Hey Brad. Nice to hear from you guys again. I do hope you small biz owners are doing okay. We're struggling for grant money as the government has essentially frozen funds for scientific research. It isn't all bad. Grant contraction culls some of the dead wood. But it is also a struggle for those who do good work. We'll see a reduction in scientific effort in this country if it continues. That can be good (if the science is useless), but also bad (if the science is beneficial). We'll see which it will be. Meanwhile, many foreign countries are investing more heavily in science and technology. I hope we don't lose a competitive advantage.

I'm okay with you calling liberal ideas liberal. They are. Just like conservative ideas are conservative. But to say liberals hate America. C'mon. That IS name calling. You liberals are dirty America haters. Terrorists.

I'm not saying that some elements of the liberal base don't engage in similar name-calling. But to pretend only one side does it is ignorance or delusion.

quote:

I was listening to the really terrific conservative commentator, Kirby Wilbur, this morning.

Brad always tells us about the right-wing radio he listens to, the far-right wingnut websites he visits, etc. Even Bozo, surprisingly, listens to Air America occasionally, probably more than I do. But does Brad ever dare to expose himself to an alternative opinion? No sign of it. He lives in a world of the far-right fringe, immersed exclusively in that shadowy, stark mindset, sinking deeper and deeper in the muck of us-versus-them, a scary film-noir worldview of us-good, them-bad, where there are no different valid points of view, but only one version of Truth and everyone else is a traitorous enemy. I guess the security and comfort of that simplistic Truth trumps the inconvenience of having to navigate a more complex and inconsistent reality, so why dirty himself with any different opinions when they're just coming from The Enemy?
.

quote:

We'll see a reduction in scientific effort in this country

More than in the past eight years, when the Bushies politicised science, and took their marching orders from the religious right, who decided what science was unbiblical and immoral?

Welcome, Miths.
.

It isn't all bad. Grant contraction culls some of the dead wood. But it is also a struggle for those who do good work. We'll see a reduction in scientific effort in this country if it continues. That can be good (if the science is useless), but also bad (if the science is beneficial). We'll see which it will be. Meanwhile, many foreign countries are investing more heavily in science and technology. I hope we don't lose a competitive advantage.

Imagine the basic science research money that could be available if we didn't waste so much on cockeyed liberal social programs and other pet projects that do little but shift money around and cause envy. I'm all for basic science research.

But to say liberals hate America. C'mon.

Umm, many liberals do, in fact, hate America, especially that rather large part that differs from their rather radical monoculture. That's what is beyind the Palin Deranged Syndrome, for instance. That's no more than an expression of "She's not one of us." Gaffs by Biden and Obama that are figuratively (not forgetting you're a scientist) infinitely worse are passed over because these guys are indeed "One of us." And that's how low-brow much of this boils down to. This psychology is no different from the days when we we're sitting around the hunter-gatherer campfires in bear skins literally throwing feces at each other.

And if you understand who Bill Ayers is, who Pastor Wright is, who ACORN is, and even who Obama is (he palled around with these guys), they do indeed hate the America as conceived by the Founders. They want to give it a radical makeover. They want to send it through the shredder. This should be resisted by all fair-minded Americans with any sense of history and who have any perspective on the kind of tragedies that so-called Progressives have caused in the last 60 years or so. Those tragedies are enormous in scope. Tuskegee? It was the fault of Progressives. The banning of DDT which led to the death of millions? Progressives. This global warming scam which, if they had their way, would ruin Western economies and has, in fact, subverted much of science? Progressives. Cultural warfare that ignites racial and class hatred and envy? Progressives. Invasions on free speech? Progressives. Invasions on the 2nd amendment? Progressives. Invasions on private property rights? Progressives. Attacks on the rule of law? Progressives. Attacks on our Federalist system itself where states and individuals are thought to have rights independent of Washington? Progressives, although "compassionate" conservatives such as Bush have added enormously to Federal intrusion into our private lives via "No child left behind" nonsense and expanding entitlements. And the word "liberal" is just what we call Progressives these days. By all means, defend liberalism, but to deny it just shows the inherently insidious and stealthy nature of it. I would never hide the fact that I'm a conservative and have no need to.

quote:

Originally posted by mithradites:
We're struggling for grant money as the government has essentially frozen funds for scientific research.

If you remember, I was in the academic scientific research game for many years, mainly medical research. We use to get a significant portion of our funding from NIH (National Institutes of Health) but as you said, funding from government agencies has been withdrawn. I can tell you where it went and where to go to get it.

