Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/30/08 05:06 AM, Togukawa wrote:

At 1/29/08 07:18 PM, TheMason wrote:

Mmm. It is an issue mankind has wrestled with yes, but it's a philosophical problem. And it's that problem itself that should be dealt with in the appropriate classes. We shouldn't simply teach one answer to the problem as if it were truth, when it doesn't have any more merit than basically, every single ridiculous idea anyone can come up with.

This is what I really care about. Things like ID has a place in education. Philosophical problems stimulates thought and discussion. Furthermore, it also encourages unorthodox thinking and I'm a huge fan of thinking outside of the box. I've known several scientific academians and one thing I see in all of them is a conservative (not in the political sense) bent that does not seek to reach beyond what is currently observable. To entertain theories such as ID stimulates and inspires the creative centers of one's intellect that is useful to reach beyond what we can currently observe.

I just got done watching a History channel show called Monster Quest that was looking for an American version of the Loch Ness monster. The thing that struck me was that you have these "monster hunters" and cryptozoologists who are searching for these mythical creatures that could not exist (ie: healthy breeding population requirments). But what data are they collecting that could be useful to field biologists, geologists, etc? What new technologies are being funded by these crackpots that will prove invaluable to science?

At 1/30/08 01:27 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 1/29/08 06:44 PM, TheMason wrote: Actually, elfer didn't score that big of an ouch. Academic journals give their editors this power to give voice to unpopular articles that will be quashed in peer review.

No, editorial discretion is there to allow the editor to review articles in his or her area of expertise when needed, and generally to expedite the process, not to allow the promotion of a certain agenda without regard to the scientific merit of a paper.

Peer review is not a perfect method of publishing scholarly work; it is simply the best and most credible. However, editorial review is a check on the fear that minority voices and controversial work will be quashed by Lakatosian protective belts that seek to defend the status quo.

Now Sternberg has expertise in this area; one of his PhDs is in molecular evolution and his other one is in system science which seeks to explain complex systems and draw common foundations between things as diverse as biology, medicine, engineering and the social sciences. All of this was on his CV, and the council that hired him to be the editor of the Proceedings should have been aware of his background (systems science should've been a BIG clue) when they gave him these powers.

The assumption (and trust) of being granted editorial discretion is that you will use it in an appropriate and professional manner. Generally speaking, if there is any doubt as to whether or not there is a conflict of interest, the procedure is to delegate someone else.

Who knows if he was knowingly a part of an agenda or not. From what I've read on this over the past few days is that both sides have thrown allegations at the other and what really went down has been lost. But I will say Dr Sternberg should've known that if you lay w/pigs you're going to smell like shit.

As for delegating the responsibility; that is simply not realistic. You hire a human being and give them these powers and you realize that every decision made by that person will involve a conflict of interest or bias on some level. The buck has to stop somewhere and someone has to make a decision.

Now I haven't read this article and I was not too familiar with this case before today; however I think it is a little too strong to lable this as "unethical". Stupid, maybe or even inappropriate but not something with the value laden term "unethical".

Abusing your authority to circumvent the system that you are charged with administrating is, in fact, a severe breach of ethics. Ethics are not nearly as subjective as morals are. This is a clear-cut case of unethical behaviour.

Ethics are actually fairly subjective and dynamic. They are also something that is imposed from without (professional guidelines from some sort of licensing agency or corporate policy) and within (the study of one's own moral compass). In this we are both arguing from ignorance. What was the guidelines for editorial discretion that he was operating under? Was he relatively free to publish w/o peer review or did he directly contravine the journal's proceedures? One thing that is telling is that the Organization did change their editorial policy to make it more clear what an editor would or would not be able to publish. This indicates that perhaps Sternberg did not engage in ethical behavior.

In short: to publish an article despite explicit policies that prohibit certain types of articles would be unethical. However, if one is operating in an ambigious environment and is publishing an article that he knows would be unpopular...that is not unethical.

At 1/30/08 07:03 PM, Al6200 wrote: It should be more like:

40% Math
40% Science
10% Communication (put it in a Latin class, I don't really care. The important thing is that it teaches people how to write in the real world).
10% Art (Enrichment, expression)

Umm...hell no. There is no reason for people who are not going into a technical field to have an education that is 80% Math & Science. Why does a tradesman need that much Math/Science? On the other hand, we expect him to be able to cast an informed vote. How can we do that if he does not have an understanding of our governmental institutions?

We complain about the quality of movies and television; but if they don't know what good art is how we can expect mass media to be anything but appealing to base human emotions. Remember, Shakespeare wrote for a broad audience...not just for the elite who paid him.

