https://issuepedia.org/mw/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=66.93.241.126&feedformat=atomIssuepedia - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T10:03:50ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.0https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=Template:Extension_DPL&diff=25393Template:Extension DPL2011-08-06T16:03:29Z<p>66.93.241.126: Template:Extension DPL</p>
<hr />
<div><noinclude>This page was automatically created. It serves as an anchor page for all '''[[Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Extension_DPL|invocations]]''' of [http://mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:DynamicPageList Extension:DynamicPageList (DPL)].</noinclude></div>66.93.241.126https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=2008-03-17_ECOworld:_a_website_officially_unconcerned_about_accuracy/Ed_Ring_response&diff=215362008-03-17 ECOworld: a website officially unconcerned about accuracy/Ed Ring response2011-02-22T18:35:19Z<p>66.93.241.126: categories (belatedly)</p>
<hr />
<div>==About==<br />
[[category:!article]]<br />
[[category:commentary]]<br />
This text can be found [http://www.ecoworld.com/other/ecoworld-maintains-its-editorial-position-rejects-demonization-of-differing-points-of-view.html on ECOworld]. Ed Ring apparently also posted it as [http://www.desmogblog.com/ecoworld-a-website-officially-unconcerned-about-accuracy a comment on Littlemore's blog post]; as of 2011-02-19, there is only one comment posted in response, a short dismissal that does not address any of the points Ring makes.<br />
==Text==<br />
<p>Dear Sir: If you took the time to read more than one or two posts on EcoWorld, you will see we were, for example, one of the first to point out the massive rainforest destruction occurring in order to grow biofuel. You would also see our enthusiastic and unwavering support for EVs and solar power, and our unrelenting search to identify clean technologies to enable the coming electric age.</p><br />
<br />
<p>Our position on freeways is more nuanced than you give us credit for - we believe roads are the most versatile mode of transportation available, and that the efficiencies of rail only play out in cases of very high urban densities or longer intercity modes. Because cars, trucks and busses can all use roads, because they don't require as much maintenance, security or operating personnel, and because they allow great personal independence - we think upgrading our road network is being given too little priority.</p><br />
<br />
<p>Adding to this the fact that cars are becoming smart, clean and green is the clincher in our view. We believe the world is within a generation of abundance, not scarcity, and green technology will deliver this abundance. We are optimists. It only takes 1 gigawatt of additional off-peak electrical output to recharge 1.0 million EVs for commuters. "Smart growth" proponants have declared war on the car, and we think this is a well-intentioned mistake.</p><br />
<br />
<p>As for climate change - I think it is naive to think big business is fighting the alarmism. Nobody benefits more than big business when regulations are put in place to restrict CO2 emissions. Wall Street gets to trade CO2 credits, corporations get subsidies to develop new technologies to mitigate the CO2 - the consumer pays more and small businesses go under because they can't afford to comply. It isn't at all clear to me based on all of the climate science I've read that anthropogenic CO2 is the clear culprit in climate change, nor that climate change is the existential crisis it is made out to be. Moreover, it seems to me that people suggesting we slow down and examine the economic and social consequences of massive transitions to reduce CO2 emissions should be considered the moderate ones, not those raising the alarm and demanding radical and abrupt changes.</p><br />
<br />
<p>Another reason EcoWorld highlights the arguments of climate skeptics is because we believe debate is important, and frankly are alarmed by the consensus in the media that the debate is over, and by the demonization of people who don't think the debate is over. Science and journalism relies on skepticism and debate to allow the truth to emerge.</p><br />
<br />
<p>EcoWorld is supported by advertisers, and there aren't a lot of them. If we were willing to compromise our integrity, i.e., rail against the "deniers" and advocate policies and positions that constitute today's conventional wisdom on environmental issues, you may rest assured our commercial and financial success would be far greater than it is presently.</p><br />
<br />
<p>You may criticize our positions as vehemently as you like. But if you question the sincerity of our viewpoints or the depth of our concern for the environment, you are mistaken. You are welcome to call me or email me to discuss this at any time. And I have earned my nickname of "Redwood." I have personally grown from seed and given away thousands of trees, and never charged anyone for any of them.</p><br />
==Comments==<br />
===Woozle says===<br />
If by "upgrading our road network" he means we need to build more roads, I am skeptical. If he means we need to repair existing infrastructure, that's not a bad idea economically but won't make that much difference ecologically. If he means using new technology to allow roads to be used more efficiently, then he may have a point -- but I'd like to see some specific suggestions.<br />
<br />
I'm very skeptical of his claim that "nobody benefits more than big business" does from CO2 restrictions. First of all, some individual businesses may benefit (especially those oriented towards "green" technologies), but some are going to feel threatened -- and those are the ones helping to fund the anti-GW propaganda. Green technology may benefit "big business" overall in the long run, but many of the existing players will resist that change (and the inevitable power-shifts brought by change) for as long as they can -- and the evidence that they are doing so is pretty incontrovertible at this point.<br />
<br />
He is right that big businesses (the ones with the most political influence) will tend to push the regulations to protect the new turf, and keep smaller businesses out. This is not, however, "benefiting from green technology" but "benefiting from bad legislation posing as pro-green legislation".<br />
<br />
As for moderation: if there is even a fairly small chance that the crisis is as predicted, wouldn't the moderate/safe/conservative response be to play it safe and take steps to prevent it? In any case, the goals of "green energy" are in line with the goals of long-term economic resilience/sustainability, so it doesn't make any sense to work against ''them'', whatever you may think of carbon-trading.<br />
<br />
We are agreed that debate is important, however, and positions that contradict the consensus need to be discussed -- either they are substantially wrong, and the reasons why this is so should be documented, or they will be proven right.</div>66.93.241.126https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=User:Woozle/positions/2013&diff=20019User:Woozle/positions/20132010-07-12T01:39:15Z<p>66.93.241.126: /* The Iraq War (2008-05-18) */ update</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Opinions]]<br />
This is my [[project:Position Statement|Position Statement]] regarding various things. I am willing to defend any of these positions, and change them in the face of sufficient new evidence &ndash; though some of them are more firmly held than others.<br />
===subpages===<br />
* [[/9-11]] - important<br />
* [[/hate crimes]]<br />
==Homeland Security and Torture==<br />
'''2008-01-31''' Maybe I don't speak for the majority here, but I can at least say the following for myself. The [[war on terror]] &ndash; including the use of torture, illegal detainments by the US government, and even the stupid new [[airline security]] rules &ndash; are ''not'' being done for me. I don't want them. If they're being done for my "safety", then I'd much rather be in "danger". (Besides, these measures make me feel more in danger than the terrorists ever did.)<br />
<br />
'''Just to make this clear''': Torture is WRONG. NO NO NO NO, a thousand times NO. Maybe if you knew there was a nuclear bomb* in a densely-populated area and the torturee was the only person who knew where it was, then MAYBE (and I'd want to see the video record of the interrogation, too) -- but we've had nothing anywhere near that scale to justify what the American government has been doing (and certainly no transparency, much less video records), so STOP IT RIGHT NOW.<br />
<br />
<small>*at least one interrogation expert says that this type of scenario simply never happens -- but if it did, torture would work ''against'' efforts to determine the necessary information. See filed links in [[torture]] for more.</small><br />
<br />
'''2009-12-15 addendum''': If terror suspects do somehow manage to go free because they were tortured (not likely given the kangaroo courts they are likely to be performing in), those who supported the use of torture in the first place will have only themselves to blame. I would rather see Osama himself set free after trial (again, not bloody likely since we don't seem to be trying very hard to catch him) than continue to compromise our principles on how we treat people.<br />
<br />
==The Iraq War (2008-05-18)==<br />
The most compelling (and I use the word broadly) arguments I am aware of for the US remaining in Iraq at this point are:<br />
# We need to be there to stamp out Islamic terrorism (aka [[Islamofascism]]).<br />
# We have established connections with many individuals in Iraq who will be slaughtered if our protecting presence is removed.<br />
<br />
For #1, we're doing an absolutely terrible job. Worse than terrible: we are regressing. The Iraq War was never planned to actually ''accomplish'' anything, but to be an advertisement for an ongoing threat which was no worse until the Bush plan poured gasoline on it; the world is now more full of terrorism, and more full of people who have good reason to hate Americans. A case might be made for a country with a rational leadership to be fighting terrorism in Iraq, but until Bush and his nest of insects are gone, we are among the furthest from being that country.<br />
<br />
For #2, I would need to see evidence. Iraqis, even in the most positive stories I have read about the wonderful work our troops are doing in Iraq (and any progress at all is little short of miraculous, given the total non-plan they've been ordered to execute), come across as luke-warm at best about our continuing presence. If this point is important, why are we not being told stirring (even if fabricated) tales of the heroism of individual Iraqi fighters for truth, justice, and the American Way? This lack highlights the fact that the administration doesn't even buy this line.<br />
<br />
We have shown that we can take a silk purse &ndash; a country full of oil, its dictator toppled, many of its long-repressed people eager for greater freedom and prosperity, and friendly to American ideas &ndash; and turn it into a sow's ear.<br />
<br />
'''We have no right''' to be in Iraq any more, if we ever did.<br />
<br />
'''2010-07-11 update''' I don't know what's going on with Obama, but he seems to be in the sway of the same philosophy. We need to be out of Iraq and out of Afghanistan. Sadly, the real reasons we are there are as strong as ever: war profiteers who run Congress through lobbying.<br />
<br />
==Religion==<br />
I think people confuse [[faith]] with [[idealism]]; organized religion encourages this confusion, because faith is much more easy to manipulate. Many people of good will find religion appealing, and I think it is the ''idealism'' of it which they find appealing. Many non-religious people are reluctant to attack religious fallacies because they don't want to destroy someone's faith. It is not necessary to destroy someone's idealism while arguing them out of blatantly fallacious ideas.<br />
<br />
It seems to me that the difference between acceptable religion and [[bad religion|unacceptable religion]] hinges on the following points:<br />
* '''Revision''': Is there a central doctrine which must never be revised by anyone? (Or can it be questioned, and revised if found to be in error?)<br />