A number of my friends that still work in the business are getting funding from the Department of Defense. It isn't so much as the funding is gone as much as it has moved. In the medical area this means that you need to stop working on diseases that affect the population at large to medical matters that interest the Department of Defense. It has plenty of money. So much that it can't even keep track of it all.

A good friend of mine, a hell of a good scientist, has switched from applying advanced ultrasound instrumentation to detect cancer to using it to diagnose and treat injuries caused by war time trauma. He has received a nice grant from the Department of Defense to carry out the research. Sure, he'd rather work in an area that is more beneficial to the population at large, but as you know, in this business one must bring in the grant money or face the prospect of losing one's lab space and position. Take a look at the Department of Defense's grant offerings. You may be able to find something that's half way related to what you are doing.

America was founded on the principle of individual freedoms. Liberalism, by definition, considers individual liberties to be THE most important goal of society.

Yes, Darr, but you're talking about classical liberalism, not the liberalism of today which is Progressivism.

Religious freedom, sexual freedom, intellectual freedom – all these are liberal goals. Separation of church and state so state can govern everyone equally and everyone can worship equally, God damn right America! Straight sex, gay sex, all kinds of sex so everyone can pursue happiness equally, fucking A-right America! The freedom to think and espouse what you want, so everyone has intellectual liberty, Jim that is logically correct America!

Progressive goals are different. They are not for the separation of church and state. They are for the marginalization of religion so that it can't compete with their own statist brand of religion. Regarding sexual freedom, that's a Progressive idea as well. They're for the intrusion of what "freedom" means to them. And in many cases it means simply indoctrinating everyone into all sex, all the time (and especially in making sure the state, not families, get to decide such things), while (especially in this day of deadly sexually-transmitted diseases) they mock and laugh at the idea of abstinence. They are more like a sex cult rather than a sexual freedom cult. I'm all for laws not restricting sexual activity between consenting adults...as long as I don't have to pay for the consequences of the actions between those consenting adults.

Today's liberals are all for racial quotas (which is inherently racist because it decides policies based on the color of someone's skin). Today's liberals are the originators of political correctness which has had onerous and drastic deleterious effects on free speech and free thought. Conservatives stand against such squelching. Liberals are for state intrusion into the most private areas of our lives. They would determine, if they could, where we could get health care, what we could do with our own private property, where we can smoke (and even IF we can smoke), what we can eat, and the nanny-state intrusion goes on and on. True liberals would oppose all that, and there aren't many of those left. But you first have to understand the difference between classical liberalism and Progressivism (now called "liberalism"). Most of your principles are all well and good. It's just that the Democrats usually aren't actually pursuing those goals.

Liberals are also supposedly against McCarthyism, but when it comes to enemies of the State of Liberalism, all bets are off as we see with Bork, Clarence Thomas, Palin, and many others.

No, I did not write this article under the pseudonym of "C. Edmund Wright."

Time for McCain to Name Names

quote:

Thalo, what is your sense of whether the Wall Street bailout bill is going to pass when the Senate votes on it later today? The Senate being more status quo oriented, it's my sense that it will pass with both Republicans and Democrats supporting it wholeheartedly.

Oh, I think it will probably pass, or be close, now that they sweetened the pot with the Tax cut in there, that's ass-saving enough. But holy crap I'm rooting for it to be defeated. I'd love it to be defeated. Every time it's defeated it's a victory for patriots over politicians.

quote:

And although Brad prefers to cite things that buttress his political views, many of which I share, he's far far from the lunatic fringe worst case scenario of the right.

Far from the worst. Wow, THERE's a ringing endorsement!
.

MITHS! Woo Hoo! Long time no hear, my bro!
Great to have you back.

Glad you got baited into posting, haha.

Great post, actually. A fun read. And you're right about a lot of it.

quote:

Yes, Darr, but you're talking about classical liberalism, not the liberalism of today which is Progressivism.

I see. Now its not really liberalism but progressivism, which isn't liberalism in the classic sense, but it is in the modern sense. Huh?

However, as I understand progressivism, isn't it a political ideology that posits societal practices should be adjusted as society evolves? Seems to me a pretty reasonable idea. After all, don't new things keep entering the equation of society? Why should we be stuck in 18th century mores when we're in the 21st century? I'd hate to be burned at the stake because my science is the work of the devil. Progressivism is important because liberalism doesn't push for societal changes, it just operates with the ideology that individual freedom should be maximized and government is there to facilitate and encourage this.