The human experience is way too broad and rich to be confined to 20% of an education.

However, I will go for a technocratic society if we start limiting access and involvement in politics.

At 1/30/08 03:27 PM, Al6200 wrote: Most students who do go to college will go for 4 years, and will expect to get a good job.

The dirty little secret behind a college degree is that unless you're studying math or science and going for a technical degree; it does not matter what degree you get. The reason: a college degree is the last legal way to discriminate in the hiring process.

Most private employers just want to see that you've done the time; and don't really care about what your major was. It may sound counter-intuitive, but unless a job requires a certain skill/knowledge set (ie: medicine, engineering or accounting) the content of your degree doesn't matter and you still have just as good a shot at getting a good job.

In fact, my degree is in political science w/a specialization in international relations. In some ways I'm more marketable to a MNC (Multi-National Company) than a guy with a degree in international business. The reason; I'll come in without preconcieved opinions or training in regards to how my employer should conduct his business. I'm more maleable (sp?) and more open to training and socialization into his company; all the while bringing a knowledge of the international realm that is valuable to him. The same could go for someone with a history degree (especially non-US).

So I'm sorry, but the point that education (and especially college education) should not be about "finding oneself" falls flat. We should not be trying to educate a "productive" citizen because a work ethic is not something that comes from school; rather we should be educating "good" citizens who have a sense of where their nation and humanity as whole has been and where we're going. Furthermore, unless we start limiting what full citizenship entails, we should be using the educational system as a means of transmitting knowledge and understanding of the institutions that govern and regulate our lives especially since what we learn in college is not what determines whether or not we get good jobs.

And this requires a balance. We cannot have a society whose members are well versed in Shakespeare but cannot do algebra as much as we cannot have a functioning society that can do calculus, trig and physics but cannot tell the difference between the first and second amendment.

At 1/30/08 06:42 AM, Al6200 wrote:

At 1/28/08 11:55 PM, TheMason wrote:

I guess I should quote and cite my source on this:

Yeah, sorry. I just wasn't reading carefully.

You know, it's funny. I've always felt like Math and Science made literature interesting, while it just was sort of "meh" before.

Here's the thing though, you cannot seperate math & science from culture. In 1977 the USAF managed to block the release of Star Wars in East Europe because they wanted to evaluate the feasibility of the X-Wing and not give the USSR ideas. The Motorolla guy who is the brains behind the cell phone was inspired by the communicator on Star Trek. One of the things that's interesting about science fiction is that much of its "science" is not based upon any existing research...but it inspires the generation of researchers who are children or adolescents.

At 1/29/08 09:41 PM, TheStRipe wrote: well itd be a lot less uphill if john edwards was democratic nominee i mean just look at the arrogance of those republicans. they know that they have a pretty good shot at winning even with all their crazy platforms

I don't think you really know all that much about the electoral calculus at play here. No one in the Republican party thinks that they have an easy path to the White House. Everyone has gone through their campaign war chests and are now broke. On the other hand, the Democrats still have a shit-ton of cash (Hillary or Obama at least). This is a HUGE advantage for them.

Truth be told I think you're basing your opinion on your regional and ideological biases than anything real.

and ya i dont know how much about medicare, but we spend a hella lot on the war. we use tanks and airplane bombings to take out mere snipers tsk tsk not cost effect as far as i can see
900 billion dollar bill passed for war through july or so seems like a waste of money to me

Again, you speak of things of which you have no real knowledge to speak on. First of all our air operations over there are not that much higher of an ops tempo than peacetime. Furthermore, before the invasion we were flying the same amount of combat hours enforcing the no fly zones. The long and the short of it is that you've been sold a bill of goods with this line: we have not significantly increased our military spending.

Here's a good place to start educating yourself.

At 1/29/08 06:57 PM, SevenSeize wrote: I graduated with a guy who raped a 4 year old, and it was YEARS before they got him a trial, and sent him to jail for like a lousy 5 years.

He was out, walking around, working, got married, and had a baby of his own, before they ever did anything about him.

Makes me sick.

Question here though; where was the father of the 4yo? I mean I have a daughter and if something like that happened to her the bastard would die very slowly and horribly.

At 1/29/08 07:16 PM, reviewer-general wrote: Yes.

Ditto.

I take it we are going for short info-less posts?

Why not?

At 1/29/08 01:10 PM, Togukawa wrote:

At 1/29/08 12:06 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 1/29/08 11:18 AM, Togukawa wrote:

Also your attempt at obfuscation by comparing ID to "elves" & "goblins" fails. One can be reasonably sure that elves & goblins do not exist. The concept of a diety cannot be confirmed or disproven (sorry religious zealots and atheists) near as conclusively.

