Ike’s Not So Famous Second Warning
by Dwight SchultzOn Saturday January 17, 2009, during the Fox 4 0′clock news hour, Shepard Smith recalled the anniversary of President Eisenhower’s famous 1961 farewell address to the nation, but he only mentioned one of Ike’s threat warnings, the one that reminded us to beware of the “Military Industrial Complex.” This warning came from a military man, so it’s been a turn of phrase that slobbers off the lips of suspicious lefty infants shortly after they’re forced to abandon the nipple and accept Marx.
So I shouted at Shepard, “What’s wrong with threat number two, you big beautiful blue eyed capitalist! What’s wrong with Fox News and your staff? There are only two warnings in that speech for God’s sake, if you’re going to honor a historical document maybe somebody could at least read it, and maybe for once in almost fifty years remind us of Ike’s second warning: “…that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.” Does anything come immediately to mind when you read that? Ike goes on, “…Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.” And, “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.”
Do you think Ike was warning us that politicians like Al Gore and Barack Obama could cuddle with the scientific technological elite alike and, oh, I don’t know, maybe get behind Obama’s plan to tax your breath? Do you think that perhaps some time in the near future you might not be considered a person but a carbon footprint … does something like that sound ridiculous?
Have you seen how fast Obama has placed environmental academic hysterics and socialists in positions of real power? Steven Chu, John Holdren, Carol Browner and others are there to see to it that every exhaust in your life is a financial event favorable to the government. So how is it that one of Ike’s warnings became famous and the other a historical ghost note?
It’s really not hard to grasp. Our educational institutions monitor and control historical information and also educate and train the future guardians of public discourse — the indispensable journalists we read, see, and hear every day. By definition both the media and our nation’s scholars digest information and parcel it out in what should be an honest and thoughtful way. They digested Ike’s warning about the military and saw fit to warn us 10 billion times that the military is bad and needs to be feared and pushed off campus. They digested Ike’s warning about universities, scholars, federal money, science and policy, then gave it to Helen Thomas to scatter on some hot house tomatoes in the Nevada desert. It doesn’t get any simpler.
Think about this: How many times have you heard that the debate over anthropogenic global warming has ended? When and where was this debate? The mere recitation of the words, “the debate has ended” closed the discussion without you having ever heard it because, get it! It’s ended! Get It! Neat trick! Gore says the debate has ended….McCain says the debate has ended…Obama says the debate has ended …Hanson says the debate has ended, and no one in the media wants to ask, “What debate?” When? Where? Was there a scientific or political debate… or, God forbid, both, and who was for and who was against?
Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth,” has by now been proven to be almost a 100% big fat lie, and yet there is no media outcry against it or price for Gore to pay because he is supporting the scientific technological elite who want to hold public policy captive to the carbon tax that Socialists and Democrats have wanted since the 1992 Rio summit.
This is a clear example of years of liberal bias in protective favor of the university media structure. It just takes a lot of repetition and a strong ideological preference for saying: American military bad! American university good! CO2 bad! Tax our breath! Raise the tuition! Kick the Marines off campus! Long live man made global warming and the tax dollars we shall inherit from it. STING shall be our band and “Every Breath You Take” shall be our song … revenue streams for eternity.
Repeat after me this slogan … or, if you would rather stick this on the backside of your transportation vehicle , please do and remember, paying higher taxes is patriotic, so breathe baby, breathe for your country, just don’t breathe behind our back and not let us see you, ‘cause we’re talk’n money now, baby! The debate has ended!
…Hmmm?
Warning number two? What warning? Oh, you mean the military thing? We’ve taken care of that. Here’s Matt Damon’s number, he’ll tell you all about it. He went to Harvard you know. Remember, be upscale, don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh, breathe! And did I tell you to pay your taxes and act patriotic, especially when they’re going up?
Gotta run, I’m meeting Tom Daschle, Laurie David, Tyrano-Soros and secretary Geithner for lunch.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
153 Comments
Great first post Dwight. From one talk radio junkie to another, it's good to have your voice here.
Continued success and good health.
"Scientific-technological elite"? Good lord.
So when Republicans get huffy when they are accused of being anti-education and anti-science, remember that it is postings like this that cause that image to stick. Don't worry, Sam the Plumber I'm sure knows a way to engineer the space shuttle not to fall apart on reeentry.
Whenever a lefty brings up the Eisenhower "Military Industrial Complex" bit, just remind him that Ike ordered the total USA strategic throw weight up to around 10,000 megatons, and ordered hundreds of atmospheric and exoatmospheric nuclear weapons tests. Ike was definitely NOT beating swords into plowshares. Judge him by his actions, not by a few of his parting words.
Great post! Being in an NROTC unit at a university, I can relate to much of what you are writing about. Liberals have gained a foothold in education, which is all well and good in a free society. But when the government begins to sponsor these voices and limit alternative viewpoints, it becomes an infringement on that freedom.
Even though anthropogenic global warming has been debunked by hundreds of scientists, it is force fed to students as a matter of fact. Evolution and the Big Bang are other examples. Professors with opposing viewpoints are ostracized at best, and fired at worst.
The government has no business regulating religion or science. As soon as a citizen is told by its government that one congregation in either subject is undeniably true, that government has closed the door for discussion, and in effect, has tyrannized opinion.
I guess now we know how the Left felt while Bush was in office…
Vic
Hey, Zwingli…
The space shuttle, engineered by the scientific technological elite DID fall apart on re-entry. And it's Joe the Plumber. So with your lack of attention to detail I'll no longer take serious anything you say.
I work with Joe Wurzelbacher — "Sam" the Plumber — every day. Joe would not for a moment deign to pretend to design a Space Shuttle since Joe LIVES IN THE REAL WORLD and unlike intellectual titans like Zwingli, Joe KNOWS WHAT HE KNOWS and KNOWS WHAT HE DOES NOT KNOW.
Zwingli reeks of that fatal narcissistic vibe that knows everything about everything because he saw it on THE DAILY SHOW. News flash, pal: You get past the surface on just about any intersection of the political and the scientific and you will be amazed: a sea of gray to the horizon, which is only the limit of our vision. There's more gray beyond that. But getting past the surface of anything is not a likely outcome for you. You got it all figured out already.
It's not that you're stupid, exactly. It's just that so much of what you know is just plain not true. Now go down to Starbucks and congratulate yourself with the other mighty intellectual titans. I've been paid to do science and the one thing I'm sure of is that I'm not completely sure about anything.
Have you seen how fast Obama has placed environmental academic hysterics and socialists in positions of real power? Steven Chu, John Holdren, Carol Browner and others are there to see to it that every exhaust in your life is a financial event favorable to the government.
What's scary is someone on another right-wing site stated that maybe Obama should step down now that he "knows' he's over his head.. and I got to thinking… If enough of the left had to step down (for whatever reason), we'd have Steven Chu that much closer for the Presidency of the U.S… now that's a TERRIFYING thought.
my sentiments EXACTLY! whew! i really feel them!
great post, dwight!
i love the placement of the adverb too: "and is gravely to be regarded"; an appropriate wording, when you're give a warning.
His name is SAM, not Joe
Religion has no business regulating science. They tried that once with Galileo, no?
But by all means, agitate that CREATIONISM should be taught in science class. This keeps you guys in the wilderness that much longer.
So when you get huffy when you are accused of not reading this article, remember that it is posts like this that cause that image to stick.
I don't know how many of you are old enough to remember Ike as President. The opinion back then was that he was a good General, but a piss-poor President. His warning however has come true.