* '''Interpretation''': Is that central doctrine solely interpretable by those in positions of authority? (Or are followers ultimately free to make their own moral decisions based on their own interpretation of that doctrine and the guidance of their own conscience?)<br />
* '''Renouncement''': Is there any retribution or punishment for renouncing one's membership?<br />
* '''Universality''': Does the core doctrine hold that it applies to ''everyone'', not just those who have agreed to follow it?<br />
<br />
The more of these attributes a religion possesses, the [[bad religion|worse]] it is. [[Islam]], for example, includes all four attributes. Even the worst [[Christian fundamentalism|fundamentalist]] varieties of Christianity generally have no (real) punishment for renouncement (aside from metaphysical threats &ndash; burning in hell and so forth &ndash; which are only meaningful to a believer), and can be minimally tolerated within a modern society &ndash; although ''not'' within the sphere of public discourse (e.g. [[Issuepedia:Wacky Award#2007-04-29 Utah Satan resolution|passing a resolution blaming Satan for illegal immigration]]). Any one of these attributes renders an idea unsuitable as a basis for policy.<br />
<br />
A religion which has none of these attributes, on the other hand, is far more likely to be capable of making rational decisions and therefore meaningfully participate in a sane [[civilization]].<br />
<br />
The solution is not to wipe out toxic religions, but rather to make them less toxic by encouraging religious individuals and groups to renounce the toxic aspects.<br />
===Activist Atheism===<br />
Some people accuse activist atheists (e.g. [[Richard Dawkins]]) of being "evangelical", and just as bad as the religions they attack. I disagree, though I do think there should be some specific boundaries and objectives:<br />
<br />
# I maintain my right to attack ideas which I think are bad, and not to regard any area of human thought as "sacred" or beyond accountability. Anything written or spoken is fair game (and I don't mean that in the [[wikipedia:Fair Game (Scientology)|Scientology sense]]), especially if it is advocating a course of action. There is no such thing as blasphemy, except for someone addicted to a dogma.<br />
# I maintain the right of those in a religion to renounce their adherence to that religion, and I maintain that this is not the same as renouncing loyalty and friendship with others still in the community of that religion, though it will often be seen that way (and may effectively have the same results). I also maintain that this is not the same as renouncing one's morals, though the most dogmatic adherents will generally see it that way.<br />
# If someone is a dogmaholic, only they can decide when they are ready to be cured. If their dogmaddiction isn't hurting anyone but themselves, then it only becomes my business if we are friends -- and I risk the friendship if I force the issue. (Transcript of a discussion starting with the question "why did none of my friends ever tell me I was wrong about the whole 'God' thing?" is [[User:Woozle/2007-07-03 chat|here]]. Another answer: light can kill creatures raised in the dark.)<br />
# If it ''is'' hurting someone else, then I don't have any easy guidelines except this: If they're a political figure, their publicly expressed beliefs are fair game.<br />
#* This is also true for the views of any organization, whether those views are expressed publicly or in private writings which are unintentionally exposed.<br />
# We now have much better tools than religion for making decisions. Wherever possible, religion's sway needs to be lessened and discouraged, and the use of these other tools needs to be promoted and encouraged.<br />
#* This should never go so far as to threaten freedoms of speech, expression, belief, or congregation; but at the very least, we can stop the general policy of ''encouraging'' religion by e.g. automatically granting tax-exemption to churches as long as they appear to stay out of politics (and unfortunately even this caveat [http://blog.au.org/2008/05/21/wily-wiley-californias-political-pastor-wont-face-irs-sanctions-after-all/ isn't always being enforced]), or by allowing (as is the law here in [[North Carolina]]) parents to skip mandatory vaccinations for ''religious'' reasons (which they do not have to specify) but not for ''[[rational]]'' ones (e.g. evidence that the vaccine may be harmful). <br />
#* In other words... wherever a religion or religious justification is given preference, I would see the preference given to rationality or a rational justification instead. Religious justification should lend no more credibility to an argument than saying "because the voices in my head told me to". <br />
#* '''However''': "I have a very strong feeling that X is true, but I don't know how to explain it yet" ''is'' a good justification; it's not ''as'' good a justification as scientific data, but we must avoid chaining anyone to a line of reasoning which seems wrong; individuals [[freedom of conscience|must remain free to act on the decisions of their own consciences]]. Religion tries to claim that process for its own, and then to control it; this is exactly the opposite of freedom of conscience.<br />
#* Schools should teach how to deal with uncertainty, and how to reconcile a "gut feeling" that disagrees with what hard data -- or other people -- are saying. The lack of any training in this area leaves the door wide open for religion to claim that it has the monopoly on such thinking.<br />
<br />
''Thanks to "Progressive Conservative" for nudging me to examine this question in [http://entequilaesverdad.blogspot.com/2008/05/robert-t-bakker-just-got-right-up-my.html this conversation].''<br />
<br />
Also, I agree with the positions of [[PZ Myers]] as expressed in [[2008-03-28 Greater Science Literacy Is Going to Lead to the Erosion of Religion|this article]], despite the author's attempts to re[[political framing|frame]] atheism and science as some kind of insidious suppressive propaganda: we need more science, which will naturally lead to less religion, which is fine because we need less religion too.<br />
<br />
===Christianity===<br />
Being Christian is ''not'' [http://nlsngrc.blogspot.com/2008/03/sally-kern-i-was-taken-out-of-context.html sufficient reason for being anti-gay]. Unless you obey every single rule and restriction in the Bible (and how can you, when nobody can agree on exactly what rules the Bible actually spells out and which are merely given as historical background?), ''you'' are choosing which ones to obey and which ones to ignore. This means that ''you'' have chosen to decide that "marriage is sacred" or "marriage means one man and one woman".<br />
<br />
The Bible is not a source of moral authority. You must make up your own mind, and be prepared to explain how you arrived at your decision.<br />
<br />
==Patriotism==<br />
I believe that loyalty to the ideals of [[democracy]] is more important than loyalty to any particular nation, including loyalty to the {{USA}}. '''However''', the United States is one of the few countries ''founded'' upon those ideals; as such, defending the United States against foreign invaders ''or against being taken over by forces inimical to democracy'' (whether those forces originate from within or without the US) is '''equivalent''' to, and thus just as important as, loyalty to those ideals.<br />
<br />
In other words, defending the core values of the United States, as represented (perhaps imperfectly) by the [[Constitution (US)|Constitution]], is important ''because of those core values'', not because of loyalty to the United States as a country. (The latter being represented by the "My country, right or wrong" mentality.)<br />
<br />
If the US (through some dreadful series of mistakes) became ruled by a dictatorship, and some country elsewhere in the world wanted to "liberate" us and restore democracy, wouldn't that be a good thing (assuming we had any trust at all in the intentions of the potential invaders)? Furthermore, would it not be ''loyal to the Constitution'' (which does not in any sense allow for totalitarian rule)?<br />
===war & the troops===<br />
Although I do not (and never did) support the [[US-Iraq War]] and definitely do not support any [[potential US attack on Iran]], I do support the troops. They have been through hell, and are continuing to go through it. I wish there was a way to give them a mission at which they could succeed, but the game has been heavily rigged against them at this point. They performed competently (at worst!) in Afghanistan and during the [[US invasion of Iraq|invasion phase]] of the Iraq War, and I lay what has happened since then squarely at the feet of our (at best!) incompetent [[Bush II administration|leaders]].<br />
<br />
==Judgement & Religion==<br />
I believe that making one's own judgements is an important part of being human (in the best sense of the word). I don't mean that you should never say "well, I'll defer to your judgement on this"; you're still making the final judgement call about whether to trust the other person's opinion, on a case-by-case basis. The problem arises when a person (a "[[authoritarian follower|follower]]") accepts the judgement of another (a "[[authoritarian leader|leader]]") as supreme on all matters, and only allows their own judgement to prevail when the "leader" has no opinion or specifically gives the "follower" permission to decide on his/her own.<br />
<br />
Organized religion worries me, in large part because of this very tendency to centralize ultimate moral authority.<br />
<br />
Anyone who says that everything good in their life has come from their religion obviously hasn't read enough good science fiction. (Recommendations to follow, when I get around to it.)<br />
<br />
(2007-09-25) Christians say that [[Jesus Christ]] died for my sins, and that therefore I should do all kinds of things. Stepping into their universe for a moment to address this: It's kind of a done deed now, but if I had the choice, I would tell Jesus: "No, please don't do that. You seem like a decent guy, and I bet we could benefit a lot more from the things you could do in a long life (write down your philosophy so we can really understand it! That would be sheer gold, and might have done a lot of good in the centuries after your death.) than from this "being saved" thing. Have a good life; don't go dying on my account. I'll take the heat. I'd rather not have your death on my conscience; that would be worse than any hellfire or purgatory could possibly be." <br />
<br />
Since he's apparently gone and done it, however, without my consent, I have to say "thanks, I do appreciate it -- but I don't think this obligates me to anything, although you might still be able to talk me into it." Many Christians don't seem to understand that you attract more flies with honey than with fire and brimstone; sweet reason is so much easier to swallow than terroristic metaphysical threats. Good theatre, though, and amusing at times (or it would be amusing, that is, if innocent people weren't being hurt and killed by it).<br />
<br />
==Gender/Sexual Issues==<br />
My hypertwin and I are [[Marriage boycott|boycotting marriage]] ([[htwiki:Marriage boycott|our page about it]]) ''at least'' until it is available to everyone, and possibly beyond that until it is re-fashioned into a tool for strengthening families of all types, not just two-person families.<br />
<br />
I see absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality, cross-dressing (transvestitism), transsexuality, or any other form of sexual/gender oddity, as long as nobody is getting hurt. <br />
===marriage===<br />
Our society's definition of what constitutes a family unit is far too limiting and fails to adequately serve many people, especially in a modern highly-mobile society; see [[htwiki:Hyperfamily]] for an alternative concept.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, progress in this department is hindered by religious [[dogma]]tists and [[authoritarian]]s who are working for the return of restrictions which liberals have worked hard for many decades to remove (generally more so that they can use fear of the unknown to scare their [[authoritarian follower|follower]]s into line than because they see those restrictions as actually important to society).<br />
<br />