Lies. One is equally sure that elves and goblins don't exist as one can be sure that some form of deity doesn't exist. There are equal amounts of observable natural evidence for the both of them: absolutely nothing. Both a deity and elves are supernatural creatures, of which there is no evidence whatsoever.

You just got done explaining the difference between abiogenisis and evolution. The only observation we have about the formation of the Earth and the beginning of life is that we can observe that there is this planet we call Earth and there is this other thing that we call life. The Earth is perfectly positioned relative to the Sun and was a collection of just the right combination of elements . One person comes along and says this is proof of God. Another comes along, calls the first one silly and says it all happened randomly.

Now elves and goblins are mythical creatures but ones that in earlier times were considered tangible beings (albeit tangible beings with magical powers) whereas God or whatever Diety is intangible and ethereal.

One of the things real scientists understand is that just because something is unobservable or outside of our ability to perceive does not mean that it does not exist.

It makes me wonder how it ever passed said editorial muster. I haven't read his paper so I can't really comment on that, but ID simply isn't science.

You say something really interesting here; you haven't read the paper in question. Neither have I; by what right of intellectual honesty do either one of us have to claim this is or is not science?

Also at its most basic science is just observing the world and drawing hypothesis and theories from them. Believe it or not this does not equal truth...

For me the issue is not really whether ID is true or false; or even does it have a place in the sciences. The issue is scholars who have the necessary Bona Fides to publish in scientific/academic journals; and yet they are censored because they are saying things that go against the predominate paradigm. Furthermore, you can observe the shape of the Earth; you cannot observe evolution and this is the fundamental difference between challenging that the Earth is a sphere and that life happened either randomly or by design. No one observed how proteins, amino acids, DNA, RNA, etc were originally formed. There is simply no concrete evidence to support either position just fundamental assumptions...on both sides.

Whether it's true or false we'll never know. But assuming it is true simply doesn't take us anywhere. We could assume that this reality is a completely random thing, that has no rules guiding it, and that the fact that the sun rises every morning is simply coincidence, and basically that everything is all just a big coincidence. We'll never be able to prove that "theory" wrong. But if we assume that that is the case, we might as well just go sit in a cave and do nothing, because the deer you hunt could turn into a dinosaur and eat you, or the meat could vanish before you get it to your mouth, etc. Reality would just be pointless. We assume that there are some kind of rules that govern our world, that are consistent and don't change. Some sort of designer destroys that basic assumption, and at best doesn't offer anything.

"No one observed how proteins, amino acids, DNA, RNA were originally formed" is abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution CAN be observed, and IS observed. Different strains of bacteria or them becoming resistant being the most obvious example.

Besides, it's not because no one observed it, that we don't have enough evidence to make a reasonable decision. In most cases, the judge doesn't observe the actual murder, but still convicts murderers based on evidence. Even though yes, in theory it's possible that God just "planted" the evidence to make the person look guilty, for reasons we can't possibly fathom. It's just the fundamental assumption that no strange supernatural shit is going on that allows us to convict people based on evidence. Even though no, actually there is no real proof for said fundamental assumption.

And if a scholar with the necessary Bona Fides publishes an extremely dumb idea, it's only normal it's taken out.

Personally I think ID should be taught; but in a philosophy and theology setting...not biology.

I think ID should be taught just as much as alchemy, phrenology, last thursdayism, FSMism, and every single ridiculous idea anyone can come up with.

And this is the reason education sucks these days. The question of whether or not there is some purpose to life or a plan or are we here just because of chance; is not some crackpot theory that is new to our generation but rather an issue mankind has wrestled with for eons.

At 1/29/08 01:16 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 1/29/08 12:54 PM, Elfer wrote: You're aware that he used editorial discretion to publish the article without review by anyone else, rightw by anyone else in order to promote a specific agenda? Do you have any IDEA how unethical that is?

I'll give you a hint: a bunch.

lol

OOOOOOOUCH.

<3 elfer

Actually, elfer didn't score that big of an ouch. Academic journals give their editors this power to give voice to unpopular articles that will be quashed in peer review. Remember, if peer review was so perfect Einstein's miracle year papers would have been quashed because of the implications it had for the ether paradigm and we would still view the world as flat. In the end this all comes down to the editor's opinion on what is deserving of publication. This happens rarely because if you make a controversial editorial call you're taking your career into your owns as well as your publication's reputation.

Now I haven't read this article and I was not too familiar with this case before today; however I think it is a little too strong to lable this as "unethical". Stupid, maybe or even inappropriate but not something with the value laden term "unethical".