Sam the Plumber is a fraud, Bill. Come on, did you see his moronic stint as a "war reporter", where his big insight is that the press shouldn't be allowed to cover a war (hello, fascist much Sam)? How about when Sam the Plumber was making pronouncements about Israel policy?
Believe it or not, Bill, I don't have everything figured out already. Every day is a chance to learn something new. On the other hand, the next original thought that Sam the Plumber has will be his first.
Oh My Lord. It's Howlin' Mad Murdoch. Just shut down the site now, it won't top this.
In the honor of the first appearance by Howlin' Mad Murdoch, I believe the site should be shut down, as it can't possibly top this moment. Unless of course, Mr. Howlin' Mad can discuss what it was like working on the socialist left-wing wet dream fantasy land that was Star Trek. That has to be a hoot.
I don't think necessarily that any thinking person wants "creationism" taught in the classroom. If by "creationism" you mean the world was created in 6 days or something. However, evolution, big bang, all that stuff leaves out an explanation for the un-caused cause. So, it is only reasonable that intelligent design be accepted in a classroom setting. Even Richard Dawkins admitted to intelligent design.
Galileo was done in by his envious peers. The closest parallel today is found in the climate change fundamentalists for whom billions of funding are at stake. Trying to shut down the debate, they behave more like fanatical high priests than scientists. Call it the liberal war on science. If you were intellectually honest, THAT would worry you.
OK, liberals. I want you to answer this question and answer it honestly: do you think being a Democrat should be a requirement for studying or teaching at a university? Explain your reason.
Ha! The 17th century Papacy was much more of a government than it was a religion. The argument of Galileo can be used reversely. Should we ostracize and socially castrate those who have opposing theories? That is what the Vatican did to Galileo. Yeah, yeah, I know that Creationism "can't be tested" by the scientific method. But Galileo, Inquisition and all, also fathered that method. What improvements to that method have we hindered by refusing to allow the exploration (through government funding, no less) of alternate scientific theories and methods? And I am not just talking about Creationism, mind you.
I don't see how the threat from the military-industrial complex has been "taken care of." It is worse than ever. Oh, and Obama and Bush are the same thing – like any globalist/CFR member.
Well, with Face and Murdoch, can B.A. be far behind. Come'on Mr. T, we all know that deep down, in the most secret part of your soul you love Reagan, low taxes and freedom!
PS: I knew I had seen this earlier today (via RWN)
The very thing that Dwight wrote about
<quote>The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to act for the first time to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that scientists blame for the warming of the planet, according to top Obama administration officials.
The decision, which most likely would play out in stages over a period of months, would have a profound impact on transportation, manufacturing costs and how utilities generate power. It could accelerate the progress of energy and climate change legislation in Congress and form a basis for the United States' negotiating position at United Nations climate talks set for December in Copenhagen.</quote>
PS: I knew I had seen this earlier today (via RWN)
The very thing that Dwight wrote about
The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to act for the first time to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that scientists blame for the warming of the planet, according to top Obama administration officials.
The decision, which most likely would play out in stages over a period of months, would have a profound impact on transportation, manufacturing costs and how utilities generate power. It could accelerate the progress of energy and climate change legislation in Congress and form a basis for the United States' negotiating position at United Nations climate talks set for December in Copenhagen.
Great post Dwight. I think an important point of your post that may be ignored is how the left has co-opted the media and the universities so that they control the information available to the masses. That, in turn leads to the know-it-all naivete of the lefts handmaidens and water carriers like Zwingli, who bashes right-wingers even though he has no idea about the depth of the manipulation he's been subject to by his environmentally and politically correct heroes.
Aren´t these liberals precious? The "Joe the Plumber" phenomenon really got under their skin. But people like Joe the Plumber have not wrecked our financial system, or bankrupted cities and states across the country, or made a mockery of science as a matter of policy. Liberals did, without exception, many of them with degrees from Harvard and Yale.
Actaully, his point was that the press didn't give enough information to be considered 'news' so much as gave an opinion, much like you just did.
No.
Are we talking about the guy who got in the news last year for asking Obama a tough question, or the late Jersey crime boss?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_DeCavalcante
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_the_plumber
Good article! Just remember, no god = no authority. Those that say there isn't a God, don't want someone to have authority in their life. OR they are blind to the concept of faith. We all hope to have a better, safer world. But we must have faith that one day it will happen. Same as having faith there is a God and having faith what the Bible says is true. Hey.. if God didn't create the world and everything in it, then who is to say what should be taxed and not by the O so mighty government? Maybe we should ask "our so called cousin" the ape? Why should humans be the only ones "taxed"?? See how the ape feels about being taxed to breathe.. maybe he could pay his breathing tax with bananas?
Ha! The left is anti-technology and more anti-science than the right.
The left wants us to live in caves and never use energy or even try to advance society. Totally disinterested in nuclear power or science/research finding ways to deal with nuclear waste….. they also opposed the challenge to find a scientific solution to the moral dilemma of embryonic stem cells…..eventually the right was vindicated as yes, indeed, it was science that showed we could get the same benefit from adult stem cells, the left sold science short……..it is the left that opposes technology every step of the way……environmentalism is simply anti-technology and anti-science.
The left is also anti education. Their solution to failing schools has been the same for 40 years, more money. They have gotten more money, now the worst schools spend more per student and we are still waiting for results. The right is open to innovation in education, reform, accountability and standards we can measure so we can track progress……that is how science works, you measure something so you can understand something.
Wow. Most liberals I know (Everyone in my family is one, as are their friends, with similar regressions on down the line) would jump at the chance–nay, invitation–to get on a soapbox. "No" is the best you can come up with?
I mean, how about: "No. It doesn't need to be a requirement. Republicans aren't interested in university education, nor do they have the brain power to be accepted. Education and conservatism are mutually exclusive."
Why waste a good opportunity? I disagree with everything you say, but it's still fun to make your point for you. It's a lot more fun when you actually believe it, and have been invited to do it. People have no initiative these days.
I'm sure Mr. "Thugthizzle" and Miss "I don't gotta worry about my rent no mo" are par for the task.
Eject! Eject! Eject!
Bill Whittle…smackdown with style.
It's been awhile since your excellent piece @ BH 'The Workshops of Identity'…I'm hoping you have something new brewing in the pipeline for us out here in cyberspace soon.
Best wishes
Zwingli: I was just thinking about how powerful your reply would've been had it in any way addressed anything Dwight was talking about.
But don't let the fact that the reply embarrassed you here, keep you from saving it someplace safe for when someone does write something about taking scientists off the space shuttle program.
I've just looked at all the drafts in my pending file — nothing yet — but you hang in there.
Now the genuises are calling it climate change to hedge their backsides. Could go up, might come down, but give a trillon dollars to study on it and we'll release a position paper expeditiously. Morons!
Dwight, if you gotta go to lunch with that crew, make sure to bring your biodegradable bib, and order the Prime Rib – King Cut, Pittsburgh rare, so the toadys will wretch in disgust, whilst chewing on their tofu & sprouts salads. You're a braver soul than I.
Nice to see the trolls are back again.
Zwingli, clearly you don't know Bill Whittle. Go and read his BH post from day one and then share it with your pals at Starbucks.
"The opinion back then was that he was a good General, but a piss-poor President."
Yet, Kerouac thought he was a swell dude.
Dwight
You are wrong.