Anyone who [[war on marriage|fights against]] expanding the legal definition of [[marriage]]/[[family]] along [[rational]] lines is working for a cause that is basically [[evil]]; I have not seen any good justifications for preventing [[gay marriage]], and an awful lot of really bad ones brought up over and over again despite having been soundly refuted ([[denialism]]). I am [[marriage boycott|boycotting marriage]] until its legal definition is reworked to allow for the needs of myself, my hypertwin, and many other people we know; as it exists now, it is [[htwiki:marriage boycott|worse than useless to us]].<br />
<br />
'''2008-11-07 update''': Whether or not the majority believes that gay marriage is a bad thing, ''I do not'' -- and this is a non-negotiable position at this point. The [[anti-gay]] camp has had plenty of opportunity to present valid arguments, and they have failed to present a single one that can stand even the least scrutiny. I'm still open to hearing new arguments, but sheer force of numbers isn't an argument. Those of us whose happiness is threatened by these legal restrictions will not concede even in the face of a majority (whose existence has yet to be demonstrated), because the legal restrictions benefit nobody and harm many.<br />
<br />
===roles===<br />
Apparently there is a huge amount of disagreement about whether gender roles are learned or innate. It seems quite plain to me that there is a good deal of variation: some people are wired such that they are perfectly comfortable in their assigned gender roles but would not behave in the prescribed way if society didn't encourage it, while others gravitate naturally towards the behaviors society prefers (or even views as "stereotypical"). Still others are wired to prefer behaviors prescribed to the ''other'' gender, which is at least circumstantial evidence that gender can be "hard-wired" and that it varies from person to person.<br />
===prostitution===<br />
I also don't see what's so terrible about prostitution; it doesn't seem to me any worse than any other situation in which one voluntarily dangers one's health for money. It should be legalized and regulated like any other risky profession (as it already is in some countries, most notably The [[Netherlands]]).<br />
<br />
==Life Issues==<br />
As far as life being sacred... I think if anything is sacred, it is the ''spirit'', not the "life" of the spirit's container (body). I would propose the following:<br />
* Every spirit deserves a vessel (body) worthy of it. (The spirit (soul/mind) deserves a body which is physically able to support the spirit, without chronic pain or excessive maintenance, and carry out the spirit's wishes within reason)<br />
* A new spirit deserves to be born into a community that wants it and has the ability to care for it adequately until it is able to care for itself<br />
* Every spirit has the right to choose to end itself<br />
* If the spirit is too new to be able to make or express its life decisions, then the parents (or the community) must make those decisions.<br />
<br />
For all the moral high ground currently being claimed by the "[[pro-life]]" people, they're elevating the body to a position of sacredness and totally ignoring that which ought to be far more important, i.e. the person inside.<br />
<br />
Overall, we need to balance our compassionate wish to preserve life against our compassionate wish not to cause suffering. Those twin considerations should override any arbitrary sacredness of human life at any age. Any life decision depends heavily on context, including the wishes of the life in question (at which we can only make an educated guess in some cases), and should not be decided arbitrarily based on any hard-and-fast rule.<br />
<br />
(This leaves open a lot of issues which need to be addressed, such as when do parents abandon their right of choice, when is a parental decision out of bounds, etc. but at least gives some principles from which those decisions can be made.)<br />
<br />
==Illegal Drugs==<br />
I worry more about the dangers posed by laws (e.g. [[wikipedia:RICO (law)|RICO]]) which attempt to prevent usage of certain [[Psychoactive Drugs|psychoactive substances]] than I do about the danger posed by the substances themselves. (I do not, however, personally indulge in any such substances other than caffeine.)<br />
<br />
==Politics==<br />
I was very disheartened by the 2004 election results; it seemed clear that Mr. Bush was bent on advancing an agenda of using foreign aggression as an opportunity to spend huge amounts of government money on "reconstruction" contracts which could then be used to increase his power via favoritism (i.e. giving contracts in exchange for favors and personal support) while doing very little towards increasing "security", despite that being the nominal justification for the majority of his actions.<br />
<br />
Since then, I have seen very little to change that opinion, but I continue to be baffled by the fact that most of the country still seems to think he's doing the right thing and doing it well. I started Issuepedia partly as an attempt to untangle the complex web of assumptions and beliefs behind the various opinions (pro and con) on the matter.<br />
==Wacky Liberalism==<br />
Normally I tend to fall on the so-called liberal side of things, but below I will be collecting examples of instances where liberalism has clearly gone too far:<br />
*[http://www.opinionjournal.com/cc/?id=110007364 The Sex-Offender Lobby]<br />
==Nuclear Power==<br />
I'm not against nuclear power ''as such'', but I dislike the way we are currently handling it as a social/organizational issue. Nuclear power plants are always constructed by huge companies (such as General Electric in the US), with extreme [[security]] being used as an excuse to minimize the [[transparency]] of the plant's operation. If we had more of a view into each plant's daily operation, we would be able to verify claims of safety. As it is, there is no way to verify and hence no way to trust that operations are being carried out safely.<br />
<br />
I do think that we need to look at nuclear power as one option for reducing carbon emissions (and hence [[global warming]]), but the first item of business should be to redesign plant operations so they are more transparent. The second item of business is to take a close look at the entire life-cycle of the fuel and the plant itself: what is the total damage done by mining, how long would the fuel supplies last in abundance if the entire world was switched to nuclear, how can the spent fuel be safely disposed of? The current air of secrecy around nuclear power -- in some cases required by law -- currently makes such an examination almost impossible.</div>66.93.241.126https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=2010-05-08_American_Morality_Survey&diff=196852010-05-08 American Morality Survey2010-05-09T01:40:47Z<p>66.93.241.126: new page from form at http://www.issuepedia.org/Issuepedia:Forms/link/news</p>
<hr />
<div><hide><br />
<let name=data index=Date>2010-05-08</let><br />
<let name=data index=Author></let><br />
<let name=data index=Source>traditionalvalues.us</let><br />
<let name=data index=Topics>\anti-gay\right-wing lies</let><br />
<let name=data index=URL>http://traditionalvalues.us/moralitysurvey1.aspx?pid=gb1</let><br />
<let name=data index=Title>Public Advocate of the United State's 2010 American Morality Survey</let><br />
<let name=data index=TitlePlain>American Morality Survey</let><br />
<let name=data index=Text>The following text was the destination of a paid advertisement encountered [http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/abaldwin/2010/03/26/marriage-is-sacred-sarah-silverman-misfires/ here] on 2010-05-08. Each of the numbered questions was followed by the possible choices "yes", "no", and "unsure".<br />
<blockquote><br />
<p>EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Radical homosexuals claim YOU support same-sex marriage, special job rights and promotion of homosexuality in schools. Please fill out the survey below and let your voice be heard.</p><br />
<br />
<p>Contacting and organizing pro-family conservatives costs a great deal of money. After filling out the American Morality Survey below, please make a generous contribution to [[Public Advocate of the United States]] to keep this program running.</p><br />
<br />
# Should homosexuals receive special job rights and force businesses, schools, churches and even daycares to hire and advance homosexuals or face prosecution and multimillion-dollar lawsuits?<br />
# Do you support the use of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to fund homosexual "art", so called AIDS-awareness programs and homosexual research grants that are frequently funneled to political advocacy?<br />
# Should homosexuality be promoted in school as a healthy lifestyle choice, while information about the life threatening consequences are ignored?<br />
# Do you support same-sex "marriage" for homosexuals or "marriage-like" rights, like homosexuals being able to adopt children and raise them in their "lifestyle"?<br />
# Should the U.S. Supreme Court overturn traditional marriage between one man and one woman?<br />
</blockquote><br />
'''Notes''':<br />
* http://traditionalvalues.us redirects to http://www.publicadvocateusa.org/ which appears to be a site specializing in more of this kind of persuasion-by-lies-and-distortions.<br />
* It was not possible to submit one's responses to the "survey" without also filling in First Name, Last Name, Email Address, and Zip at the bottom of the page.</let><br />
<br />
<let name=data index=TextShort>&ldquo;EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Radical homosexuals claim YOU support same-sex marriage, special job rights and promotion of homosexuality in schools. Please fill out the survey below and let your voice be heard.&rdquo;</let><br />
</hide><if not flag=including><let name=docat val=1 /><noinclude>{{:project:code/show/link}}</noinclude></if></div>66.93.241.126https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=19119Creationism2010-01-03T23:23:43Z<p>66.93.241.126: /* Links */ standard references; Asimov essay</p>
<hr />
<div>==Overview==<br />
[[category:religion]][[Creationism]] is a [[counter-scientific theory]] of [[Creation]] which adheres strictly to [[religious]] [[doctrine]].{{seed}}Creationists are often opposed to the teaching of the theory of [[evolution]], and usually claim that if evolution is to be taught, creationism should be given "equal time" as an equally valid theory &ndash; despite the lack of evidence supporting creation, the nonsensicality of many of its argumants, and the near-unanimity of scientists in agreeing that evolution is the only theory which comes anywhere close to explaining the facts.<br />
==Related Pages==<br />
* [[Creationism]] is one form of [[direct creation]] theory.<br />
** The [[Creation Museum]] promotes [[creationism]] by presenting it in a museum format<br />
===attempts to infiltrate public education===<br />
* [[creation science]] (1980s) was found to be against the [[US constitution|constitution]] due to its religious nature<br />
* [[intelligent design]] (ID) was determined in 2005 to be nothing more than creation science with all religious references stripped out (often by straight search-and-replace) and a few scientific-sounding points tacked on<br />
* [[teach the controversy]] advocated teaching both "sides" of the [[doctroversy|non-existent scientific controversy]] between evolution and ID<br />
* creationist advocates of "[[academic freedom]]" argue that teachers and students should be free to express their views in class, including in answers to science tests, without fear of retribution: for example, a geology teacher should be allowed to teach that the [[young Earth creationism|Earth is 6000 years old]], and "[[God did it]]" should be an acceptable answer on a biology or geology test. (This is of course a misuse of the term "academic freedom"; it is meant to apply to the results of research, not to teachers at the grade-school level who are largely teaching from a pre-set curriculum.)<br />
** The hypocrisy of this latest tack became plain when a creationist student [[2009-05-01 High school teacher found guilty of insulting Christians|accused a teacher of insulting Christianity]] after the teacher exercised his "academic freedom" to express negative views of creationism.<br />
<br />
==Links==<br />
===Reference===<br />