At 1/28/08 10:24 PM, Musician wrote:

At 1/28/08 10:21 PM, Grammer wrote: I don't think she's stupid, but she is misguided in that she thinks Barrack Obama is the solution to the so-called problems in Washington. Obama offers limited experience, if I were to support any Democrat it would be Hilary.

Know who else was young an unexperienced when he entered office? John F. Kennedy, who is in my opinion the greatest president in the history of the United States.

So how is JFK better than Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington?

JFK did two things:
1) Gave a speech, one line of which is oft quoted.
2) Got shot.

At 1/29/08 11:18 AM, Togukawa wrote:

At 1/29/08 10:51 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 1/28/08 01:38 AM, KupaMan wrote:

At 1/27/08 11:58 PM, pyrofreeze200 wrote: I disagree. Darwinists are open to ideas that have a scientific backing.

Well, obviously that's not that case. That's the point of the documentary.

Also, isn't the topic starter also proving the opposite of what he's writing here? I mean the movie isn't even out yet and he's panning it. That's not exactly being open...

If the concept is so inherently flawed, you don't need to see it before panning it. If I make a documentary about the implications of the contributions of elves and goblins to our society, I hope most people would proclaim me a lunatic.

How so? How is the concept that some sort of intelligence (and I personally am not limiting this to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God) guided the formation of the chemical precursors to life any more flaweed or irrational than believing that in an extremely chaotic and hostile environment that these chemical reactions that had to occur in a precise combination happened randomly? Both take a leap of faith in accepting premises and primitive assumptions that have their flaws. Neither can be readily falsifiable.

Also your attempt at obfuscation by comparing ID to "elves" & "goblins" fails. One can be reasonably sure that elves & goblins do not exist. The concept of a diety cannot be confirmed or disproven (sorry religious zealots and atheists) near as conclusively.

Look I don't believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

Furthermore, what is troubling to me (and I have to research it a little more) is that a paper that is good enough to make it past editorial review in an academic journal...is quashed because of its content. I have no problem with Darwinism; I do not view it as false or even anti-religion. However, if paradigms or assumptions are not being challenged by another paradigm (even if it is by an older paradigm wearing a new hat) then it is not science but rather a dogma just as dangerous as religious zealotry.

What do you mean by that? What makes a paper "good", if not its content? And what's the problem with there not being any other paradigms challenging it?

Did you watch the trailer or are you just speaking without knowing what I'm refering to? They had an editor of an academic journal who claims to have been let go because he published a paper that favored an ID perspective. So in this case (as I stated above) if a paper can pass editorial muster than why dismiss it out of hand and/or punish the editor?

For me the issue is not really whether ID is true or false; or even does it have a place in the sciences. The issue is scholars who have the necessary Bona Fides to publish in scientific/academic journals; and yet they are censored because they are saying things that go against the predominate paradigm. Furthermore, you can observe the shape of the Earth; you cannot observe evolution and this is the fundamental difference between challenging that the Earth is a sphere and that life happened either randomly or by design. No one observed how proteins, amino acids, DNA, RNA, etc were originally formed. There is simply no concrete evidence to support either position just fundamental assumptions...on both sides.

Personally I think ID should be taught; but in a philosophy and theology setting...not biology.

At 1/28/08 01:38 AM, KupaMan wrote:

At 1/27/08 11:58 PM, pyrofreeze200 wrote: I disagree. Darwinists are open to ideas that have a scientific backing.

Well, obviously that's not that case. That's the point of the documentary.

Also, isn't the topic starter also proving the opposite of what he's writing here? I mean the movie isn't even out yet and he's panning it. That's not exactly being open...

Furthermore, what is troubling to me (and I have to research it a little more) is that a paper that is good enough to make it past editorial review in an academic journal...is quashed because of its content. I have no problem with Darwinism; I do not view it as false or even anti-religion. However, if paradigms or assumptions are not being challenged by another paradigm (even if it is by an older paradigm wearing a new hat) then it is not science but rather a dogma just as dangerous as religious zealotry.

At 1/28/08 10:23 PM, stafffighter wrote:

At 1/28/08 10:17 PM, Grammer wrote: The Democrats wouldn't clap for a few things, which disturbed me quite a tad. They refused to clap when Bush said he would veto all spending bills which included pork barrel projects, and any bill that hiked taxes.

Well sometimes things need to get done that taxes are needed to pay for. I will say he looks calm, bacially because his legacy is a forgone conclusion at this point.

Nothing is a forgone conclusion. History has a long view and anyone claiming that Bush will be villified or glorified is (to use D2K's words) Bollocks. The long term effects of his presidency won't be felt for awhile plus things will become declassified that may either exonerate or indict him.