Your understanding of history is lacking. When Eisenhower spoke of the government sponsored science and the scientific elite he was referring to his inability to get a nuclear test-ban treaty because of their influence. He was hamstrung by the scientists who had begun to control the military and the government after WWII. After Robert Oppenheimer was forced out of the Atomic Energy Commission he was replaced by more agressive men such as Edward Teller. They had the ear of Eisenhower but they had a very definite point of view that Eisenhower felt was overkill. [Teller was the model for Dr Strangelove].
Eisenhower was frustrated by his inability to get a test ban treaty and he blamed it partly on the Atomic Energy Commission and their scientists. So when he mentions the scientific elite in his farewell address he was not refering to your garden variety scientist – nor to global warming scientists. He was referring to scientists who wanted to keep creating larger and larger bombs that Eisenhower saw as a threat to civilization.
You are interpreting his address in your won clever way. It is humorous and gets laughs – but it isn't history.
I'm not worried…Elections sway the pendulum . It can sway both ways. 2010 and 2012. People put 'em in power and people can take them out of power.
Hey pal…
I *AM* a conservative (not necessarily a Republican… there's a difference). I happen to work for NASA, too… and I'm designing things right this moment that will go up into space and serve mankind. I'm not anti-science and I'm not anti-education. I also think Dr. Hanson is full of crap and if I ever passed him in the hall I'd love to give him an earful (but I'm sure he doesn't come down here where the real work gets done).
Mr. Schultz is dead on… and I agree with his comments. Questioning government policy and the scientific elite doesn't make us "huffy". We have legitimate concerns that require legitimate, thoughtful answers. What we get instead is shallow rhetoric based on deeply flawed and highly subjective "evidence". Oh, and then we get smeared for being uneducated morons who just can't seem to grasp the inconvenient truth… for an example just re-read your own post.
Regards…
Random Mechanical Engineer/name withheld to protect my job from the likes of Dr. Hanson
See Ben Stein's movie "No Intelligence Allowed" for a fairly spirited indictment of the evolution vs. intelligent design argument on college campuses across the country.
And… I know it's hard to understand, but give it a try… CREATIONISM is different than intelligent design. Although personally I am more of an evolutionist, the intelligent design argument is simply this… that despite a couple of hundred years of research on evolution, intelligent design cannot be disproven. That's ALL it says. Merely presenting that as a non-disproven alternative has ruined people's lives. Its much like the global warming hype… disagree and you'll be drummed out the door. No discourse. No debate. No open-minded discussion.
It's rather fascist, isn't it?
Don't CONFUSE the wannabe intellectual elitist with facts.
Anytime a liberal gets all bent out of shape concerning science and technology watch for them to avoid "GLOBAL WARMING". It's a cash cow and a hoax and the left KNOWS that, if exposed for the scientific myth that it is, the public will pull the plug on it. Look how it rated as a priotity amongst voters in the 2008 election. It was something like #23. It's bull, people. It's a government control mechinism parading as "science". If Al "freaking" Gore is a scientist then Madonna is Sec. of State. WAIT, IS MADAONNA SEC. of STATE?
Ummmm… excuse me but there weren't global warming scientists back in Eisenhower's day. Dwight's point was the Eisenhower's words are eerily prophetic. The left uses one of his warnings for their own purposes… namely to harp on the evil Halliburtons of the world. I don't see why he can't use Eisenhower's other warning to draw a comparison to the global warming alarmist hype.
Science owes a lot to Christians. Most of the scientists in the beginning were Christians. So until the "Theory of Evolution" not the "Fact of Evolution" (that is taught in school) can be scientifically proven, creationism should be taught as an alternative. In elementary school, we were taught about different cultures and how they believed the world began (and none of them were dismissed for being hokey). They were treated respectfully (mind you this was in the late 60's/early 70's), better than how many liberals (not all of course) now treat ideas that don't conform to their beliefs.
This warning came from a military man, so it’s been a turn of phrase that slobbers off the lips of suspicious lefty infants shortly after they’re forced to abandon the nipple and accept Marx.
It wasn't a turn of phrase, it was a fairly prescient warning. And as ModDem points out, you're also wrong about the second warning. But hey. Great first post!!
Lackwit.
Creationism can't be disproved, but I always wonder where Cain's wife came from. Did he marry a sister? And what about those people living in the land of Nod. Where did they come from? Are we to assume that God created those people after Adam and Eve by implication? And did God create other animals besides the serpent at the time of the Garden of Eden? Or were there other animals living in paradise? Were there dinosaurs? Did they become extinct because there was not enough room on Noah's Arc? And if God blesses all creatures great and small, how do we explain the presence of Democrats and liberals in the world? Does God let evil exist? And if he does, can evil act independently and in opposition to God's will? Or could it be that we are evil and the liberals and the Democrats are carrying out God's will?
Hey John, don't you have some 1950s movies to rhapsodize about?
Zwingli- you don't know much about science, do you? Sam the Plumber types (I think it's actually "Joe the Plummer") probably could engineer a space shuttle not to fall apart on reentry. Let me tell you a story about a "Plumber" type who literally left the farm with $20 in his wallet, starved and worked his way through college and earned a lowly B.S. in Math & Physics. Because of his experience actually working as a mechanic and as a handyman on the farm, his practical experience along with his innate genius solved a recent broadcasting problem almost no one knows about- HGTV signals interfered with analog signals, thus making the transmittion of both signals impossible, thus preventing the ability for a smooth from transition into the digital t.v. world. This non-ivy school with mediocre grades (he had to work through college) won two Emmy's because it was so important. Usually great ideas don't come from snobs, especially academic ones. BTW, I know this story because I'm the proud, unsnobbish offspring of this man, so I don't want to hear sneering derision of lowly plummers and their types.
Fair enuf. But it would be great if Dwight (Schultz) had the faintest clue as to what Dwight (Eisenhower) was saying in the first place. That's not too much to ask, is it?
You know I read and reread Eisenhower's address and I see him asking the country to be vigiallant of science and it's relience of government funding because it might stifle scientic research that traditionally went on at universities and by private firms he notes, and I think laments, the end of the work shop tinkerer. I didn't read or infer that the A.E.C. as the ONLY culprit. Was this a subliminal reference? Why would he not just SAY it? I'm not in anyway saying that you are wrong, I just need to do the research on my own. That is a hoot though, mama, military industrial complex, mama. BURP! Come on, it is a liberal BUZZ TERM.
Intelligent design is ultimately an unprovable philosophical concept than can neither be tested nor observed scientifically. Teach it in philosophy class, but it's not science no matter how hard you try to pretend it is. For instance, Aristotle talked about the notion of the unmoved mover (paraphrasing), but in no way should Aristotle be taught in a biology class.
Before you peg me as an atheist, I completely get the idea of a creator or a higher power. Matter cannot spontaneously create itself, so obviously it came from somewhere. HOWEVER, belief in a creator is still faith, religion, or spirituality. It's not science. Should we turn the tables and have scientists teaching a religion class, explaining that it's moronic to think that OT people lived to be 200 years old?
Sorry, but intelligent design IS Creationism. Intelligent design can neither be proven or disproven, because it's based entirely on FAITH, not science. It's philosophy. It's religion. It's not science. This is just a way of Christianists to try and suppress real science. Sorry. Epic Fail.
Were different cultures' origin stories taught in SCIENCE class?
Actually, Trish, science owes big to India. The Indians came up with the concept of positive and negative numbers. Without that, science is dead in its tracks.
By the way, teaching religious superstition in a science class is ludicrous.
Cool, 1/2 of the A-Team has joined the site!!
Nice article, by the way, keep up the good work!
Dwight, welcome to "Big Hollywood"! Great first post and look forward to many more!!!!