* Wikipedia: [[Wikipedia:Creationism|Creationism]], [[Wikipedia:Creation science|Creation science]]<br />
* [http://creationwiki.org/ Creation Wiki]<br />
* [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ An Index to Creationist Claims], with refutation for each. Compiled by the Talk.Origins archive. Includes [[Intelligent Design]] postulates.<br />
* {{conservapedia}}<br />
* {{dkosopedia}}<br />
* {{!in|sourcewatch}} no equivalent page as of 2010-01-03; see [[sourcewatch:Restating Creationism as Intelligent Design|Restating Creationism as Intelligent Design]]<br />
* {{rationalwiki}}<br />
===Essays===<br />
* '''1984''' [http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/azimov_creationism.html The "Threat" of Creationism] by [[Isaac Asimov]]<br />
===Media===<br />
* '''Why do people laugh at creationists?''' (series of video shorts): [[youtube:BS5vid4GkEY|Part 1]] [[youtube:istxUVBZD2s|Part 2]] [[youtube:dEZTdOlGss|Part 3]] [[youtube:vjFeVwuJB7I|Part 4]] [[youtube:uvprBLhJx_o|Part 5]] [[youtube:YKdfeP1sGIg|Part 6]] [[youtube:l6_o1GxgNMQ|Part 7]] [[youtube:p3nvH6gfrTc|Part 8]] [[youtube:xzDYVFa1TR0|Part 9]]<br />
===Filed Links===<br />
{{links.tagged}}<br />
===News===<br />
* '''2006-11-13''' [http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1946370,00.html So what's with all the dinosaurs?]: "The world's first Creationist museum &ndash; dedicated to the idea that the creation of the world, as told in Genesis, is factually correct &ndash; will soon open."<br />
** Commentary: [http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/22/0216205 slashdot]</div>66.93.241.126https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=US/healthcare&diff=18009US/healthcare2009-08-28T20:59:44Z<p>66.93.241.126: Created page with '==Overview== category:US{{seed}} ==Links== ===Reference=== * lessigwiki:Medicine: A collection of references on medicine in the US - must-reads, to-research, and examples...'</p>
<hr />
<div>==Overview==<br />
[[category:US]]{{seed}}<br />
==Links==<br />
===Reference===<br />
* [[lessigwiki:Medicine]]: A collection of references on medicine in the US - must-reads, to-research, and examples of systemic [[corruption]]<br />
===News===<br />
{{links/news}}</div>66.93.241.126https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=National_Center_for_Atmospheric_Research&diff=18002National Center for Atmospheric Research2009-08-27T21:40:16Z<p>66.93.241.126: Created page with '==Overview== category:organizationsThe National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) is an organization in Boulder, CO. It is officially managed by the nonprofit [...'</p>
<hr />
<div>==Overview==<br />
[[category:organizations]]The [[National Center for Atmospheric Research]] (NCAR) is an organization in [[Boulder, CO]].<br />
<br />
It is officially managed by the nonprofit [[University Corporation for Atmospheric Research]] (UCAR), but UCAR's [[htyp:domain name|domain name]] is registered to NCAR (contacts: Marla Meehl and Greg Woods) which would seem to indicate the flow of control running in the other direction. Wikipedia's article on NCAR states that NCAR is sponsored by the [[National Science Foundation]], but does not give any sources for this information.<br />
<br />
{{seedling}}<br />
==Links==<br />
===Official===<br />
* [http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/ home page]<br />
===Reference===<br />
* {{wikipedia}}<br />
* {{!in|conservapedia}} no information as of 2009-08-27<br />
* {{!in|dkosopedia}} no information as of 2009-08-27<br />
* {{sourcewatch}} has a stub article only, where they implicitly classify NCAR as part of the [[tobacco industry]]</div>66.93.241.126https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=2009-07-24_The_Makings_of_a_Police_State_Part_2&diff=174912009-07-24 The Makings of a Police State Part 22009-07-25T23:12:20Z<p>66.93.241.126: new page from form at http://www.issuepedia.org/Issuepedia:Forms/link/news</p>
<hr />
<div></div>66.93.241.126https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=SCOTUS&diff=16607SCOTUS2009-06-27T21:44:47Z<p>66.93.241.126: Redirected page to US Supreme Court</p>
<hr />
<div>#redirect [[US Supreme Court]]</div>66.93.241.126https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=Talk:Bill_Clinton_vs._George_W._Bush/2006&diff=15631Talk:Bill Clinton vs. George W. Bush/20062009-04-14T20:48:46Z<p>66.93.241.126: response -- is this commenter a bot?</p>
<hr />
<div>==Note==<br />
The following discussion was moved from [[Talk:Bush neoconservative]], as it seemed more about comparing Bush and Clinton than about whether or not [[Bush neoconservative]] was a legitimate term.<br />
==Midian says==<br />
Under [[President Clinton]], a similar list ''[of supported causes (vs. those of [[Bush Neoconservative]]s), presumably -[[User:Woozle|W]].]'' could apply to most Democrats. Does that make them "neolibs", "socialists", or is the Democrat party just really that far left?<br />
<br />
* the US Invasion of Iraq (And Haiti, and Somalia, and Bosnia)<br />
* President William J. Clinton<br />
* the precedence of presidential authority over constitutional law<br />
* the actions of the president are above the law (sexual assault, perjury, etc.)<br />
* big government spending for political ends<br />
[[User:Midian|Midian]] 12:06, 30 August 2006 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Woozle replies==<br />
I'm not sure I am understanding some of your points above. Overall, you seem to be saying that there was a similar breakaway cabal during the Clinton years, and so there should be a similar term for them. However, during the Clinton administration there was not, as far as I am aware, such a huge gap between Democratic/liberal ideals and the actual actions of elected officials in the Democratic party (including Clinton) as there is now between Republican/conservative ideals and the actual actions of elected officials in the Republican party -- especially at the very top. If I need to spell out the details of that gap, please let me know.<br />
<br />
Replies to other specific points, which may not be on target because I'm not sure what you're getting at: <br />
<br />
* The US did not invade Iraq under Clinton, and The Gulf War (we fought Iraq but did not invade) was approved by the UN. My understanding is that [[1994 Balkan Intervention|the Bosnia thing]] was also approved by the UN, went extremely well (having actually been planned beforehand), cost not a single American life, put Europe at peace for the first time in 3000 years, and greatly improved foreign impressions of America to the point where they still love Clinton over there, even after all the nonsense we've pulled under the Bush regime. Hardly the actions of a cabal. (I'm guessing that you also don't approve of Clinton's actions with regard to Haiti and Somalia, but I need more information.)<br />
* Clinton did not, as far as I am aware, ever claim that presidential authority should be above the law -- not ever, and certainly not to the extent that Bush is openly doing now.<br />
* Clinton may have abused the appeal of his rank as president for personal gain (''very'' personal -- not monetary, just sexual favors, and as far as I know he never actually abused his ''power'' as president, despite numerous Republican investigations which did not result in a single indictment), but this seems very minor compared to Bush's blatant abuses of power. (Again, let me know if I need to spell this out... much of it is on the [[George W. Bush]] page.)<br />
* As I understand it, Bush is far more guilty of "big government spending for political ends" than any previous president, much less Clinton.<br />
<br />
It seems relevant to have a term to distinguish this specific bunch of so-called conservatives from real conservatives because they really only pay lip-service to a few favorite conservative causes (gay-bashing, prayer, worshipping the flag...) without actually being conservative at heart (saving money and cutting taxes, the rule of law, not engaging in "empire-building"...). Although obviously not a conservative myself, I would take Bush Senior or even the Reagan administration over these guys; at least they were arguably sincere.<br />
<br />
Would you rather have a leader who is dishonest in his personal life, or one who is dishonest about his intentions for the country? Would you rather have a leader who can't keep his pants on, or a leader who deliberately leads his country towards disaster?<br />
<br />
== On the wrong road ==<br />
Just because Bush (43) is a horrible president doesn't make Clinton squeeky clean. Clinton's "personal life" was put on display by HIM in the White House. Sexual harassment in the workplace would get any normal businessman fired, and the company sued for millions in damages if it did not react quickly enough. Then perjuring himself during his deposition while under oath, using his position to obstruct justice. The only reason he was not impeached was the vote on party lines. To impeach the president would have given the Democrat party a black eye, so they went against the law and allowed Clinton to be above the law.<br />
<br />
Setting the precedent for the president being above the law, is it any wonder why the Republicans, with a majority in the House and Senate think they can do the same?<br />
<br />
The Democrats really shouldn't complain about the road we are on when they are the ones who took the wrong turn in the first place. I can only hope that someday we get back on the right path, but the mixed apathy and disdain of the populace for politics and politicians will prevent that from happening anytime soon. [[User:Midian|Midian]] 13:31, 1 September 2006 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Woozle replies ==<br />
Clinton was exhaustively investigated (under a conservative-led Congress) regarding several accusations, as were a number of others associated with him; this resulted in not one single conviction. He may not have been squeaky clean personally, but his professional conduct was able to withstand the most hostile scrutiny and emerge essentially unscathed.<br />
<br />
In response to other issues you raise:<br />
<br />
# How did Clinton set a precedent for the President being above the law? He did not, as I understand it, use his Presidential powers to evade investigation of any of the things of which he was accused; he apparently lied under oath, but it doesn't take Presidential powers to do that. You say he used "his position to obstruct justice"; I have heard this accusation with regard to Clinton before, but have never been clear on the [[Clinton used his position to obstruct justice|details]] (feel free to start that page).<br />
# It sounds like you are arguing that Clinton placed the presidency above the law, and therefore he was the one who "started it", and therefore it is the Democrats who "took the wrong turn in the first place". If this is the case...<br />
#* I need to see more specifics on the suggestion that [[Clinton placed the presidency above the law]]; it is a point which is [[arguable]] but far from settled.<br />
#* Even if Clinton did make the first move in this direction, GWB has taken it to an entirely different and ''much more dangerous'' level. Excusing Bush's actions on the basis of Clinton's is like one boy saying it's ok that he shot someone with a gun because another boy took it out of the drawer. Equating Bush's actions with Clinton's is similarly like equating the act of shooting with the act of taking out the gun.<br />
#* Even if you argue successfully that [[Clinton's bad behavior]] ''is'' morally equivalent to [[corruption in the Bush administration|Bush's corruption]], all you are saying is "Clinton did it first!", i.e. [[two wrongs make a right]].<br />
<br />
==Relative Moralism==<br />
That's the main problem with relative moralism. Two wrongs don't make a right, but when one wrong is redefined to be right, then a second, equal or similar wrong is just as right.<br />
<br />
President Clinton's obvious and blatant lying in court, defined as Perjury, which is illegal, was brushed aside strictly due to partisan politics, placing the president above the law. So now the line has moved, it is acceptable for the president to lie.<br />
<br />
Bush's lies can be said to be worse, or not, than Clinton's lies, but lies are lies, and now the president is allowed to lie as he or she wishes due to precedent (the basis of most of our legal system).<br />
<br />