Progressivism tends towards social liberalism with the idea that we should alter general societal practices as society moves forward. We need progressives because they challenge the status quo (conservatives) and help us move forward as a society. Are all their ideas right or the best? No, but they are challenging and necessary for us as a society. I like that gay marriage is thrown into the societal discourse. And sex and promiscuity or abstinence. Abortion and the freedom of one's own body. The role of religion in modern society. Women's issues. Minority issues. These are important, and we need voices out there that can help focus us to evolve our societal practices to maximize individual freedom. We need the discourse. Why do conservatives want to shut that down? What are they afraid of?

BTW, wasn't one of the best known progressives of the 20th century Teddy Roosevelt? Isn't he a conservative hero?

quote:

they do indeed hate the America as conceived by the Founders.

Really? Do you think America today resembles what the Founders envisioned? I would love to know what Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and friends would think about America today. I'm not so sure they'd concur that what goes on today is what they envisioned.

Of course, maybe, just maybe, some folks want to stand up and say that somethings are wrong with the country (and, if you are honest, you'll acknowledge that there are many things wrong). Maybe these folks stand up because they love this country, and want to bring it back to the ideals of our Founders. Maybe they use "scary" language because they're trying to provocateur, get attention where some attention is needed. Have their voice lift above the drowning out of status quo (conservative) forces. Maybe they want to make today's America better in ways that our Founders could not have foreseen (you know, the whole evolve societal practices thing).

Granted, some people do hate America. But, by and large, those who are given the America-hating label don't and are just working to make things better according to their ideals. Those ideals may be wrong-headed by your opinion, but they aren't haters.

I see this America-hating thing as a sensitivity issue. If you want to change me, you must hate the way I am. If you love me, you'll leave me just the way I am.

Our Founders explicitly stated that we have the right and duty to effect change of government when governance does not serve us.

The second part of the Declaration of Independence is very instructive:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

So how is trying to effect change in our government and the status quo (conservative) values that stifle individual freedom hating America?

I think we have a long history in this thread of saying that many liberals DON'T hate America. I don't believe they do, except for the few ultra-left kooks that Brad mentioned.

What we've tended to talk about here is the rhetoric. The good intentions. The political spinning. And what it really means.

Name calling is just part of OUR rhetoric. And some guys, like brother Markle, can't take it. But it's really just bashing to make a point, to be funny, or to provoke a dialog.

There ain't a man here who believes in his heart of hearts that our liberal countrymen hate America and are out to destroy it. Pelosi isn't a terrorist, but she plays one on TV. And sometimes it seems like she might as well be.

Markle doesn't call Rico "Bozo" because he hates him and wants him dead. Name calling is just part of life. And we tend not to worry about good manners here, or qualifying everything with "don't get me wrongs" or "I respect your opinions buts"

Sometimes, like with ANY political pundits, you have to read through the rhetoric and see if they're actually making good points. Coulter DOES, and yet people--again like Markle--get so turned off and angry at the name calling, that they don't see anything redeeming.

Imagine if Miths got a page of terrific scientific formulas, some brilliant, some not so... but a few jewels in there. But at the top of the page was: "All Scientists are sexless geeks." What happens sometimes is that the good things on the page get lost in the distractions of the rhetoric. Happens all the time.

In the OS X debate, I could say twenty things that needed to be improved about OS X, but all X-Men really heard were the jabs, the accusations of suckitude, and they took it personally.

That's politics in a nutshell. People don't often separate the emotions they feel from being offended by rhetoric or vocabulary, with the more philosophical or intellectual issues at hand. The politically correct are NOTORIOUS for this. And it's exactly the reason all the conservative pundits have the liberals' number, and can so easily torture them.

I see. Now its not really liberalism but progressivism, which isn't liberalism in the classic sense, but it is in the modern sense. Huh?

I recommend Jonah Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism" as a way to help clear this up. There are extensive excerpts from that book in this thread starting a few pages back. Any of David Horowitz' books would be a good resource as well.

However, as I understand progressivism, isn't it a political ideology that posits societal practices should be adjusted as society evolves? Seems to me a pretty reasonable idea

That's part of the problem, this idea that change automatically equal progress. It doesn't. It depends.

Why should we be stuck in 18th century mores when we're in the 21st century?