Please Peter, some of the nimrods want to "reform" public education by teaching religious superstition in science class.
Cool, 1/2 of the A-Team has joined the site!! Welcome!
Nice article, by the way, keep up the good work!
I think a competent professor should be able to see all sides of the equation and invite any reasonable alternatives and new paradigms that may be discovered. The prof should require students to demonstrate the ability to research, discover and argue. If a student tries to say that he or she is proposing something because it is either liberal or conservative, then the student should fail. For example, if a student wants to propose that the white race is supreme, the topic should not be taboo, but the student must support the thesis and must argue in the face of evidence that disproves the thesis. Would evidence that black basketball players and singers, as noted by Thomas Jefferson, are superior to whites disprove the theory? If conservatives want to claim they are superior, how would they prove it? Would the votes on this blog be proof? Would the findings of the Gallop organization be proof? Would measurements of economic activity be evidence? Should a conservative be able to argue that the reason he or she did not get A's was due to liberal bias? At the same time, if a conservative says there is liberal bias in the media, how would that be proved? And can it be defined? Or is it common knowledge, like the earth is flat.?
Geeeeeez. Take some Xanax and calm down. Like I said, I wasn't talking about Creationism, I was talking about Intelligent Design. It's kind of like an amalgam of evolution with some unexplained stuff thrown in.
Or… to make it easier to understand… Yes, God made the dinosaurs and they ate Adam and Eve and Noah had to fight them with the Ark of the Covenant (like in Raiders of the Lost Ark!)… and in return, he got a million dollars.
Lets just throw random CRAP out there since we're being silly about it.
YES, Howlin' Mad Murdoch nails it!
No offense, but the problem with no god=no authority is the simple question: "Whose god"? Did you know that there are over 4,500 "gods" currently being worshipped on this planet? You have simply declared YOUR god to be the only one and want everyone to follow it blindly.
Um… Epic Stupidity, your intellectual highness. Quit getting your information from Wikipedia and go examine the doctrine before you decide to encapsulate it erroneously for all the read.
Starbucks? Oh, that's right, little pissant conservatives view a coffee stand as a great cultural benchmark. Sam the Plumber is still a venal fraud who, to his credit, has parlayed his own idiocy and mediocrity into a kind of baffling D-list celebrity.
Interesting interpretation. If what you say is true, then the people who would fit Ike's characterization of government sponsored science would be the Bush scientists who altered the climate change data and overruled findings by the EPA on other grounds. Very interesting.
You mean like Stanley Dunham's son Hussein, who is also a Fraud?
So what?
One thing I find lacking in public education is religious education. I am not talking about indoctrination, but education.
How can we say we educate our kids when they don't know the basic differences between Christians, Jews, Muslims or even the origins of these great religions? Why do our schools pretend they don't exist? Yet, we break our backs showing kids how to put a condom on a banana.
What is "liberal" about this picture? Seems provincial to me.
Because I don't think that Republicans aren't interested in a University Education. I do think that some in the conservative movement have a baffling hostility towards the educated that is so intense its no wonder that some think that you guys are against education. But, no, political affiliation shouldn't be a requirement for any job. Of course, how did you feel when it was discovered that the Justice Department was illegally applying an overt political litmus test when hiring and firing attorneys during the Bush years?
I am so tired of Ike being misquoted. In the full context, he didn't say 'Beware of the Military Industrial Complex', he discussed how the Military Industrial Complex was a natural progression in manufacturing due to the state of wars BUT he said not to fear it, just make cautious they don't have undue influence.
You have said exactly nothing. There is no meaning whatsoever to your post. It is ideology without logic or reason. Liberal thinking at it's best.
Well to answer your question, if you believe in ANY God, then therefore you must obey his/her or its laws and or commandment's.
No, I hadn't researched just how many "gods" are worshipped. But thank you for the information.
Any for your comment, I reply…. If you believe in any god then I am sure you feel that you believe in the "right" or "correct" God and therefore any others are not "right or "correct". I think it would be absurd to say " I believe in "God A" but feel that "God Z" is much better." Don't you see something wrong with that? Shouldn't you have absolute faith in YOUR God?
Actually they were taught in sociology classes. The SCIENCE classes taught the "Theory of Evolution" and didn't state it as a fact, mainly because science can not completely prove it. We were taught the difference between what defines a theory and a fact. The education system is totally lacking in this aspect.
You're all over the map dude. Why wouldn't conservatives be interested in a University Education? You're starting to sound like a Community College dropout. Your arguments are getting less and less concrete and more pseudo-intellectually weak. It would've been okay for Bush to say "Hey, I just don't want you attorneys working for me any more" but the fact that there appeared to be some political litmus test offends you?
Okay the deal is this… they served at the pleasure of the President. If he says you're gone, you're flippin' GONE! End of story. That's a far cry from Universities. In fact, it works the other way. There are many liberal professors teaching in our University system. Many times if you don't agree with them, your grade suffers. How is that fair? Yet- it's NOT ILLEGAL! Most times though, it's not the grade but the debate that suffers.
http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2008/03...
Conservatives don't have hostility towards the educated… but often the so-called "educated" are blind to differing opinions. In fact, they discount them as beneath discourse. Therefore, I submit that it is the very people who claim to be the most open minded, tolerant, and educated who are the least so.
It kinda makes sense though. If i'm hiring people, I want to hire people who agree with me. When the liberals are in power, I expect them to do the same. It's just part of the game.
You are right, however, that political affiliation should NOT be a requirement for any job. But it is in politics, and justice happens to fall under that umbrella.
Hey Zwingli. There is another group that is hostile to a University Education. Try walking down the corner in a slum in any major US city and ask what their opinion of a University Education is. Also, I don't think conservatives are hostile towards the education as a whole but to a certain subset of political BS that passes for Education, for example Women's Studies.
Ceeeez, this may not be the best place to ask, but on this whole space junk problem, why can't they send up the shuttle to collect the litter (so to speak)?
Religion is regulating science, that's the point to Dwight's article: the Church of Global Warming subsumes science (and rationality) in the name of theology and politics.
Context is important. I do not disagree that the scientific community can have too great an influence on any administration at any time. But in Eisenhower’s case he was most definitely referring to the nuclear scientists. Remember that in 1961 there was no greater issues that the Soviet threat and the nuclear arms race. Eisenhower was torn between building more and getting a treaty signed with the USSR. But he was told repeatedly by the influential scientific community that it was the wrong approach. And the bombs got ridiculously bigger. What I'm saying is that if you heard the speech in 1961 you would have no doubt as to what he was referring to. Plus, he mentions disarmament toward the end of the speech. Heard today it is easy to think he could be talking about scientists in general. His warning can be taken into that context. But the primary context needs to be mentioned, at the very least.
Well, that is true too. Scientists in any one administration can wield a lot of influence and power, which can be construed to be a breach of the public trust.
Yeah, I know, those global warming nuts will try anything.
Read some history. Ike fought tooth and nail against the nuclear buildup, and kept them out of space. But he was not so much of a fool as to talk kittens and sunshine while the Russians were building ICBMs and filling their nuclear stockpiles to the brim.
Suppose scientists discover that no matter how they spin it, they can't make the process of evolution work out (eg, not enough time, insufficient amounts of the needed metals in the galaxy, whatever). It seems to me that the possibility of intelligent interference should not be off the table. It doesn't have to be a bearded Old Testament God, but perhaps something more like the Monolith makers from 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Scientists speculate about equally improbable things every day.