== Moral relativism? Not unless you're a hardline absolutist... ==<br />
<br />
Nobody said &ndash; or, at least, I am not arguing &ndash; that Clinton's actions were "right". I am mainly saying that Bush's are of a far worse and more serious level of badness.<br />
<br />
Clinton's mistakes (correct me if I'm leaving anything out) were:<br />
* mismanagement of his personal life, in a highly unprofessional way<br />
* allowing said mismanagement to become public<br />
* lying about what happened<br />
<br />
The first two parts were mainly harmful to himself. You could say "adultery is wrong", and his adulterous actions therefore harmed society, and I wouldn't disagree with you &ndash; but I would also argue that the harm is a drop in the bucket, and could have been overlooked if he had been honest and apologetic from the first.<br />
<br />
The lying, however, I would agree with you (if I'm understanding you correctly), was of more significant harm to society as a whole. It reduced people's trust in the office of the president (which hasn't been all that great for at least the past decade or two) and opened the door for presidential lying to be brushed off more casually.<br />
<br />
I think it's quite unfair to say that he "placed himself above the law", however. There were countless inquiries into the matter, and ''whether or not he told the truth during the proceedings, he surely acknowledged the validity of those proceedings, and the laws supporting them, by responding and appearing as requested to answer charges''. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall him ever saying "I don't think The President of the United States should have to answer this sort of question."<br />
<br />
Furthermore, I can understand (at least a little) someone in Clinton's position &ndash; having made an embarrassing personal blunder and wanting not to look like an idiot &ndash; panicking under pressure and trying to pretend it didn't happen. What I can't understand is someone in Bush's position, where the issue was not personal at all but a matter of policy. Lying to the American people in order to rush into a war which should have been carefully planned is ''calculated deception''. Courts generally make a distinction between impulse crimes and calculated crimes; [[Bush's lies]] are impersonal, calculated, and without remorse. Clinton apologized, when the truth finally came out; where are Bush's admissions and apologies? Where does he even openly and honestly address the questions, if he truly believes what he says?<br />
<br />
Also, mainly for the sake of accuracy: the history of presidential lying goes back long before Clinton. Take Nixon, for example, though I'm sure he wasn't the first. '''Not that this makes it okay'''; I just don't think Clinton deserves to be the poster-boy for presidential immorality.<br />
<br />
My argument is based on on a matter of degree; I ''suppose'' you could call that [[wikipedia:moral relativism|moral relativism]], but it seems more like "being sensible" to me. If you allow for ''no'' degrees of badness in lying ("lies are lies"), then would you also say that jaywalking on a Sunday afternoon is as bad as a liquor-store holdup because "crime is crime"? Precedent may be the basis of much of our legal system, but our legal system also does take ''severity'' into account (hence different sentences for different crimes). And if "lies are lies", then shouldn't Bush be impeached as well? Or are the new presidential standards supposedly set by Clinton acceptable to you?<br />
<br />
--[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] 19:40, 13 September 2006 (EDT)<br />
<br />
'''Addendum''': by saying that the formal decision not to charge Clinton with perjury was somehow placing the president above the law, by a body (the Senate) which was at that time a Republican majority and included 10 Republicans who voted against the indictment, is a charge against the formal political process, not against Clinton, and overall seems indefensible. There was a trial; all the facts came out; a lot of senators voted to indict, but not enough agreed that it was necessary. --[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] 10:45, 9 November 2006 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Response ==<br />
When is one lie 'far worse and more serious level of badness' than another? When said under oath knowing the lie is a falsehood? Or when said to the public in open discussion when actually believing the lie to the be the truth based on the information given?<br />
<br />
You characterize his actions as 'mismanagement of his personal life, in a highly unprofessional way', when the fact is he knowingly, willingly, and repeatedly performed sexual harassment in the workplace while on the taxpayers dime. Any other business owner would have been sued for millions.<br />
<br />
When you perform your misdeeds in the office to which you have been entrusted, it isn't about 'allowing said mismanagement to become public' but about doing things that would get any other person fired, at least, in a PUBLIC place, making them the public's business from the start.<br />
<br />
He didn't just '[lie] about what happened', he perjured himself while under oath. There is a world of difference. And being allowed to perjure himself under oath, a felony if I recall correctly, without any repurcussions, puts him, and the office of the President above the law.<br />
<br />
I don't even care about his personal life, that he committed adultery. I believe Gary Hart would have made a great president, yet he also committed adultery. What is truly personal can and should be kept so. It was no longer personal when he performed his actions in OUR office on OUR dime.<br />
<br />
Quite a few times Clinton did indeed try to use the office of President to get himself out of trouble because the lawsuits (Paula Jones sexual harassment, Whitewater land scandal) would, in his words, 'distract him from performing his duties.'<br />
<br />
Personally, a lie is a lie. Equating jaywalking to armed robbery is way out of the park. A falsehood by anyone for any reason is a sign of disrespect, distrust, and destroys the fabric on which trust is built. Clinton is not the first president to lie, nor will Bush be the last, but that doesn't make either one acceptable.<br />
<br />
The ongoing war in Iraq is a completely seperate topic but suffice it to say the US was 'damned if we do, damned if we don't.' It was a botched action from the start, but the quality of the intelligence given the Bush about WMD has been gone over and over and I truly believe he thought he would find them.<br />
<br />
Clinton was impeached for Obstruction of Justice, including, but not limited to, perjuring himself under oath. Bush's "lies" to the public, whether knowingly or misinformed, are neither perjury nor obsctruction of justice. Besides, impeaching Bush would make Cheney president. While I'm not a big fan of Bush, the thought of Cheney as president terrifies me.<br />
<br />
== Woozle responds ==<br />
<br />
I think we need to check up on some details:<br />
* Is there a specific law against adultery, in Washington DC? (I presume there isn't a federal law.)<br />
* Is the President in some way immune from prosecution under such law, due to his office or due to being a federal official? I have a vague memory that the President has some special immunities, but I wasn't able to find any information about this.<br />
<br />
Now, to your comments...<br />
{{quoteon}}When is one lie 'far worse and more serious level of badness' than another? When said under oath knowing the lie is a falsehood? Or when said to the public in open discussion when actually believing the lie to the be the truth based on the information given?<br />
{{quoteoff}}<br />
<br />
First: I would tentatively suggest that public officials should ''always'' be considered to be speaking under oath whenever they are speaking on the record. (I can imagine exceptions under certain circumstances, but I'm not aware of any in either Clinton's or Bush's case.)<br />
<br />
This reduces the question to "When is a lie worse: when the speaker knows that it is a lie, or when the speaker believes it is true?"<br />
<br />
If the speaker honestly believes what he is saying, then it's not a lie. The answer to your question, then, is that it is obviously much worse when the speaker knows he is lying. It seems undeniable that this was, in fact, the case with Clinton, so I think we can agree up to that point.<br />
<br />
The evidence about whether or not Bush knew he was lying is not all in yet, but there is certainly a fair amount to indicate that he did &ndash; and there are [[Bush's lies|multiple incidents]] to examine; we're not just talking about WMDs and Iraq. I have recorded at least two examples of where he made a big, splashy, forward-looking statement in public one day, and then very soon afterward (the ''next day'' in some cases) said something else which made it clear he hadn't really meant the original statement at all and was in fact working against it.<br />
<br />
Next: I would also think that in the second case (he thought he was telling the truth), it would be understood that when the truth turns out to be different, the speaker should admit his error and deal with the consequences. I don't know that Bush has ever admitted error; he has generally changed the subject or ignored the question. He knows what's best for America, and he's not interested in anyone else's opinion, except maybe that of his close circle of advisors.<br />
<br />
So, summary: (1) it's not at all settled that Bush thought he was telling the truth; (2) Bush doesn't really seem to be interested in discovering or disseminating the truth &ndash; only in getting his way, toward which end he feels entirely justified in bending, concealing, or completely reinventing the truth.<br />
{{quoteon}}You characterize his actions as 'mismanagement of his personal life, in a highly unprofessional way', when the fact is he knowingly, willingly, and repeatedly performed sexual harassment in the workplace while on the taxpayers dime. Any other business owner would have been sued for millions.<br />
<br />
When you perform your misdeeds in the office to which you have been entrusted, it isn't about 'allowing said mismanagement to become public' but about doing things that would get any other person fired, at least, in a PUBLIC place, making them the public's business from the start.<br />
{{quoteoff}}<br />
<br />
Do you have examples of this from the business world? (You may be right; I'm just looking for particulars against which to measure Clinton's behavior and subsequent treatment.)<br />
{{quoteon}}He didn't just '[lie] about what happened', he perjured himself while under oath. There is a world of difference. And being allowed to perjure himself under oath, a felony if I recall correctly, without any repurcussions, puts him, and the office of the President above the law.<br />
{{quoteoff}}<br />
By "lying about what happened", I was referring to lying under oath; as I said above, I don't really see a whole lot of difference between lying under oath and merely lying on the record, at least if you're a government official. Yes, that goes on the list of [[Clinton's bad behavior]].<br />
<br />
{{quoteon}}I don't even care about his personal life, that he committed adultery. I believe Gary Hart would have made a great president, yet he also committed adultery. What is truly personal can and should be kept so. It was no longer personal when he performed his actions in OUR office on OUR dime.<br />
{{quoteoff}}<br />
<br />
What I understand you to be saying here is that all the prior accusations of adultery essentially don't matter; what does matter is:<br />
* those which he committed while in office (US President or Arkansas Governor)<br />
* the occasions on which he lied (about the aforementioned) while in office<br />
<br />
{{quoteon}}Quite a few times Clinton did indeed try to use the office of President to get himself out of trouble because the lawsuits (Paula Jones sexual harassment, Whitewater land scandal) would, in his words, 'distract him from performing his duties.'<br />
{{quoteoff}}<br />
<br />
How is that excuse unique to the office of the President? Couldn't any official (government or business) use the same excuse? (It's certainly a lame excuse, no argument there.)<br />
<br />