That's the wrong question. It's not a matter of which century we live in. That's the truly "progressive" idea that sees timeless principles as mere fashion...and is exactly the type of mindset that thinks it has every right to circumvent Constitutional law. It's the same mindset that sees "Congress shall make no law" and then gives a hundred reasons why Congress should. Maybe the excuse that Europe is doing it. Maybe it just seems like a good thing to do at the time. But the rule of law was a major advancement in the history of mankind. We may indeed change those laws as the times change, but this postmodern proclivity to just read new meanings into old words is hazardous to the rule of law. That leads to the rule of tyrants. That is partly behind the problem with this whole Fanny Mae mess. Congress passed a law that said banks should do a certain amount for helping lower-income people (or whatever the language was), and there was no way for any of these financial institutions to know exactly how much lower-income lending to do to meet this vague requirement. It was left up to how some bureaucrat felt. This fuzzy area is a direct result of the Progressive mindset that cannot "be stuck in the 18th century" when precise rules were set beforehand and people could know what the minimum requirements were. Doing otherwise creates a climate of fear, uncertainty, and even recklessness. So much is justified in this country under "progress." That's a word that hides many dicey and downright dishonest actions, as well as quite regressive ones as well.

We need progressives because they challenge the status quo (conservatives) and help us move forward as a society.

I'm an advocate myself for needing challengers of the status quo. But that's not the only virtue. There's also virtue in the status quo. There is enormous virtue in the American status quo, for instance, if you consider a major part of that status quo to be the institutions and ideas that this country was built upon. Progressives tend to have amnesia about anything that didn't come before their times or from their minds.

I see this America-hating thing as a sensitivity issue. If you want to change me, you must hate the way I am. If you love me, you'll leave me just the way I am.

I guess when I hear someone like Pastor Wright say "God Damn America," I don't think he's a real lover of this country. Either words mean things or they don't.

quote:

I think we have a long history in this thread of saying that many liberals DON'T hate America. I don't believe they do, except for the few ultra-left kooks that Brad mentioned.

But Brad IS painting all liberals with that broad brush now. He has evolved in the last few years, sinking deeper and deeper into the far wingnut muck. Mention any liberals--or anyone not as far right as he is--and his response is "Rev. Wright!" All non-wingnuts are Rev. Wright. He's lost the ability to see gradations and nuances. He reiterated it flat-out in the line quoted by Miths; there's no ambiguity.

Just read Jonah Goldberg. That'll "clear it all up" for you. Goldberg gave Brad a new religion, which he throws at us every chance he gets. Liberals are nazis. It was printed, so it must be true. Any questions?
.

There ain't a man here who believes in his heart of hearts that our liberal countrymen hate America and are out to destroy it. Pelosi isn't a terrorist, but she plays one on TV. And sometimes it seems like she might as well be.

Again, thalo, I do stand by my statement that there are many leftists (liberals, Progressives, etc.) who do not like large parts of this country as it is currently constituted. Surely the Palin Derangement Syndrome alone is evidence of this. That's not love. Palin represents a life, an attitude, and set of values that are at direct odds with progressives. And you should be cognizant of all (or at least some) of the rot-gut anti-white, anti-capitalist, and downright anti-American stuff crammed into skulls full of mush in colleges for the past 30 years or so. That's real. Progressivism, to a large extent, has made it quite fashionable to bash anything and everything about America...unless it is the liberal-Progressive attitude, of course. To say that Progressives tend to be anti-American is simple to state the rather obvious truth that there are legions of these kinds of "I've never been proud of America before" people out there. I just don't have a problem putting a name to it.

Not all Progressives, of course, are as partisan, stupid, or noxious as the Nancy Pelosi, William Ayers, or Pastor Wright types. But Obama is cut from that cloth. He's been taught, like many have been taught, that America is a "mean country," which is a direct quote from his wife. If they love America, they often have a funny way of showing it.

Just read Jonah Goldberg. That'll "clear it all up" for you. Goldberg gave Brad a new religion, which he throws at us every chance he gets. Liberals are nazis. It was printed, so it must be true. Any questions?

Goldberg was actually pretty specific in his definition of fascism. You should read the book, Markle, and move on from the 18th century.

Of course, maybe, just maybe, some folks want to stand up and say that somethings are wrong with the country (and, if you are honest, you'll acknowledge that there are many things wrong). Maybe these folks stand up because they love this country, and want to bring it back to the ideals of our Founders. Maybe they use "scary" language because they're trying to provocateur, get attention where some attention is needed. Have their voice lift above the drowning out of status quo (conservative) forces. Maybe they want to make today's America better in ways that our Founders could not have foreseen (you know, the whole evolve societal practices thing).