Yeah, no kidding there was no global warming scientists then. That is part of my point. I'm asking, in essence: Why use Ike's words to refer to the work of global warming scientists? As I noted below [earlier] one can put his warning into another context but it is important to at least offer the original meaning. Eisenhower's speech has two points; one is about the growing military in regards to the issues of 1961 and one was the growing scientific community with regards to the issues of 1961. Those issues are pertinant to his overall message that there was a looming threat of nuclear war.
Thanks for the link to the whole speech. I didn't know about this part, either.
"Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we — you and I, and our government — must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage."
So Ike also warned us against porky stimulus bills! What a visionary!
I am breathless at the intellectual depth and clear reasoning of your argument. Yea verily, you have crushed Whittle like a bug. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
The wrong half, of course. But hey. One takes what one can get.
Marvin,
Sorry – but I doubt you have actually ever wondered about any of these issues. They are just a convenient set of old chestnuts that skeptics break out in lieu of a real argument. Do you really imagine that Christians have never thought through these issues? If you have any intellectual integrity then please bother to read some of JP Moreland, William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler or visit http://www.STR.org.
Man, are you easy. A Starbucks joke? Heh. If he'd tossed in a Sean Penn gag you'd be printing up tee shirts.
YAWN – but India didn't do anything with those concepts. It took our culture to develop science. And so what? We would have come across the concept sooner or later anyway.
Rex – your tinfoil hat is slipping.
Nice dodge. You ignored the basic point. Where does the concept of moral law come from? A materialist view cannot give any adequate justification for objective morality. What else ya got? The euthyphro dilemma?
'The Workshops of Identity'
A dandy.
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/bwhittle/2009/0...
Great first post! Welcome. Given the reaction by the usual leftist trolls I know you will do well here.
Starbucks? Oh, that's right, little pissant conservatives view a coffee stand as a great cultural benchmark.
Hardly. Dude was making fun of you, but your reading comprehension is obviously faulty.
Don't tell me… you're the type of person who absolutely hates anything by the Beatles solely because McCartney's real first name is "James", right? And let's not even get started on Ringo…
George Peppard is unlikely to show up (R.I.P.).
Mr. T might be welcome.
Oh, Zwingli… Ouch. Did you have to go there? Damn, I'm limping.
you wrote "Intelligent design is ultimately an unprovable philosophical concept than can neither be tested nor observed scientifically."
I'll keep that in mind next time I drive my randomly-mutated-by-chance CAR and fly in a tornado-created 767 airliner. Nope. No design there.
The point of ID is NOT to identify the Designer, but to observe structures and determine whether or not they bear the "fingerprints" one would expect if they were designed. THAT much can be dealt with empirically. You wouldn't look at the Mona Lisa or Mount Rushmore and say we can't prove they are designed, and cannot be "observed" scientifically. Based on whet we know about the laws of physics, chemistry, and the Hierarchy of Design Complexity, we sure as heck can DISPROVE randomness as an explanation for their existence.
THAT's what ID is doing.
Ceeeez is right.
Next time I drive my randomly-mutated-by-chance CAR and fly in a tornado-created 767 airliner I'll keep in mind that, even though they appear designed, I'll have to take that on FAITH, as you put it, because it's only philosophy, religion, and is not science. Nope. No design there.
The point of ID is NOT to identify the Designer, but to observe structures and determine whether or not they bear the "fingerprints" one would expect if they were designed. THAT much can be dealt with empirically. You wouldn't look at the Mona Lisa or Mount Rushmore and say we can't prove they are designed, and cannot be "observed" scientifically. Based on whet we know about the laws of physics, chemistry, and the Hierarchy of Design Complexity, we sure as heck can DISPROVE randomness as an explanation for their existence.
THAT's what ID is doing.
Evolutionists are suppressing the REAL science. Check out the Information Content of DNA sometime. It's an error correcting digital code that includes syntax, structure and context. Everything we know about Information Sciences tells us that written languages using syntax and context require PRE-Agreement and, thus, are DESIGNED.
Question for you, Idiocracy– the LAWS of chemistry tell us that in order to make DNA you must FIRST have PROTEINS. But, they also tell us in order to make PROTEINS, you must FIRST have DNA.
So smart guy….if DNA and Protein both evolved…WHICH CAME FIRST?
Do you bother to read the posts you reply to? Because it doesn't seem like it. He didn't say anything about religion regulating science. He said government shouldn't regulate religion or science.
Just an idea. First read, then understand, and only then reply.
Just like Clinton, Z. . The old " Republicans aren't shmart, acause they hates SKool" is a tired old rant. It's inaccurate and frankly good conservatives get in, get out, and GO TO WORK! Liberals, on the other hand, don't want to leave the womb of socialism, the college campus."Ya, um ya know dude, I'm changing majors and my minor. My whole Latin, Art history motiff was BUMMING ME OUT DUDE. You got a light? Thanks. And a cig?
Hey nokarmahere, I went into Women's Studies the other day here at U. Texas E.P. and man oh man (Freudian) it is lesbo heaven. Playbills for lesbian plays, plenty of "men are pigs" literature, lots of pink and rage red decorations, it was wild! Kinda liked it…
for the first time in my life someone actually mentioned the second part of what Ike was saying, GOOD JOB! Glad you did what you did. And thank GOD FOX exists so peopel can MENTION THAT!
As for Harley I know you think you are funny but you aren't funny in any circumstance.
Yes very good points, Mod. I wouldn't expect the Feds to give money without strings, so to speak. Concerning Manhattan, Oppenheimer had disinvolved himself out of total horror of the consequenses, much like Einstein and many other the prominent scientists that worked on Manhattan. But there was a more hawkish faction that felt the future of non-Communist nations depended on matching the Soviets bomb for bomb, as you know. I think history proved out the wisdom of the "peace through strenghth" doctrine. Responsible reductions of nuclear stock has been the aim of administrations Dem and Rep. for decades.It's the right thing to do but new threats are rising in the east. We must manage the emergence of Iran very tactfully and promptly or the Isarealis will smack Iran into next year. It's funny, are the scientists that are certain WE are the ROOT of ALL EVIL advancing the nuclear annilation clock, like they used to do every time Reagan blew his nose?
You know Mod, it's not the scientific community per se that bothers me right now. It's the neo-scientific community that are so invested (ideologlically and financially) in global warming. It seems to me that for every scientist that says it real, another says it's pop science. Regardless, the "it's real" faction have been waiting for a rubber stamp admin. to fund their projects. I feel that it Al Gore feels like it is SO important to lower green house, donate your time Al. Don't profit from it in an obscene way. He's making millions and if he gets CAP and TRADE done, watch out. The key, as you know, is to have a governmemt to ratchet down the cap. It's scary and I think Wall Streeet and business in general is petrified by Obama and the Congress.
I had this debate with a crazily leftist nurse in Austin years ago. She was convinced that every Republican was a dolt although she didn't really know any Republicans. She proffered that, well " almost all professors are Democrats and liberal, so, ipso facto, all liberals are smart. I explained that plenty of CEO's and military commanders are plenty intelligent, in fact, could even teach college kids, but they choose another path. She grudgingly couldn't defeat that and that was it.
Yes, Doctor, yes….rubs hands together…..those nasty villagers with their stupid ideas that we should not make life with a criminal brain and a botl of electricity….yes, yes, how silly of them. They think its immoral what we do up here in this dark tower, but we know better. Its Science! And Science! is answerable to no moral law.
And leaving Doctor Frankenstein behind….