{{quoteon}}Personally, a lie is a lie. Equating jaywalking to armed robbery is way out of the park. A falsehood by anyone for any reason is a sign of disrespect, distrust, and destroys the fabric on which trust is built. Clinton is not the first president to lie, nor will Bush be the last, but that doesn't make either one acceptable.<br />
{{quoteoff}}<br />
In an ideal world, I would agree completely about acceptability. Few and far between, sadly, are the politicians whose behavior I would even begin to consider "acceptable". In the imperfect world we have, though, where we must often choose the lesser of two evils, I would rather have a leader who is careless with his personal life than a leader who is [[Bush's elevation of presidential power|careless (at best) with his duty to guard the Constitution]]. I would rather have a leader who lies (under oath or not) about his personal life than one who lies about his true motives and intentions.<br />
<br />
Why is it that jaywalking (a crime) is not remotely comparable to armed robbery (also a crime), but all lies are equally bad? (I mean, you're entitled to your opinion, and not all opinions can be defended on purely logical grounds, but is there more that I should understand here?)<br />
<br />
{{quoteon}}The ongoing war in Iraq is a completely seperate topic but suffice it to say the US was 'damned if we do, damned if we don't.' It was a botched action from the start, but the quality of the intelligence given the Bush about WMD has been gone over and over and I truly believe he thought he would find them.<br />
<br />
Clinton was impeached for Obstruction of Justice, including, but not limited to, perjuring himself under oath. Bush's "lies" to the public, whether knowingly or misinformed, are neither perjury nor obsctruction of justice. Besides, impeaching Bush would make Cheney president. While I'm not a big fan of Bush, the thought of Cheney as president terrifies me.<br />
{{quoteoff}}<br />
<br />
"Damned if we do, damned if we don't": I'll agree that Saddam (and the Taliban, though not directly related to each other) needed to be dealt with. There were, however, much better, more effective ways we could have done both of those things, ways in which they could have been done ''without'' coming in with guns blazing and playing the Global Bully to the hilt (which, IMHO, is exactly what the planners of [[9/11]] wanted) and thus turning the Islamic world even more against us. It didn't need to be an emergency, and we ''could have been'' the rescuing heroes the Bush administration claims we are, and that we know we ''are capable'' of being &ndash; if we had been given the ''real'' reasons for doing it, time to convince the rest of the world of the rightness of our cause (which would have been truly just, instead of being a lie trumped up to get people lined up quickly), time to build a coalition, time to gather that accurate intelligence we may have lacked (and to gather more), time for the military strategists to create a set of well-designed plans, and time to get all the players in place before committing to act.<br />
<br />
We didn't have quality intelligence? WTF were we doing going into battle, then? We were told Saddam was a madman sitting on WMDs &ndash; is that the time to go in with sticks and whack the hornet's nest? (These were my thoughts way back when the invasion of Iraq was still being sold to us, and I haven't had any reason to think differently.) It seems to me we were extremely lucky that Saddam turned out ''not'' to have WMDs after all; who knows what a crazed dictator, backed into a corner, might have done with them?<br />
<br />
Amen on Cheney.<br />
<br />
== Midian Responds ==<br />
* Always Under Oath: While politicians are acting on behalf of their constituents and should uphold a certain level of decency, holding them "always under oath" is unrealistic. They are but human, like the rest of us, and don't always have a speech prepared. Things are said that not only change over time ("We are not in Haiti." "We are in Haiti but only as peacekeepers." "We are fighting in Haiti.") but that full knowledge is not always available, or even simply misspeaking.<br />
* Admitting Error: First, not everyone has the intestinal fortitude to admit when they've made a mistake. Second, admition of mistakes can, and does, have impact on relations with others. It can make one look weak, and while the facts do get out and everyone learns of mistakes, one's leader should not under every circumstance admit failure of intelligence, knowledge, or planning. As a ficticious example: "Our fighters were in the air within 10 minutes." when in actuality they weren't in the air for over 2 hours due to redtape and improper communication and authorization. Should the President admit he was mistaken, detailing how weak and delayed our defenses are?<br />
* Adultery illegal in DC: Washington, DC http://laws.findlaw.com/DC/975333a.html & http://laws.findlaw.com/US/509/688.html "if the crime of adultery with which he was charged was included in the crime of unlawful cohabitation for which he was convicted and punished, that question is now to be considered, 131 U.S., at 185 (emphasis added)), from its legal analysis, id., at 186-189, and from its repeated observations that cohabitation required proof of adultery, id., at 187, 189." ''(case is not related to Clinton but establishes that adultery seems to be a crime within the jurisdiction of D.C. &ndash;[[User:Woozle|Woozle]])''<br />
* Sexual Harassment: Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Therefore it is illegal activity. The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, an agent of the employer, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or a non-employee. The citizens of the United States, being the de facto "employers" of the President would qualify here. Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co. (settlement $3.5 million) established the first class action lawsuit over sexual harassment. Recently Bill O'Reilly was sued for $60 million for sexual harassment. In Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, Florida, and Burlington v. Ellerth, it was found that employers are liable for sexual harassment by their employees.<br />
* When and Where: It doesn't matter that Clinton was President when he commited his adultery, what matters is he did it at the "workplace" with an employee. If he had screwed around in his home on his off hours with someone who didn't work for him, that's a private matter between him and Hillary.<br />
* Lying about sexual harassment: Typical of those who do something wrong, he lied about it. Many of us do, and while it betrays trust and destroys the foundation for faith in the office, it isn't illegal. But when put on the stand and sworn to testify under oath, he perjured himself.<br />
* Lying Under Oath: President Clinton did knowingly and willing lie while under oath. Perjury by definition. There was no "right wing conspiracy" here, he did it in front of the whole country. I'm proud of those Demcrats who stood with the Republicans for the law and not party lines. The only reason he wasn't prosecuted was due to the Democrats in the senate voting on party lines, placing the office of the President above the law.<br />
* Obstruction of Justice: By perjuring himself, he was blocking the proper investigation of the case. He also tried to use his office to prevent the proper execution of justice in the Whitewater and Paula Jones court cases.<br />
* Jaywalking vs. Armed Robbery: Jaywalking puts your own person at risk. Armed robbery infringes on the rights of others to be secure in their persons and property (Amendment IV, US Constitution).<br />
* WMD: Try this example...a bully in school shoots a piece of wadded up paper with a rubber band (poison gas) at another student (the people of Iraq). The teacher (the UN) tells him to throw the rubber band away. The bully professes he did so, putting his hands behind his back and not allowing the teacher or anyone else to see. Do you know if he has the rubber band still or not? Do you know if he picked up a paperclip or more dangerous instrument (nukes) with which to use? What would you presume he has done with the rubber band? In the real world the odds are highly in favor of the bully still having both the rubber band and maybe even obtained a paperclip. Should the teacher repeatedly say "throw it away", without enforcing it in anyway (as the UN did), should we simply wait until he uses them again, harming many others, or should we take them from him preventing the harm. The idealist and objectivist in me says if we have the means to prevent harm, even at the risk of lesser harm, we should do so.<br />
<br />
== Woozle responds to Midian's points ==<br />
<br />
* '''Always under oath''': Your suggestion seems reasonable, but what it comes down to for me is this. If an elected official tells a lie or even makes a mistake when ''not'' under oath, either they are later questioned about it or they aren't. If they aren't, then it's obviously no big deal. If they are, that is their opportunity to set the record straight, and apologize for making the error. If they instead stick to their guns ''knowing'' that they are not telling the truth, then it is just as bad as lying under oath.<br />
* '''Admitting error''': I'm not quite sure what you're driving at, but:<br />
** Lack of intestinal fortitude is a serious flaw in a world leader.<br />
** Fear of looking weak is itself a weakness; it shows a greater concern for one's "image" than for being in the right. (I was under the impression that Bush is the one who doesn't care what those darn hoity-toity intellectual Europeans think about what the US does; how is this consistent with being nervous over the mere ''appearance'' of weakness?) Also, I totally don't buy the "[[we must show the terrorists that we are resolved]]!" argument; I think that's what they ''want'', and I'm planning to write more about that later. Yes, in the fictitious example you give, ''if'' the president was quizzed on that point, he should admit having gotten the figure wrong.<br />
* Ok, it seems pretty clear that it was in fact a crime within that jurisdiction; I'd like to ultimately find the wording of the law, to get some idea of what the standard punishment is (for comparison with Clinton's treatment), but thanks for finding what you found; it's a start. The particular applicable statute is probably given somewhere in the text.<br />
* '''sexual harassment''': You answered a question which I didn't ask but which follows logically from what I did ask, since sexual harassment is another thing of which Clinton was accused (it seems likely that he did in fact "crudely proposition" Paula Jones). What I gather from your notes is that there is in fact applicable federal law against sex discrimination in the form of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. A little checking shows that "In the late 1970s courts began holding that sexual harassment is also prohibited under the Act." However, this seems to apply only to employment situations, perhaps going as far as discrimination in the workplace; as far as I know, Ms. Jones was not working for Clinton. Obviously what he did ''was'' considered illegal, because of the fact that it got as far as court; probably it was an Arkansas statute, since he was in (and Governor of) Arkansas at the time of the alleged incident.<br />
* '''when and where''': The [[wikipedia:Paula Jones|Paula Jones]] thing does not seem to have occurred in what could reasonably be called the workplace; the [[wikipedia:Lewinsky scandal|Lewinsky scandal]] clearly was, however. From a quick examination of the story in Wikipedia (all I have time for at the moment), it looks like Lewinsky herself was perfectly happy to drop the whole thing, so I don't think it could be called "harassment". Hillary forgave Bill his transgressions, when others not involved forced it into the open.<br />
*: To my mind, the whole thing should have stopped there; the investigators are at least partly culpable for dragging the whole thing up and forcing Clinton into a corner where, as you say, many people would feel compelled to lie. He shouldn't have had the affair in the first place and he shouldn't have lied about it, but it was fundamentally a personal matter. Although lying under oath is probably one of the most severe forms of lying, the subject matter was ''trivial'' &ndash; stupid soap-opera stuff. (Perhaps I should start a page for analyzing the ethics of lying, as this seems to be a key point in our disagreement over Clinton vs. Bush.)<br />
