleaned while the river and aquifer water just needs to be cleaned. Can you please explain that to me? |
Rather than argue what I said, you managed to prove what I said.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Little facts aside, that's still not going to cause any of the nonsense in that article. I'm not sure it even takes critical thinking to see how absurd it is; paying attention to the "this how clouds form and where rain comes from" lecture in elementary school should cover it. |
Quote:
Thank you for the correction. I was rushed writing that last post because I was trying to get the post done before I took Jaime to a nice French restaurant for our anniversary. As such I didn't have time to fact-check whether or not desalination was used in American cities along the gulf. I also want to thank you for the points you made to Rufusboi because they were spot on. We live in a world saturated by information and yet people don't take the time to get even the most basic facts down. What's more, while it's important to teach people how to think there are books that any literate person capable of reading at a 7th or 8th grade level could get through that will help you learn HOW to think logically. (It's a skill and I am mystified why no one would suggest that one could become a pianist--of any skill level still worthy of the name--only after practice but people assume logical and rational thinking is just something that magically happens.) There are books one can buy at Amazon or check out of any public library that are, for all purposes, a philosophy 101 class. And not dry stuff either. Janet Radcliffe Richards (a British feminist) has two books--one out of print but available the library nevertheless--that are textbooks for philosophy 101. They are "Human Nature After Darwin" and "The Skeptical Feminist". Both use their subject matter to do double-duty--if you know nothing about Darwinian theory the first is a reasonably good introduction to the theory and at the same time, also teaches critical thinking skills. The latter book does the same thing for feminism--introduces the subject and teaches critical thinking skills while doing so. Yet people don't avail themselves of all this information they are awash in. So it drives me to distraction when people claim that I'm being somehow elitist to suggest that if someone says, just to take one very familiar howler regarding Darwinism, "if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys", they are evidencing a deep and profound level of ignorance about the subject. It would be like someone claiming that someone who says 1 + 1 = 5 isn't ignorant of math they've just been fooled by the media or what-have-you. No, anyone who says that 1 + 1 = any real or rational number OTHER than 2 that person is actually, really, and truly ignorant of mathematics and there is no reason to take a single thing they have to say on the subject of math seriously. As far as the relative intelligences of Obama, Clinton and Palin--it is remarkable that anyone would try to compare those three. The first two are in a class of intellect that were I in the same room as them I would be *humbled* to be in their presence and I’m no intellectual slouch. Meeting either one of them would be, for me, nothing so much as like Luke Skywalker realizing that he was in the presence of Yoda for the first time. (Although I'd be less whiny about it) Palin, on the other hand, evidences a truly breathtaking ignorance about pretty much any subject she spouts off on. What's even more remarkable is that we are supposed to believe that a man who got into one of the best schools in the country on a *scholarship* and then went to the best law school in the country, becoming editor of the most prestigious academic legal publication in the country (can ANYONE here who isn't a lawyer or isn't related to a lawyer name a single legal journal OTHER than the Harvard Law Review?) and then teaching Constitutional law at the University of Chicago (another tier-1 school) is less intelligent than a woman who went to five different colleges--none of them any higher than tier-2 before graduating with a degree in communications? We are also supposed to believe that this same person is more intelligent than someone who ALSO went to a tier-1 school (Yale) on a scholarship and then was a Rhodes Scholar. Really? By that logic, I am the both a faster runner than Wilma Rudolf or Carl Lewis AND a better cyclist than Lance Armstrong since showing *less* ability is somehow, in some strange kind of Zen-inspired koan, to actually show superior ability. |
just in case Rufus was talking about Hilary Clinton......
In 1969 she was the first student commencement speaker at Wellesley. She later graduated from Yale Law School and became the first female partner at Rose Law Firm. During that time she was twice listed among the top 100 lawyers in this country. Her time as first Lady is well known. She was elected to the Senate in 2000. She was the first viable woman candidate for POTUS. Obama selected her as his Secretary of State. Hilary ain't no slouch in the brains department. Palin on the other hand could not think her way out of a paper bag. |
Quote:
I'm not trying to argue global warming or evolution. I was arguing the point you made about the masses being uninformed. I don't agree with that opinion. Rufus |
Quote:
Ok - that's where we differ in opinion, I think a lot of people would use these tools. I think people use them everyday. I think you underestimate the majority of Americans. I don't think people would look down their noses. Look, we are just differing in opinions that we have no facts or stats to support. I just think the American population is a little more tuned in than you do. Can I prove that, no. Can you prove most would look down their noses, no. Rufus |
Quote:
That's the whole point of critical thinking, you question everything you read and hear!! You don't need facts to critiically think your way our of a paper bag, you need to know to question all received information. If people are taught what to think rather than how to think, then we will definitely have a nation of sheep because those in power will be teaching the "what." If people are taught how to think and have strong critical thinking skills then they are independent thinkers and won't be led around by people who are trying to teach them "what' to think. Teaching people "What" to think just scares me. Its brainwashing. Rufus |
Quote:
I wasn't trying to argue either global warming or evolution. I was arguing that the evidence for both of those is solid enough that to hold an opinion contrary to them is ignorant and/or uninformed. It would be equally ignorant and/or uninformed to say that the Sun orbits the Earth or that Barack Obama is not currently President of the United States and for the same kinds of reasons--the overwhelming evidence points to those conclusions. People may not believe that to be the case, but they are wrong. "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, no one is entitled to their own facts." -- Daniel Patrick Moynihan |
Quote:
There will always be crazy thinkers, people who insist up is down. Not much we can do about that. They exist in all countires at all times. My point is that you tend to scoff at a lot of people who given the opportuniuty would welcome some facts and straight talking. Its easy to point fingers and say this person is dumb, that person is uneducated. But rather than blaming the individual we need to think in larger terms. My larger point is not to point fingers at the masses or people who disagree with you, but to point out the problems with sources of information. My other point, made mostly to Msdeamenor, is if we focus on critical thinking, rather than shoving people full of facts to take a test, we will end up with more independent thinkers who have the ability to sort through the crap. We will teach people how to think, not what to think. Its my belief that the problem is rooted in the school system. We no longer teach critical thinking. It is a learned skill. It is not easy to learn this skill alone. We need a school and social system that supports this type of thinking and learning. We don't have that. Based on some of your prior posts you think that an individual can pick up a book and teach themselves critical thinking and logic, I happen to disagree with this. Yes, it is a learned skill but it can't be done in isolation. Rufus |
Quote:
President Obama gave his first Oval Office speech on the Gulf disaster recently. 32 million people watched - roughly 10% of the US population. Of the other 90%, some are young children, at work, infirmed, etc. and clearly not capable of watching or clearly too young. What about everyone else? Are they already so informed that they had no need to watch or do they not care enough to bother? Even more disturbing, the largest audience for post-speech coverage watched O'Reilly on Faux Newz. 3.6 million - 10% of the viewers and 1% of the population (roughly) - people chose as their source of post-speech analysis the single worst place in all of television in which to get anything resembling either facts or critical analysis. |
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:06 AM. |
ButchFemmePlanet.com
All information copyright of BFP 2018