————–
Some form of Creationism is accepted by 89% of Americans. This is a Democracy. Get the picture? Maybe you should adjust the dial. Creationism, if done with dash and humor, would be a political winner. Of course, the Left would hate it, but they hated Reagan's stand against Communism as well, and we know how that turned out.
So, what gives you the right to impose YOUR god on non-believers?
Awesome Dwight, welcome back to the culture war.
Dwight,
Great post.
'Scientism' is the blind faith in any cockamamie idea that wraps itself in the mantle of 'science'. In Eisenhower's lifetime, the Eugenics theory–that 'inferior' races threatened to degrade civilization, was widely believed by most of the intelligensia of Western society in the first four decades of the 20th Century. Despite the fact that the theory had no actual scientific validation, to question it was to risk ridicule, and loss of political or academic standing.
In the US, several states imposed involuntary sterilization on individuals deemed "feeble-minded" or degenerate. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, proposed placing the "genetically unfit" in concentration camps in 1932. She praised the Nazi Germans throughout the 1930's for their "progressive" programs for dealing with society's "unfit" members. As Michael Crichton wryly put it in STATE OF FEAR, after the discovery of the ovens of Auschwitz and Dachau, "Suddenly, no one was a eugenecist, and no one had ever been one."
In his post today, IowaHawk ID's one of the current crimes of 'scientism' going on today–the refusal to allow the use of DDT–which had effectively eliminated malaria as a major disease in the 1960's, on the basis of the discredited theory that it threatens wildlife populations. As a result, more than a million African and Asian children die every year from malaria.
[...] Hollywood (a town that really needs more good thinkers). Today Dwight signed on as a columnist with Big Hollywood where Dwight gives us a valuable yet almost forgotten history [...]
[...] 21, 2009 I wrote a paper about Eisenhower for AP US History in high school, and I did not read about this. Granted, I did not hunt down that farewell speech and the textbook only mentioned DDE (Why do [...]
Not impose… inform. Just as if I was informing you of a sale at Macy's. You may not care, but at least you now know.
At least thats the way I look at it. I understand that many people do try to impose their faith on others. And acording to the Bible, that is wrong. You are to inform them, but not force them or try to force it. I believe that each human was given free-will by God to choose for or againest him. So again, **I** do not try to impose anything on anyone. I just try to inform people to choices they have. And when it comes to people on the internet, I don't know what you have been informed of what or what you believe. So I am sorry if I offended you by anything I have said, but I will not stop trying to inform people of God's word.
Perhaps the model data is flawed. Plenty of data is trending the wrong way for those "invested" in global warming. Read the asrticle that reports that a monitor in Antartica is innacurate. Maybe, just maybe global warming or climatologists are just to personally invested in there own hypothesis. I love the it's getting colder THAT'S IT! Definitive proof. Ya, maybe not so much. Prove it to me and I'm in, give me funky data and wishful wanting for warming and I'm not.
Ouch.
Interesting. I'll read the entire farewell myself now. Thanks.
Galileo's "crime" was not as simple as you would have people believe and what got him in trouble was not really his adherance to the Copernican model but his resort to theology to support it, followed by his disobedience to the Church who told him to quit dabbling in theology and to quit promoting an unproven hypothesis as fact (even though promoting it as hypothesis – which is indeed all it was – was permissible). The Church did not fear Copernicus. Copernicus' 1543 book was actually dedicated to Pope Paul III, who had a great interest in astronomy. But many astronomers at the time rejected the Copernican model because it had no greater predictive quality than the old geocentric model. Galileo, however, became convinced of Copernican theory and promoted it with an almost evangelical zeal declaring it to be fact despite its flaws, and belittling his critics. We now know that the Copernican model didn't work because it posited circular orbits for the planets rather than eliptical ones (which the old Ptolemaic model did use, to its advantage). But Galileo didn't know that and couldn't fully defend his view against critics who noted the Copernican model's shortcomings. By 1614 or so Galileo had taken to arguing theology in support of the Copernican model, and that led him into trouble. Within a year or so, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, a friend of Galileo's, on behalf of the Church informed Galileo that it was permissible to maintain Copernicanism as a working hypothesis but not to declare it true without firm evidence, noting that if it can actually be proved, "we would have to proceed with great circumspection" in explaining passages of scripture which appear to teach the contrary. When a new Pope (another friend of Galileo's – for all the trouble he caused he was well liked by the Church higher-ups and was something of a celebrity in Rome) was elected in 1623, Galileo figured the time was right to go back to his old ways, but the Pope told him not to promote heliocetrism as fact but to work with it as hypothesis. Galileo then spent six years writing a new polemic promoting heliocentrism as fact and mocking his critics, derisively referring to the Pope in it as "Simplicio." He was tried by the Roman Inquisition and declared to be "vehemently suspected of heresy" — not for adhering to heliocentrism, but for disobedience.
Eisenhower was not anti-science as the excerpted quotes may mislead one into thinking. If you read the full speech, you'll see that when he spoke of a government contract replacing curiosity, he was speaking of the dangers of letting government control and dictate science, which is bad coming from either the right or the left. And the right, by trying to stealthily insert personal creation myths into the biology curriculum, or refusing to admit hard scientific facts proving the existence of anthropogenic global warming, is only helping to dig its own grave. Instead of saying global warming is not happening, try providing a policy alternative based on good economics as well as good science, instead of the economically unworkable pie-in-the-sky schemes of the left. And encourage more government funding of basic science to create new industries and jobs and spur growth, as an alternative to harebrained socialist interventionist "stimulus" and distribution plans. If it weren't for the convergence of the "military-industrial complex" and "scientific-technological elite", we wouldn't have the Internet.
Please note Zwingli's excellent us of a classic Liberal Internet Retort:
If you can't argue their facts, tell them they are bad at their job!
Welcome to BH ! Our boys enjoy re runs of the A-Team !!
Looking forward to more articles.
Slightly off target, but as I read the speech, I was taken by this phrase:
"As we peer into society's future, we — you and I, and our government — must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow. "
Kinda almost prophetic, at least to me.
It is not philosophy. Its basis is to study how often mutations occur, whether random or environmentally caused and if our current biology is supported by that evidence. It is valid for science to study but for some strange reason the 'scientific-technological elite' is afraid to do that because they ignorantly jump to the conclusion that it is religious based and it is clearly not for anyone who looks into it would know that.
Look:
(That is my favorite condescending way to enter debate, as practiced by our new president.)
I was brought up in a household that placed more value on brains and free thought rather than dogma. This was in part due to the fact that my father had a job that carried us sometimes to places where church (i.e. Jesus) was a crime punishable by deportation (i.e. Saudi Arabia), but needless to say, we were not a church-going family. Morals, yes. institutionalized religion, no. But now I find myself staring at forty, and have lived a rather interesting life so far, and come to the conclusion (which certainly may be altered as time goes by) that his is not all a "happy accident."
It began to creep up on me when I watched a National Geographic, or Nova, or Nature, program about bees. It seems that many flowers have markings that can only be seen in the ultra-violet spectrum. The sweeter ones have different markings than those with less pollen. Guess who can see ultra-violet? Bees! Well that's a happy coincidence isn't it?
My son (who is now 9) asked me a question one day when he was 3 or so.
Son: "Where do trees come from?"
Me: "Seeds."
Son: Where do seeds come from?"
Me: "Trees."
Son: "So where did the first tree come from?"
Me: "My little darling, you have stumbled upon the final question. Nobody really knows. Some like to think they do, but they don't."