As for me, I'm on the fence on what his legacy will be.

At 1/28/08 11:34 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 1/28/08 04:58 PM, Al6200 wrote: Not really. George Bush was a pilot, and did better on his Math SAT than his verbal. Al Gore was an engineer in the army

"Right after Christmas, Specialist 4 Al Gore finally did ship out for Vietnam, and arrived at the 20th Engineer Brigade at Bien Hoa, outside Saigon, on Jan. 2, 1971"

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/poli tics/camp/071100wh-gore.html

Fact Check:
Al Gore was NOT an Army engineer but rather served as a military journalist. Just because he served in an Engineer Brigade this does not mean that he was an engineer. I served in a Fighter Squadron that flew F-16s in the USAF; that doesn't make me a pilot.

Also, he has no formal education in the sciences. His BA from Harvard was in Government and his graduate education consisted of studying divinity and law...getting a graduate degree in neither (or anything else).

I guess I should quote and cite my source on this:

Yet there is no evidence that Mr. Gore sought special treatment, or that the extra notice he got anyway provided any real protection. On the contrary, as an Army journalist, Mr. Gore probably assumed more risk than he had to, choppering around South Vietnam interviewing soldiers who had just seen action.

"Anybody who knew Al Gore in Vietnam knows he could have sat on his butt and he didn't," said Michael Roche, Mr. Gore's editor on The Castle Courier, the newspaper of the Army's Engineering Command in Long Binh, near Saigon. Among 30 or 40 part-time correspondents and 3 or 4 reporters, Mr. Roche said, "I didn't have one who traveled as much as he did."

Source.

At 1/27/08 05:13 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: so Mason do I go to my local Lodge?

Yes, or you can google your state's Grand Lodge and they should have your local Lodge's contact information (probably their secretary) and you just call/write him. Or you can watch your local paper for news about a Masonic BBQ or fundraiser.

As for dues; I simply cannot tell you what you'll have to pay. That varies from state to state and lodge to lodge.

At 1/27/08 05:12 PM, Christopherr wrote: I know you're a brotherhood, but of what? Is it simply masonry that connects all of you?

We're just a society that emphasizes the ideals of making good men better and fraternity. Masonry is just an allegory, symbolism that conveys certain ideals. It is hard to explain without violating my promise to keep these secret!

As for secrecy, there is nothing that would be considered a sin, immoral, illegal or would justify excommunication from a church. The way secrecy was explained to me was that if we did not keep what goes on in a lodge secret after we've given our word; how could we be trusted to ever keep our word? Also, we look at it as if we were open about what goes on in the Lodges then they would not be special.

At 1/28/08 04:58 PM, Al6200 wrote:

At 1/28/08 03:56 PM, Imperator wrote:

I'd disagree. Most social structures aren't engineered (heheheh), they just sort of arrange themselves naturally.

Not true at all. There is a reason they are called social structures instead of social arrangements. Most of these are organizied based upon an understanding of history, sociology, psychology and economics.

Not really. George Bush was a pilot, and did better on his Math SAT than his verbal. Al Gore was an engineer in the army

"Right after Christmas, Specialist 4 Al Gore finally did ship out for Vietnam, and arrived at the 20th Engineer Brigade at Bien Hoa, outside Saigon, on Jan. 2, 1971"

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/poli tics/camp/071100wh-gore.html

Fact Check:
Al Gore was NOT an Army engineer but rather served as a military journalist. Just because he served in an Engineer Brigade this does not mean that he was an engineer. I served in a Fighter Squadron that flew F-16s in the USAF; that doesn't make me a pilot.

Also, he has no formal education in the sciences. His BA from Harvard was in Government and his graduate education consisted of studying divinity and law...getting a graduate degree in neither (or anything else).

It's not just the communication, it's the breadth that such degrees offer. A degree in chem :engineering is good for what, besides chem engineering, or other types of engineering?

Well, the background you'll get in Math/Physics/Chem prepares you for any such fields, and obviously moves you into a place where you can do whatever you want. Classics on the other hand only prepares you to go to college to get another degree that prepares you to do a job. Not necessarily that much of a bad thing, but its pretty ridiculous for you to claim that chemical engineers have limited job mobility.

It is just as ridiculous for you to make the same assumption about classics majors. I've got an uncle with a literary degree and now makes about $2 Million a year selling insurance. One problem with engineering is that while it teaches communication; it is of a technical nature that is often inaccessible to laymen.

In the end, however, the non-technical job market does not really care what degree you have just as long as you have a degree.

At 1/28/08 01:51 PM, Al6200 wrote:

At 1/28/08 01:19 PM, TheMason wrote:

Fuck that. Math/Science is over funded and over-emphasized.

