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 There are only two warnings in that speech for God’s sake, if you’re going to honor a historical document maybe somebody could at least read it, and maybe for once in almost fifty years remind us of Ike’s second warning: “…that public policy could itself become the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
Got a Tip?
838 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?
You must be logged in to post a comment.