There are some "organized religions" that teach that the bible is literal. There is one that I know of that is open to discussion, and has stated that evolution is not mutually exclusive to the idea of a creator.
The arrogance that we see (in my humble opinion) does not exude from the religious, but rather from those who believe that they know all there is to be known, and have sussed it all out. Of course, that same crowd generally would have had us believe that President Bush had concentration camps waiting for us, was going to pull a quick one on the Constitution and make himself President-for-Life (just like Uncle Hugo), 9-11 was a false-flag inside job, and that a black man would never be allowed to be POTUS in these here United States.
Going down the ID route does not mean that one is a Jeebus-Freak-Knuckle Dragger. I tend to feel that it means one might be more open to the possibilities that we don't have all the answers and may in fact not be quite so clever as we would like.
But that is after all a stinging rebuke to the notion that man/womynkind is the great bastion of self-awareness, in no need of moral guidance, nor dependent upon any polestar for illumination.
Funny how they elected a Messiah to pin all of their hopes and dreams upon…
[...] Ike’s Not So Famous Second Warning [...]
Barak Obama , a very big loose cannon, Dwight must be thinking what fools we are.
Excellent debate on global warming on you-tube. JLF/Reese institute.
Fantastic post, clever and interesting. Keep up the good work
Excellent ended, Mr. Schultz’s article is VERY good conceived and excellent written, plenty of absolutely right questionings every human being has to ask to themselves and all governments. I'll be looking forward for many more to come.
I would agree with you on the philosophy thing, really. But I think limiting ID to the philosophy class and yet other macro evolution principles that take an equal amount of faith being taught in the classroom as science material is a double standard. Because, in the standard HS classroom, students are taught basically the big bang theory (although the name has changed throughout the years) and that theory on the heating, the spinning of particles, all that stuff takes just as much faith to believe that it happened as ID. Beacuse there is no way to test or observe the big bang or the theories based on it (the formation of worlds, ect). So, since I don't see the big bang going away from the science classroom anytime soon I think that if science wants to involve faith-based scientific theory in the classroom that it should involve all plausible theories, not just one. Does that make sense?
That wooshing sound you hear is Kristen's point flying over you head.
Can you please give a little direction as to where your source for this comes from. As far as I can tell from empirical studies of my own, don't trust anyone.
It's not a new idea to not trust politicians, it's become a newer idea that one can not trust the media. It's grown to epic proportions when one can no longer trust scientist.
Greed in it's oldest form has worked it's way into every establishment.
Well stated and I feel smarter for having read it.
It is prophetic but I fear that how one reads its meaning changes the prophecy greatly.
I take it at face value and fear what Ike was concerned about has already happened.
So, for example, in a speech class a student gives his/her speech on his/her personal beliefs about gay marriage and is thrown from the class room being called a fascist where does that fall in the paradigm of questions.
A newly converted Muslim shows up to a shopping mall with pockets full of grenades and the media tells us he is not a terrorist for fear that Americans might start to think for the first, second, third, fourth…….. time that some Muslims want to kill them. Nope no bias there.
A Muslim, trying to help educate Americans through a TV channel of the kind gentle ways of his religion, decapitates his wife and it doesn't make it onto the front page of every newspaper and news media outlet. Nope no bias there.
If a student even tries to make an argument for white supremacy the argument ends before the conversation begins (I'm not for white supremacy, black power or brown pride).
The argument that professors are some how capable of inviting reasonable alternatives is laughable sir. I don't know which college you are either a professor at or a student of but the theoretical notion of which you preach is not practiced.
Maybe you're trying to be funny here – it's difficult to recognise in words alone. However, I'll go ahead and correct what ignorant mistakes you've made, Marvin, as concerning the Garden of Eden, there were other animals besides the serpent – and following the 'Fortunate Fall', yes, God did and does let evil exist, but by Man's doing (not his own). But 'evil' is not a sentient existence, it is a form of attitude or behaviour resulting from 'free will', and even this succinct explanation I've given here, I'm sure, is still immensely controversial. On matters like this, no interpretation or opinion can be wholly correct… Now back to the debate at hand…
Actually, if there is a fingerprint so to speak in creation itself then it can be proven, simply by finding the fingerprint. Your simplistic childish notion that it must be impossible to prove whether a higher intelligence that has power to create exists and is involved in creation is yet another sign of the lack of the true scientific spirit that you possess. You show a strong case of shortsightedness and close mindedness. You also tend to misrepresent the views of others and basically are forced to lie about what others are trying to do to make your case.
Actually, it is not. Creationism requires a short term creation period (six thousand years) and the existence of a personal God. Intelligent design is more generic and has to do with whether or not a higher intelligence may be involved in advanced creation or manipulation of life on earth. It could be as simple as seeding life here or more extensive. The concept of intelligent design is to look for proof (non-faith). And finally, only a fool concludes that this is a battle of science against religion. True science will end up supporting true religion and vice versa. Our earthly scientists are already in the process of manipulating life, changing genetics, etc. Man on earth is a creator of many new things, including that of manipulating and guiding lifeforms. All of this done in a very short period of time here on earth. What then could a civilization be capable of doing after a few million years of unhindered technological advances? The natural answer would be that they would most definitely appear godlike to others.
Again, Idocracy just spews things he has no clue about. Negative numbers were first used by the Chinese (Han Dynasty). Early Egyptians also came up with negative numbers, even though they did not approve of them religiously. Early Indians also fought against the valid use of negative numbers but they at least kept them in their writings. Eventually the west got hold of it and used them fearlessly, without ignoring them because of religious concerns (in the way that the Indians and Egyptians did).
Of course, liberals will lie in their response. What they really mean to say is that you have to be a liberal at heart since only liberals are truly intellectual about any subject. Funny how it is that liberal universities tend to end up with almost nothing but liberal hires.
Studies show that a general belief in God and a general belief in social rights and wrongs tends to be far better for any society than the no god approach that self serving liberals tend to take. The number of Gods on this planet, in practice by any majority, boils down to a fairly small number. The vast majority of the US follows the Judeo-Christian concept of god that tends to be very good for society in practice. Judeo Christian countries tend to excel socially. Funny how that works out that way, but it does. And Idiocracy, you tend to be such a liar about what others say. Nowhere did Kristen claim that she wanted others to follow her beliefs blindy nor did she claim that she wanted her God to be the only God allowed. You seem so totally clueless.
ModDem, Ike was speaking generically, not specifically. Ike had this way to narrow down issues to right and wrong and was making a speech that was intended to establish certain principals and what to be generally wary of. In this case, the general principal about science that he warned about (that applies to any field of science) is to not let science by controlled by self-serving governments and or politicians. I am surprised that you missed the obvious general nature of his statement.
I awknowledged in the thread it could be seen in a general context. However the fact that the writer of this piece didn't bother to put the quote in context was what bothered me most. Yes, you are correct in that Ike's words can apply to all self-serving persons. But to not mention the overriding nuclear scientists of which Ike spoke is to take his words and use them to fit one's own need. This happens. But in my view global warming scientists and nuclear scientists are two very different breeds.
Since global warming "science" is mostly politically driven and a part of a political agenda then it is exactly what Ike was warning about. If you cant see that connection then you are totally blind and you completely missed what Ike actually said. I understand that you want to limit his meaning to something he did not say, namely only current science issues, but you are totally in error to do so. Ike made a general statement about a general issue. That of warning FUTURE people to watch for FUTURE events where science is run by political agendas (aka Global Warming). Sorry that you are in such self-denial about it since you are no doubt a lover of the global warming agenda and therefore feel a need to protect it.