* '''lying about sexual harassment''': I agree; I don't think that point is in dispute. Clinton perjured himself.<br />
* '''lying under oath''': I haven't said anything about a right-wing conspiracy, although others certainly have. There certainly plenty of evidence that members of the opposing party were looking for anything at all that they could use against him, even if it was personal and irrelevant to his ability to function as president. I wouldn't so much call that a conspiracy as I would call it Republican nature ;-)<br />
* '''obstruction of justice''': Clinton was not convicted of this, though he was impeached for it. Details:<br />
** Jones case: Clinton was convicted of "contempt of court" for misleading testimony. He settled the initial case out of court for $850,000 (paid to Jones), and then was later ordered to pay Jones an additional $91,000 for extra legal costs due to his misleading testimony. All for "crudely propositioning" someone, and then later having the bad judgement to lie about it under intense pressure. (The Republican-led senate later attempted to impeach him for two counts of perjury in the case, but the relevant article was voted down. If you want to get technical about the significance of "perjury" versus just "lying on record", then it looks like Clinton did not commit perjury in the Jones case.) Clinton was not convicted on the obstruction of justice charge; 5 Republican senators voted against it, including Arlen Specter who felt that Clinton hadn't been given a fair trial.<br />
** Lewinsky case: It's entirely possible that Clinton believed he was telling the truth due to the [http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clintonjonesperjury.html Exhibit 1] definition of "sex", which he was ''ordered to use'' as a basis for his response and which arguably excludes oral sex. The Exhibit 1 definition was never clarified, and yet Clinton was still impeached on one count of obstruction of justice and one of perjury. (The preceding is new information to me.) However, the Senate voted against (Democrats unanimous but with substantial Republican support) upholding the impeachment, with a majority voting against the perjury charge and an even split on the obstruction of justice charge (2/3 majority required for conviction). So again, he was ''not'' convicted of perjury in this case either.<br />
* '''jaywalking vs. armed robbery''': A fair distinction, and one with an applicable analogy: how many lives did Clinton's lies put at risk? How about Bush?<br />
* '''WMD''': I'm not quite following the analogy. It sounds like your argument is based on the idea that we didn't know if Saddam had WMDs or not. Certainly this was the official story, and continues to be the official story; further investigation is needed, as this seems to be another key point around which much debate is circling.<br />
<br />
== Hope this will not be here! ==<br />
<br />
I wonder if web industry affected by crisis as well? and to what extend? Will the admins continue this web?<br />
===response===<br />
Hi, look, I don't mind you posting these comments, but could you find a more relevant page to put them on? Please at least let me know that you are not a bot, else I'll go back to reverting your comments. --[[Special:Contributions/66.93.241.126|66.93.241.126]] 20:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)</div>66.93.241.126https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=2008-06-29_Nice_letter_from_a_Creationist&diff=152052008-06-29 Nice letter from a Creationist2009-02-21T22:41:39Z<p>66.93.241.126: new page from form at http://www.issuepedia.org/Issuepedia:Forms/link/news</p>
<hr />
<div><hide><br />
<let name=data index=Date>2008-06-29</let><br />
<let name=data index=Author>ERV</let><br />
<let name=data index=Source>Scienceblogs/erv</let><br />
<let name=data index=Topics>\creationism vs. science\Michael Behe</let><br />
<let name=data index=URL>http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2008/06/nice_letter_from_a_creationist.php</let><br />
<let name=data index=Title>Nice letter from a Creationist</let><br />
<let name=data index=TitlePlain>Nice letter from a Creationist</let><br />
<let name=data index=Text><blockquote><br />
<p>I encourage everyone to leave questions in the comments or send me emails if they want to know more about a topic, and I am just as happy to oblige a [[evilutionist]] as a [[Creationist]]. Especially when they're nice about it!</p><br />
<br />
<p>So I got a Q from a nice fellow a couple days ago...</p><br />
</blockquote><br />
The creationist's letter is included in full, along with ERV's response which reads in part:<br />
<blockquote><br />
While both theistic evolutionists and [[intelligent design|ID]] Creationists say their deity initiated and guided [[evolution]], ID Creationists take it a step further and proclaim they have 'proof' of exactly when and where their deity intervened. This 'proof' is composed entirely of misrepresentations of other peoples research (called '[[pubjacking]]' and '[[quote-mining]]') and arrogant claims beyond the scope of the Creationist in question. Case in point, [[Michael Behe]]. Michael Behe is not even passingly familiar with HIV-1 research, as evident by his humorous exclusion of the evolutionary history and trajectory of the HIV-1 protein, Vpu, which did precisely what Behe demanded in 'Edge'. And despite Behe's unfamiliarity with the topic, he was still arrogant enough to feel qualified to make proclamations of what HIV-1 can and cannot achieve through evolution.</blockquote></let><br />
<br />
<let name=data index=TextShort>&ldquo;I encourage everyone to leave questions in the comments or send me emails if they want to know more about a topic, and I am just as happy to oblige a [[evilutionist]] as a [[Creationist]]. Especially when they're nice about it!&rdquo;</let><br />
</hide><if not flag=including><let name=docat val=1 /><noinclude>{{:project:code/show/link}}</noinclude></if></div>66.93.241.126https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=1998-12-04_Susan_Lindauer_Deposition&diff=149571998-12-04 Susan Lindauer Deposition2009-01-18T14:00:53Z<p>66.93.241.126: new page from form at http://www.issuepedia.org/Issuepedia:Forms/link/news</p>
<hr />
<div><hide><br />
<let name=data index=Date>1998-12-04</let><br />
<let name=data index=Author>Susan Lindauer</let><br />
<let name=data index=Source>Middle East Intelligence Bulletin</let><br />
<let name=data index=Topics>\Lockerbie-PanAm bombing\Susan Lindauer\Richard Fuisz\Syria\Libya\intelligence suppression</let><br />
<let name=data index=URL>http://www.meib.org/articles/0007_me2.htm</let><br />
<let name=data index=Title>Lockerbie Trial Document: Susan Lindauer Deposition</let><br />
<let name=data index=TitlePlain>Susan Lindauer Deposition</let><br />
<let name=data index=Text><blockquote><br />
This deposition pertains to my direct and immediate knowledge of an American named Dr. [[Richard Fuisz]], and unequivocal statements by Dr. Fuisz directly to me that he has first hand knowledge about the [[Lockerbie-PanAm bombing|Lockerbie case]]. Dr. Fuisz has told me that he can identify who orchestrated and executed the bombing. Dr. Fuisz has said that he can confirm absolutely that no [[Libya]]n national was involved in planning or executing the bombing of Pan Am 103, either in any technical or advisory capacity whatsoever. He has also made direct statements to me describing harassment that he has suffered for trying to provide this information to the families of Pan Am 103 and prosecuting authorities in the United States government.<br />
</blockquote></let><br />
<br />
<let name=data index=TextShort>&ldquo;Dr. Fuisz has told me that he can identify who orchestrated and executed the bombing. Dr. Fuisz has said that he can confirm absolutely that no [[Libya]]n national was involved in planning or executing the bombing of Pan Am 103, either in any technical or advisory capacity whatsoever.&rdquo;</let><br />
</hide><if not flag=including><let name=docat val=1 /><noinclude>{{:project:code/show/link}}</noinclude></if></div>66.93.241.126https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=2008-12-12_Evangelical_Christian_missionaries_embedded_with_American_combat_troops_in_Afghanistan&diff=145252008-12-12 Evangelical Christian missionaries embedded with American combat troops in Afghanistan2008-12-19T12:09:17Z<p>66.93.241.126: new page from form at http://www.issuepedia.org/Issuepedia:Forms/link/news</p>
<hr />
<div><hide><br />
<let name=data index=Date>2008-12-12</let><br />
<let name=data index=Author></let><br />
<let name=data index=Source>Military Religious Freedom Foundation</let><br />
<let name=data index=Topics>\separation of church and state\Christianity\Afghanistan\Brad Hanna\Sheldon Hoyt</let><br />
<let name=data index=URL>http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/weekly-watch/12-12-08/travel_the_road.html</let><br />
<let name=data index=Title>Shocking video of Evangelical Christian missionaries embedded with American combat troops in Afghanistan</let><br />
<let name=data index=TitlePlain>Evangelical Christian missionaries embedded with American combat troops in Afghanistan</let><br />
<let name=data index=Text><blockquote><br />
...the missionaries were completely embedded and, thus, actually permitted to stay on U.S. military bases, travel with a public affairs unit, and accompany and film troops on patrols, all for the purpose of [[evangelizing]] Afghanis and producing a television show promoting the [[Christian]] religion. The number of DoD Public Affairs regulations violated in the military's participation and assistance in producing a religious program alone is staggering, not to mention other violations (including [[separation of church and state|constitutional]]) documented in the content of the program, which include the outrageous violation of the [[United States Central Command's General Order 1-A]], which absolutely prohibits any proselytization whatsoever in the Middle Eastern theater of operations. In complete disregard of this bedrock standing order, the U.S. Army facilitated these evangelizing Christian missionaries in their distribution of New Testaments in Dari, one of the two official languages of Afghanistan.<br />
</blockquote><br />
'''Commentary''': [http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/12/mrffs_latest_discovery.php Dispatches from the Culture Wars] (Ed Brayton), [http://entequilaesverdad.blogspot.com/2008/12/joyous-fucking-crusades.html En Tequila Es Verdad] (Dana Hunter)</let><br />
<br />
<let name=data index=TextShort>&ldquo;...the missionaries were completely embedded and, thus, actually permitted to stay on U.S. military bases, travel with a public affairs unit, and accompany and film troops on patrols, all for the purpose of evangelizing Afghanis and producing a television show promoting the [[Christian]] religion.&rdquo;</let><br />
</hide><if not flag=including><let name=docat val=1 /><noinclude>{{:project:code/show/link}}</noinclude></if></div>66.93.241.126https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=Issuepedia:Ethics_channel&diff=14524Issuepedia:Ethics channel2008-12-19T02:11:45Z<p>66.93.241.126: /* Discussions */ posted topics (9/28 and 12/18)</p>
<hr />
<div><center><big>''Building a more ethical and humane civilization &ndash; one rant at a time.&trade;''</big></center><br />
==Overview==<br />
This page is about the official [[htyp:IRC|IRC]] channel for Issuepedia: '''#ethics''' on [[squadwiki:VillageIRC|VillageIRC]].<br />
<br />
The #ethics channel is for discussion of anything relating to what's right and wrong in the things we do as individuals or as groups. This includes philosophy, politics, religion, and probably a lot of other headings.<br />
<br />
I want to work out why people believe some of the wacky things they believe &ndash; or is it ''me'' that's wacky? Show me how I'm wrong! I'll try to post a set of challenges for anyone who'd like to defend points of view that I totally don't get.<br />
===Guidelines===<br />
* #ethics is for reasonably civilized discussions of right and wrong<br />
* All Beliefs Questioned Here, including mine<br />
* If you don't want your words quoted on the wiki, please say so.<br />
* Lurking may be necessary for participation; long lulls between discussions.<br />