But they're hardly emphasized at all, nearly all schools give more time to English than Math, and more time to Social Sciences than Science.

Sorry dude, that simply does not stand up to the reality. Math and science scores are what receive the most attention from parents, school administrations and the media in this country. Every time we hear about education; we hear about math and science. I went to a small, rural high school where the math and science cirriculum was very extensive. However, we did not offer economics or philosophy and we had a foreign language only because a math teacher happened to speak passable German. We had math bowls and science olympiads; but nothing for people interested in the humanities.

My ex-wife went to a different school...only smaller than mine; her graduating class had a whopping six students. Of these six two have their MDs and one has their PhD in Pharmacology. (Interesting side note; all three were girls and there was only three girls in her class.)

A math/science background is useless if you cannot communicate.

And reading Huckleberry Finn teaches you to communicate? Studying the battle of Thermopolyae (sp) teaches you to communicate? Sociology teaches you to communicate?

Yes. I saw later that you talk about the writing of students you come in contact with. I'm a TA who has to grade the written work of Freshmen (last semester) and upper classmen (this semester). The writing they does NOT come from an over emphasis of classical literature. Yes there are periods of flowery prose. However, look at the epitaph of the 300 Spartans (and there were about 700-1,200 Thesbians who stood with the Spartans) reads:

Go, stranger, and in Lacedaemon tell,
That here, obeying her behests, we fell.

And then there are haikus or the sonnets of Shakespeare. These all express vast and complicated emotions and ideals succinctly and in few words. Have you ever read the Tao Te Ching? If these students had had an overemphasis on classical education or a broad exposure to literature they would be able to write not only succinctly and logically...but beautifully as well.

I agree that we need communication classes to be more widespread and more extensive.

When my ex was going to Med School she told me that medicine had a particular teaching philosophy in regard to instructing students and doctors:
See one, do one, teach one.

There is a similar one in language arts. Learning to write is not the same as being able to write. In order to write you have to see what good writing is.

What we need is to teach our kids to think rather than solve problems.

To most people thinking is the same as solving problems.

Unfortunately, this is simply not true. Imperator made a good point that the people who change the world do so by not following accepted patterns of problem solving. You bring up Newton and Einstein in an effort to show how people like Aristotle do not change the world.

In this you defeat yourself.

Have you ever heard of the Olympia Academy? This group synthesizied physics, philosophy and often classical literature. This is regarded as having played a significant role in his intellectual development and helped shape his anti-authority views...this group was formed about three years before his 1905 "Miracle Year".

Also, Newton was a Natural Philosopher, the group of enlightened intellectuals who basically bridged the gap between philosophy and science.

Finally, just look at our founding fathers. Yes, many of them had a grounding in science. They also had a very strong grounding in the classics.

More funding for literature, history, sociology and government classes.

Last one is somewhat useful. History is always nice, although I've always imagined that kids would just pick that up on their own.

Yes they are doing a great job of that. Last semester we had a girl in Government 101 who graduated at the top of her class but did not know the difference between the first and second amendment. Other kids confused the Great Compromise with FDR's New Deal.

Other people pick up an ignorant, and manipulated idea of history. I don't know how many kids I've talked to who simply cannot believe that the KKK was founded to be the terrorist wing of the Democratic party and that it was the Republicans who were the champions of civil rights until the 1970s.

Maybe if people actually understand the issues they're expected to vote on our democracy would be :more healthy and we'd have better candidates than we have.

Well, many of the issues we have today aren't understood by the general public because of deficiencies in science education (i.e. power generation, laypeople don't really seem to understand what energy solutions are the best, safest, etc.)

Totally wrong. Iraq and Afghanistan are historical issues. The most immediate threat to our economy is the credit crisis that is the result of poor fiscal policies. This is followed by social security and medicare (which consume about 50% of the federal budget). And yet many people think a French or Canadian healthcare is a viable option at this point. Furthermore, they do not understand how we elect our presidents.

I've seen the tests of the next generation and seen their understanding of our government. The fact that these people have the right to vote scares me...

My five would be:

1) Resolving the credit crisis.

2) Medicare/Social Security.

3) Reducing the cost of energy (would include more dependence on hydro and nuclear power).

4) Balancing the budget.

I guess there is no number 5 since if we don't get a handle on our fiscal policy there won't be any money to pay for anything else...

At 1/28/08 11:33 AM, Al6200 wrote: 4. More Math/Science education in the schools (emphasis of math classes over English classes, development of full Computer Science and engineering departments at high schools)

Fuck that. Math/Science is over funded and over-emphasized. A math/science background is useless if you cannot communicate. What we need is to teach our kids to think rather than solve problems. More funding for literature, history, sociology and government classes. Maybe if people actually understand the issues they're expected to vote on our democracy would be more healthy and we'd have better candidates than we have.