One of the interesting points (as Sowell pointed out in one of his books....or maybe it was Goldberg) was how the Martin Luther King "all men are created equal/they should be judged by the content of their character" ethos actually was the general vibe for a while among many civil rights reformers. There was good, valid criticism of some inherent and institutionalized racism in this country and a proper and constructive reaction to it. But what Sowell (or Goldberg) pointed out was how quickly this "progressed" (pun intended) to little more than the racial grievance politics that we have today. It's the politics pretty much summed up by Jesse Jackson, Pastor Wright, Michelle Obama, and others. And it's a view that says that America is a horrible, racist country. This is where classical "protect liberty" liberalism morphs into race-based, grievance-based, envy-based Progressivism. To just say "there are things about this country to criticize" is fine. But when we get into the specifics, we have to ask more than just *if* there is criticism. We don't just assume that any and all criticism is good, apt, and virtuous simply because it's criticism. We get into the details. We ask who's giving the criticism, why, what they have been previously taught, what assumptions they are holding, why they believe what they believe and, of course, if what they are saying is true. And when we get into this, we move beyond the superficial level where people often see criticize as virtuous no matter what, and into the level of asking specific questions about specific ideas and policies. When Obama is just spouting vague generalities, it all sounds good. But when you get into the details of just about any of his ideas, they begin to crash and burn in the face of hard reality. That's pretty much the Progressive story. The only thing holding up this political philosophy is the unflinching and bold-faced determination not to be measured by actual results but by intentions.

Thanks HH. There is a lot of money in the DoD. A colleague of mine and I are trying to start some work in PTSD, since it is a big issue for soldiers coming back from fighting. We're trying to make the connections now.

Still, much of the work we do has big medical relevance for the civilian population, but isn't particularly applicable to DoD priorities. My hope is that NIH funding will improve after the election. But, if this bailout bill goes through, I can't imagine it will. One more reason I'm against it.

quote:

I guess when I hear someone like Pastor Wright say "God Damn America," I don't think he's a real lover of this country. Either words mean things or they don't.

Well, I don't hear conservatives saying Pastor Bill Shanks or Pastor John Hagee hate America when they said God punished New Orleans for its sins with Katrina. Do you think they hate America? Is it possible that some conservatives hate America too in your world view? Or is this only a "liberal" trait? If some conservatives do, then why spend your time only focusing on "liberals"? Seems hypocritical to do so in this case.

quote:

Palin represents a life, an attitude, and set of values that are at direct odds with progressives.

I'd say SOME of her values are at odds with progressives, and some should be for good reason. For me, her stance on abortion after rape or incest would be one, frankly. If a woman chooses to have a rape-produced baby, her choice, awesome. But if not, there is no way in hell she should ever have to bring that baby to term. As an evolving society, no one should force another person to have sex and bear a child against their will.

Keeping a policy in place that rape kits should be paid for by the victims while she was Mayor? Sorry, that one is fucked too. As an evolving society, shouldn't we provide the victim some relief in a terrible time. Seems civilized.

While she said it was only a "question", I'd have to say that just the thought of banning books in libraries is bad too. We shouldn't even ask that question after the events in the early 20th century.

Other than some common political corruption bullshit that goes on with all politicians that I am generally against, I don't see much else in her personal life, attitude, or values that are at direct odds with progressives. Just because you impute marginalization of religion or the indoctrinization of sex to progressives does not mean that is what all in the progressive movement want in general. Some, possibly, but hardly the majority. I'm fine with her religious practices. I'm fine with her family life. I'm fine with her personal hobbies.

My only real issue concerning Palin is that McCain made a hasty decision and could've picked a far more qualified woman, if he wanted solely a woman. Christie Todd Whitman, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Elizabeth Dole, Condoleeza Rice all come to mind. Any one of them would have made me consider McCain much more seriously.

Miths I read through that article you linked that you said helped you understand what is happening with this financial crisis. Unfortunately it is not telling you anything relevant to how we got here. Basically all it is doing is blame shifting. Derivatives didn't play any role in the collapse. They are an effect of the collapse.

The congressional hearings back in 2004 investigating the illegal book keeping that was taking place at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac predicts exactly what has happened. This whole crisis is a result of the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I still find it amazing there has been no congressional over site into why there was a 200 billion dollar bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It is the single greatest redistribution of wealth this country has ever seen.

The party at fault in all this is the Democratic party. They played the race card in 2004 to block the recommendations of the Republicans to fix Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. When the Democratic party nominee for President has received more money than anyone else in congress from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac it is no wonder there is no hearings taking place as to how this mess started. We are lucky we even know that Senator Hussein even received any money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The best part is how the media has even manipulated those numbers. Senator Hussein is number 2 on the list behind Senator Dodd. What they don't say is that the numbers are tallies of the money each congressman has received over their lifetime in office. Senator Hussein has only been in the Senate for 3 years. So Senator Hussein in the grand scheme of things has really received an exorbitant amount of money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac compared to all the other politicians combined.