===A Story===<br />
Any attempt to describe this channel's underlying purpose in abstract terms seems to end up sounding extremely pretentious, so instead I'll tell a little story.<br />
<br />
Once upon a time, I lived in a small college town surrounded by miles and miles of agriculture. Although the majority of the town seemed to be liberally-oriented, its position in the middle of this agrarian wilderness &ndash; combined with the fact that much of the liberal population was transient and seasonal &ndash; meant that there was a very entrenched conservative vein in the town, especially among those who actually owned most of the property and resources.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, due to this town's position in the middle of the Bible Belt, the conservative vein was also generally of the Bible-thumping variety known for its rants against homosexuality and evolution as being the twin pillars of salt sent by Satan to undermine our God-fearing fear of God's righteous wrath and other family-centered underpinnings of these here United Christian States of America.<br />
<br />
As a result of this conflict (often expressed heatedly in letters-to-the-editor of the local paper) I wanted to find a way for people with completely different viewpoints to get together and figure out the root causes of their disagreements.<br />
<br />
Well, that didn't work out.<br />
<br />
But then many years later, IRC and wikis were invented.<br />
<br />
And then not long after that, [[George W. Bush]] got elected. And then about 4 years later he got re-elected, so I started [[Issuepedia]]. And finally, not long after ''that'', I realized that there needed to be a place for Issuepedians to interact with each other in real-time, so I started the #politics channel. And not long after ''that'', I realized that this wasn't a good name, as it tended to scare people off; eventually I came up with #ethics as being a somewhat better (and less scary) name for what I wanted the channel to be about.<br />
===Discussions===<br />
Notes on various #ethics channel topics can be linked from here:<br />
* [[2007-12-16 ethics chat]] mainly on the topic of the [[Federal Reserve]]<br />
* [[Issuepedia:Ethics channel/religion|religion]]<br />
===Posted Topics===<br />
* '''2008-12-18''': [[Conservative]]s have rules; [[liberal]]s have principles. This is the essential difference between the two.<br />
* '''2008-09-28''': Humanity is not innately warlike.<br />
<br />
==Use of Content==<br />
Anything posted in the #ethics channel should be considered copyable elsewhere (and released under the [[GNU FDL]], the same as Issuepedia); if anyone joining the channel does not wish their words to be quoted, or would like to be anonymized, please PM me (usually TheWoozle) in IRC and we will work something out.<br />
==Related channels==<br />
* There is also a '''#religion''' channel on [[Squadwiki:VillageIRC|VillageIRC]], but unlike '''#ethics''' it is intended for discussion of religion itself rather than analyses of religion's purpose or value.<br />
* For casual chat among geeks, there are the SluggySquad channels: see the [[squadwiki:SquadWiki:Community Portal|SquadWiki Community Portal]].</div>66.93.241.126https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=Anti-Darwinism&diff=10029Anti-Darwinism2008-04-10T15:22:10Z<p>66.93.241.126: rewrite of intro for better form; prominent anti-Darwinists</p>
<hr />
<div>==Overview==<br />
The term [[anti-Darwinism]] refers to the position or belief that [[Darwinism]] (which holds that the [[scientific theory]] of [[evolution by natural selection]] (EbNS) is the best explanation for the available evidence) is in error, and is held by a number of [[religious]] groups who seek to supplant the teaching of EbNS in schools with the [[Biblical]]ly-based doctrine of [[creationism]] (often in one disguise or another). [[Darwinism]] has been under attack by these groups since it was first elaborated, and the attacks have become especially focused since approximately the early 1980s (although mainly in the {{USA}}).<br />
<br />
EbNS has mountains of evidence in its support and reflects the overwhelming [[scientific consensus]] on the question of species origin, and hence is entirely appropriate for a [[science]] class. Creationism has little or no evidence in its support and is in complete disagreement with the scientific consensus, and hence is completely inappropriate for a science class.<br />
<br />
When early attempts to introduce creationism into American [[science]] classes failed in the 1980s due to the religious nature of the teachings and the American legal [[separation of church and state]] (Separation) which forbids teaching of [[religion]] in public schools, the anti-Darwinists next mounted a two-sided strategy by both attacking the validity of Separation while also stripping the overt religious references out of creationist doctrine and thereby creating [[intelligent design]] (ID).<br />
<br />
The ID attack failed spectacularly in a 2006(?) court decision in Dover, PA; since then, the anti-Darwinists have continued their attacks on Separation while also promoting efforts to "[[teach the controversy]]" in science classes. They have also been trying, often via blatant propaganda such as the 2008 film ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'', to spread the idea that the [[scientific establishment]] is unfairly "expelling" and suppressing any alternative theories without a fair hearing, rather than simply finding the alternatives so far proposed (i.e. [[creationism]] and [[intelligent design]]) ridiculous and nonsensical (as is the case).<br />
<br />
In general, anti-Darwinists do not seem to have any qualms about making up convenient details or even blatantly lying in order to advance their cause, which seems to be the universal [[theocracy|rule]] of a particular brand of [[Christianity]] whose details are slowly coming to light (possibly [[Dominionism]] or something like it).<br />
==Prominent Anti-Darwinists==<br />
* [[Ben Stein]], entertainer and speechwriter (see ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'')<br />
* [[Michael Behe]]<br />
* [[Roy Spencer]] ({{wikipedia|Roy Spencer}}), also disbelieves [[global warming]]<br />
==Links==<br />
===Video===<br />
* [[youtube:eaGgpGLxLQw|Richard Dawkins - Beware the Believers]]: animated rap video in support of the "expulsion" propaganda. The video stars the animated heads of [[Richard Dawkins]], biologist [[PZ Myers]], philosopher [[Daniel Dennett]], and other prominent [[Darwinist]]s as well as that of [[Charles Darwin]] himself. Rather than suppressing this video, however, Darwinists have generally been spreading it as it tends to come across as a rather amusing parody of the narrow-minded and ignorant nature of the anti-Darwinists rather than a serious attack on Darwinism. PZ Myers (who is featured prominently as a backup <s>singer</s>rapper) [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/if_you_heard_my_voice_you_know.php posted it] on [[his blog|Pharyngula]] and it was even played at the Oregon evo-devo symposium Myers attended [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/a_few_random_thoughts_as_i_hea.php].</div>66.93.241.126https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=2008-04-06_Lord_Lawson_claims_climate_change_hysteria_heralds_a_new_age_of_unreason&diff=100262008-04-06 Lord Lawson claims climate change hysteria heralds a new age of unreason2008-04-10T14:55:23Z<p>66.93.241.126: new page from form at http://www.issuepedia.org/Issuepedia:Filing_Room/filing_forms</p>
<hr />
<div><noinclude>[[category:data.links]]</noinclude>{{#vardefine:keylist|}}{{data.pair|Date|2008-04-06}}<br />
{{data.pair|Topics|\arguments against global warming\Lord Lawson\telegraph.co.uk/articles\Christopher booker}}<br />
{{data.pair|URL|2=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/06/ealawson106.xml}}<br />
{{data.pair|Title|Lord Lawson claims climate change hysteria heralds a 'new age of unreason'}}<br />
{{data.pair|Text|&ldquo;On the other hand, global temperatures, after flattening out, have in recent months shown a sharp fall, wholly unpredicted by those computer models on which the proponents of [[global warming|warming]] orthodoxy rely. This raises rather large question marks over whether the theory has actually got it right.&rdquo; The article does not provide any links to the data in question, however, so it is not clear if this claim is sheer invention or based on actual data. It seems unlikely that a few months of falling temperatures would be statistically significant; the fact that this data is being treated as conclusive proof of the fallaciousness of GW smacks more of [[global warming denial]] than of genuine analysis. Also, GW proponents do not "rely" on "computer models" in order to unambiguously detect GW; it's a clear trend in the data. ''Move this to "denial" only when a definitive counterargument is found, however.''}}<noinclude><br />
{{data.link.footer}}<br />
</noinclude></div>66.93.241.126https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=2007-09-07_Markos_(Kos)_Getting_Bashed_For_the_Left_Gatekeeper_he_is&diff=97422007-09-07 Markos (Kos) Getting Bashed For the Left Gatekeeper he is2008-03-09T17:17:35Z<p>66.93.241.126: new page from form at http://www.issuepedia.org/Issuepedia:Filing_Room/filing_forms</p>
<hr />
<div><noinclude>[[category:data.links]]</noinclude>{{#vardefine:keylist|}}{{data.pair|Date|2007-09-07}}<br />
{{data.pair|Topics|\Markos Zuniga\DailyKos\left gatekeepers\CIA}}<br />
{{data.pair|URL|2=http://progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=196&topic_id=5821}}<br />
{{data.pair|Title|Markos (Kos) Getting Bashed For the Left Gatekeeper he is}}<br />
{{data.pair|Text|forum posting with replies quoting related news articles etc.}}<noinclude><br />
{{data.link.footer}}<br />
</noinclude></div>66.93.241.126https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=2007_WGA_strike&diff=92852007 WGA strike2008-01-09T01:40:46Z<p>66.93.241.126: /* Links */ filed links section</p>
<hr />
<div>==Overview==<br />
[[category:events]]The [[2007 WGA strike]] is a [[strike action]] of the [[Writers Guild of America]], both East and West divisions, which began on 2007-11-05 and is ongoing as of this writing (January 2008).{{seed}}<br />
===Commentary===<br />
At least one aspect of the strike ventures into ironic territory. One of the core issues is that the writers want to receive a more equitable share of residuals from sales of DVDs, internet downloads, and other new media; while the movie industry does not want to deliver this share, it (and the [[media industry]] in general, especially the [[music industry]]) has also been vigorously attempting to impose increasingly stiff [[copy protection|restrictions on copying]] and [[fair use|reuse]] of content delivered through these media, all in the name of ''protecting the creators' rights''.<br />
==Links==<br />
===Reference===<br />
* {{wikipedia|2007–08 Writers Guild of America strike}}<br />
===Projects===<br />
* [http://unitedhollywood.blogspot.com/ United Hollywood blog]<br />
** [http://www.nowlive.com/comboplayer/NewComboPlayer.aspx?id=50649 chat room] (web-based)<br />
===Filed Links===<br />
{{links.tagged}}</div>66.93.241.126https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=2001-09-26_We_Must_Retaliate&diff=89542001-09-26 We Must Retaliate2007-12-10T00:16:00Z<p>66.93.241.126: new page from form at http://issuepedia.org/Snippets</p>
<hr />
<div><noinclude>[[category:data.links]]</noinclude>{{#vardefine:keylist|}}{{data.pair|Date|2001-09-26}}<br />
{{data.pair|Topics|\9/11\humor}}<br />
{{data.pair|URL|2=http://www.theonion.com/content/node/34153}}<br />
{{data.pair|Title|We Must Retaliate: Blind Rage or Measured, Focused Rage?}}<br />
{{data.pair|Text|Two opinions: &ldquo;It is clear to me, as it should be to all Americans, what our nation must do: Retaliate with blind, violent rage, striking back with a fury and vengeance the likes of which modern man has never seen.&rdquo; versus &ldquo;Rather than be blinded by our collective anger, we must keep a cool head and, after careful consideration of the many complex social and geopolitical factors at work here, annihilate the pieces of shit who did this with measured, focused rage.&rdquo; Satire, though it sounds an awful lot like real life.}}<noinclude><br />
{{data.link.footer}}<br />
</noinclude></div>66.93.241.126