At 1/27/08 06:21 PM, TheStRipe wrote: Well ok TheMason you can disagree and float around being a visionary or whatever if you want but whether or not you wanna believe it, Braka or Hillary would be fighting an uphill battle.

I'm not trying to be a visionary or anything. I'm just drawing upon more than a decade of being a political scientist and experience in and around political compaigns. One of my classmates is a democratic operative and is pulling for Obama. Obama has a pretty good shot at winning; and being "on the ground" here in Missouri (a key swing state) I'm thinking Obama will carry the state in the general election. On the other hand, Hilary will have the toughest time of all the candidates and that has more to do with Clinton/Bush fatigue than her being a woman.

Personally, I think both the Republican and Democratic candidate will have an uphill battle.

And ya sure, you might disagree with some health care or social security issues, but if you are concerned with the economy like you say you are then one of the most important issues you must consider is the war in Iraq. We are an evil invading empire in a non hostile nation. You ever seen star wars? America is the empire, except we are led by George W Bush. This reckless war is destroying our economy in the sense that we are continually printing and borrowing money.

The war in Iraq and Afghanistan is not putting the drain on the economy that is commonly thought of. Before 9/11 the defense budget hovered around 18%. In 2007 that made the huge jump to 22%. On the other hand, Social Security and Medicare run about 24-26% (each) of the federal budget. Quite simply before the wars; my generation and yours were projected to face a bankrupt social security. This is what has really been necessitating borrowing money from countries like China...not Iraq.

Also there is no comparison between Star Wars and the war in Iraq. If you want to look at "evil empires" look at the colonial legacies of Britian, France and Germany. The whole mess in the Middle East, Northern Africa and Southeast Asia all have their roots in the European colonial legacies. Then look at how our troops act compared to theirs. We have a few high profile fuck-ups (Abu Gharib), but on the whole our behavior is nowhere near as reprehensible as their historical record and the "non-hostile" Hussein regime. I suggest you not believe the hype and actually study the issues you talk about.

At 1/27/08 05:11 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: mason even though Im just a high school student I have studied the freemasons in history (im gonna major in world history and Archelogy) and I wish to become a freemason even though I dont have a job beacuse my studies come first. I wish to become a freemason.

You can't join until you're at least 18 (this could vary by state) and you need to have the money to pay the Dues. Other than that, the best way to join is find a Lodge member in your town and talk to them about it. Do you have any relatives who are or were Masons? These are another invaluable source of information in locating your local Lodge. Another way would be to google "(insert your state's name) Grand Lodge" and try to find a contact in a Lodge near you.

At 1/27/08 05:05 PM, The-evil-bucket wrote: If you're trying to reach the masses, forget it.

The masses simply don't care enough to be reached...

To the Topic starter;

The South is just a part of the electoral map; and not the most important part and by no means does it represent "half the country". What is considered "the South" only makes up 127 of the total electoral college delegates and that includes Florida which includes a strong base of people who retired from NY.

Obama and Hillary have a pretty decent chance of winning. Furthermore, I came from rural Missouri and I know people who were in the KKK but would also vote for black candidates and wanted to see Colin Powell run in 1996 and 2000. The American electorate is much more dynamic than people often give it credit for.

Also the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a new result. That is my problem with Obama, Hillary and Edwards. They want to bring about change in accordance with European Socialist ideologies rather than the Liberal ideas this country was founded upon. Universal Healthcare has proven to be a drain on the system and in only one country, France, has it proven to be somewhat viable. UHC would bring down our federal budget because no one has the courage to fix social security and medicare...the two out-of-control programs that will bankrupt the government. To add healtcare reform the way these three candidates advocate at this time would be reckless, dangerous and move us away from prosperity.

Furthermore, Edwards & Clinton are not candidates for peace. Both voted for the war and neither were misled by anyone...after all they voted based upon intelligence estimates generated under the first president Clinton. Obama is just naive about the way the world is, and will probably just make matters worse in terms of war vs peace. The historical record shows that people who pursue peace at all costs only create situations that lead to more destructive wars (ie: Woodrow Wilson; Neville Chamberlin).

Here's a good site that tracks the presidential election based upon polling data.Here's another site where you can manipulate the states to see possible win combinations for the candidates...

At 1/27/08 11:29 AM, therealsylvos wrote:

At 1/27/08 09:30 AM, Christopherr wrote:

At 1/27/08 04:13 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Kucinich is out of the race and Shaggy isn't here to bitch about it.
I'm not sure if that's good or it's bad.