Ike is much smarter than you give him credit for. Ike was making a general statement and you are trying like heck to make it only apply to one event. If Ike wanted it to apply to one event he would have specified. You are inwardly irked because you approve of the global warming agenda and you dont want people to apply Ikes warning to one of your favorite causes which is currently being promoted by your favorite elitists. Just admit your personal connection and stop trying to bs the readers into trying to minimize the warning simply because it applies to you now.
I'm not sure why we are still having this debate nor why you are bent out of shape. First off, I never said I believe in global warming as defined by some on the left [i.e. man made]. Evidence shows something is happening… Second you have to have a context to what someone says in a speech otherwise you are interpreting everything in a vacuum for your own personal political purposes. I feel this Dwight guy is doing that.
Yes, one must be aware of scientists who want to hijack the system for their own self serving ways. And, yes, Ike can be said to be saying this [in general]. But there is no mistaking what he meant at the time. The nuclear threat was a huge issue and his comments were lost on no one. Today we forget.
I'm a bit late to the party, but I'll post anyway. I see others have found the following quote to be applicable to today's fiscal situation:
"Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we — you and I, and our government — must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow."
I'd argue this equally applies to the problems surrounding climate change. Plundering petroleum resources for todays financial and economic gain at the cost of future generations is incredibly short-sighted and greedy. The one *possibly* saving grace is the fact that these resources are finite, so theres a chance we will run out before doing irreversible harm. (IMHO, we've already crossed that line, so we're already screwed)
As for the debate over anthropogenic climate change – this debate has been going on for the past 50 years or more… but due to the general deficiency in reporting science among the media, you probably wouldn't know this unless you're an avid reader of the AMS journals (JAS,JAMC), AGU journals (JGR, GRL), or any other respected atmospheric science journal. All evidence seen so far indicates that the warming over the last 100 years has been driven by human activity. Its only among laypeople that there is an uncertainty over the causes of global warming. So in general, the layperson is excluded from the debate about anthropogenic climate change simply because he is not sufficiently educated in this subject. (Just as laypeople arent included in medical debates about the best cancer treatment.)
I'd like to add that in general, politicians are just as ignorant about climate science as the general populace, so they should stay out of the debate as well.
Well Matt…
I'd like to take exception to your comments about anthropogenic climate change. I work at NASA and I design and develop spacecraft used to study climate change. I work DAILY with reknowned scientists doing leading edge work in the field. While most of these scientists go forward with their work regarding anthropogenic climate change as fact, some do not. In fact, even the rabid proponents of anthropogenic climate change will, off the record, admit that there are too many unanswered questions for this issue to be definitively resolved. Why, then, aren't these voices heard out there in the media? Simply because FUNDING FOR THESE PROJECTS KEEPS THESE GUYS EMPLOYED.
If I didn't have to help write the proposals winning money for new research, I might have a different opinion. There's no money in doubting anthropogenic climate change. Therefore, there's no career in it either. Also, peer opinions COUNT. No one wants to be the pariah pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes. Many times the data we're collecting tells us exactly what we thought it was going to tell us…. that's called a self-fulfilling prophecy. When the data DOESN'T tell us what we thought it would tell us… we go back and TWEAK THE NUMBERS or rework the theory until the data fits.
We're still going back and writing new mathematical algorithms to RE-EVALUATE data we collected TEN YEARS AGO because we don't quite know what it means.
I'm sure you'll tell me I'm not educated on the subject… but I work HERE… in the trenches. I'm working RIGHT THIS MOMENT on another climate sensing instrument (which I will not discuss to protect my identity). I'm IN THIS BUSINESS with real scientists doing real work in this field. You are not seeing the whole picture.
Anthropogenic climate change is not settle science… unless, for political or financial reasons, you WANT it to be.
Ceeeeez, I too work in the atmospheric sciences, doing research using large sets of airborne in-situ data. So I'm also in the trenches.
You're correct that there are scientists that have doubts about anthropogenic climate change. And you're correct that the issue is not 'definitively resolved.' But pedantically, nothing in science ever is. The theory of evolution is not 'definitively resolved,' nor is QM. We don't even know the mechanism behind gravitation! However, in all these instances, all currently available data validates the theories. Thats not to say there isnt missing evidence – just that there is no invalidating evidence. This is how science works. So for anthropogenic climate change – all current evidence points to this being the case – there isnt any other explanation at the moment.
And I'm going to have to disagree with you that scientists are advocating anthropogenic climate change simply for the grant money. I've heard this argument put forward many times on this topic and its patently false. You mean to tell me that money is whats driving full, tenured professors making on average $80,000/year, when there are many more lucrative options out there? What a joke. Witness the climate change deniers who are funded by the petroleum industry – there are large pots of money available for those willing to attempt to disprove anthropogenic climate change. Much more money than you'd ever get from an NSF grant.
Did you you even read the link you posted? Heres the first line to help you out:
"Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (born December 3, 1973), better known as "Joe the Plumber,""
Hi Matt…
You said: "So for anthropogenic climate change – all current evidence points to this being the case – there isnt any other explanation at the moment."
At the moment taking all that we THINK we know, many scientists are tempted to point to humans as the cause of climate change. Yet many scientists admit that there's too many unknowns, too many variables that haven't been accounted for, and too many puzzle pieces that don't fit. We STILL can't get a decent model to predict what the climate will be in 5 years let alone 20 or 50. Still, scientists go on and on with dire predictions on the downfall of mankind and the irreversible damage we've done to the environment. As a society we laugh uncontrollably at the trailer for the new "2012" movie and we KNOW it's a bunch of crap. Yet we've got relatively little hard evidence for anthropogenic climate change and we accept that as gospel.
It's dumb.
A majority of scientists in the world thought the planet was round until Copernicus came along. We've advanced just as haphazardly in physics, too. Every few years we have to re-write what we THOUGHT we knew as that which was previously indisputable suddenly comes back into question. Surely it's not hard to imagine that perhaps, just MAYBE, we've pulled the trigger on this whole issue too soon. We've declared the debate over. We've declared the laws written! And yet, some of the pieces don't fit… and the models don't work… and the hand-wringing and excuses keep piling up.
As for the grant money- no, I'm not saying that's the ONLY reason these scientists do the work they do. Many of them are true believers. They honestly believe they're on the right track. Yet when confronted with evidence contrary to their theories, they change the damned theories to accommodate the new data. No one ever says, "Hey, maybe I went down the wrong road".
Remember how incensed people were when O.J. Simpson went free and proclaimed he was going to find the "real killers"? Some people actually believed he was innocent. Today you'd be hard-pressed to find ANYONE who still believes that. Eventually the truth just becomes too hard to ignore.
But with anthropogenic climate change, no one is upset. Some of these scientists are faced with data they cannot fit into their theories… so they just keep contorting the theories because they don't want to give up the ghost and admit they may have been wrong. These guys have PhD's behind their names so we give them ever more rope from which to swing. No one bats an eye. The media pays no attention. We throw more money down the rat hole and come up with no better answers.
Just because the evidence seems to point in one direction doesn't mean the issue is solved. I'm involved with many of these true believer scientists. They can be rabid in their steadfast beliefs in the theories they're trying to prove. However, there are others who are much less certain. The tide is beginning to turn and some people are starting to hedge their bets because what was once indisputable is, again, being called into question.
I, for one, bet we'll still be here in 2013. And I bet the most dire predictions won't come close to the reality of climate change over the next 100 years.
I meant flat, not round for the Copernicus thing.
You must be logged in to post a comment.