Where'd he run off to?

shh...if you say his name 3 times he comes back to our dimension.

shaggytheclown17, shaggytheclown17, shaggytheclown17...

:-)

Anyway just because Dennis dropped out you can still vote for him anyway. His name could still be on the ballot in your state or you could always just write it in.

1) Excsluvity: The Masons are not all that exclusive. I joined when I was a junior enlisted member of the US Air Force. I have known men from all walks of life and races who are brother Masons.

2) Invitations: I'm sorry but your fathers were NOT invited to become Freemasons. We do not solicit, invite or otherwise select potential members. However, if someone asks us about the fraternity we ask if they are interested and offer them a petition to join if they are interested. We do not recruit and we have bumper sticker that reads: 2B1ASK1.

3) Religion: We believe in the God of Abraham; and in order to join (unless you're joining a French Lodge) you have to believe in this God. Which means you have to be either Jewish, Christian or Muslim. So it is both right and wrong to say on must believe in the Christian God. You also have to be the age of majority, freeborn and of good repute.

4) Lodges: A building where Masons meet are called Lodges not Temples. However, there are two rites of Masonry that are part of the Masonic tradition; Scottish Rite and York Rite. Scottish Rite Masons is the path to becoming a Shriner and York Rite is the path to becoming a Knight Templar. Both Rites meet in Temples. So when you say "Mason" or "Masonic" it is proper to use the term "Lodge" and incorrect to use the term "Temple" and vice versa if you are talking about the two Rites mentioned above.

5) Important people: In the 19th Century and earlier it was very expensive to be a Mason. It was prohibitive to the lower classes and so its membership was made up of the rich and elite. Now it is within the reach of all but the poorest of the poor. Annual Dues range from $30-100/year depending on the State and Lodge you live in. And no...we do not own any golf courses and are nothing like a country club. :)

At 1/25/08 02:38 AM, therealsylvos wrote: It all comes down to what that woman said toward the end, "sometimes parents can't always supervise their kids."

And guess what? That's been an issue as long as there has been offspring. There comes a time when kids are no longer under the watchful eye of parents.

inferring that the government should take over when the parents can't.
The whole idea makes would make so angry if not for the fact that I have built up a resistance to this sort of stupidity.

And what really pisses me off about it was that this is supposedly the "conservative" news channel. Now I do not want government intervention in my healthcare, what gun I buy, etc...

But I don't want them perscribing my morality either. Simply put there are tyrants on the left and the right.

At 1/24/08 11:18 PM, Musician wrote: The difference is, the soldiers know they're being trained for actual combat.

No Musician they do not. They are not made aware of what is being done to their psyche; it was something that was found in the 1930s/40s. Most people are hardwired to react instinctively NOT to fire on another human being. It was shown that in WWII that over 80% of the time soldiers were subconciously shooting over the enemy's head because they could not bring themselves to kill.

Firing at human shaped targets bypassed this psychological hardwiring by making it okay on a subconcious level to shoot at something resembling a human popping out from behind something. Then the army started experimenting with first person shooters and found that it produces the same effect.

Now I'm not arguing that it makes kids into psychopathic killers. However, put someone your age in a trench with a gun and they wouldn't have the inhibiting instinct NOT to fire that their grandfather had in WWII. We're talking reaction not motive.

At 1/24/08 08:32 PM, Christopherr wrote:

At 1/24/08 08:24 PM, TheMason wrote: As an adult, a parent and a gamer...I don't know if I'd buy this for my 16yo kid (she's 9 at the moment). It would all depend on who my child is at 16. I've played through Mass Effect and I think it is an example of responsible sexual behavior...more so than standard primetime fare...

I don't want my child to be exposed to images of sexual behavior... I don't want any sexual behavior, good or bad, in my child's video games. I will be the one to teach him that.

Again the heart of this issue is that parents NOT government or any other external influence should be telling us how or what we should be raising our kids. My point that I was trying to make was that if my kid could handle such images as those in Mass Effect I could see myself allowing it since this particulare video game includes images that are less graphic than what they are exposed to on a daily basis on network TV.

Furthermore, the game encourages monogamy and deep, spiritual basis for sexual relations and therefore promotes positive sexual values. In short I would allow Mass Effect becuase it is not smut and is responsible in its portrayal of sexual behavior.

I know this and I base my opinions on actually playing the game and knowing my child and the media in question. Who are you, the government or Fox News to tell me otherwise? I mean I'm not arguing that you MUST allow it in your home.

But deeper than that is how blatantly the host and psychologist misrepresented something they know nothing about.