Juan Cole: What's the difference between Palin and jihadists? Lipstick

The book she reads...has this in it.......Matthew 5:43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect

"What is the difference between Palin and a Muslim fundamentalist? Lipstick."

What is the difference between Palin and a Muslim fundamentalist? Lipstick and A Thousand Years of Civility.

Juan makes a few good points on Iraq here and there, but he jumped the shark off the cliff on this topic.

What else could one expect from Juan Cole? He teaches Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Michigan, the land of Dearbornistan?

If Palin is anything like the islamic mindset aka binladen and co. her daughter would of been killed to keep honour in the family.
Here we have leftist values which is more like a death cult like islam, compared to the real Christians who value all life, even to those unborn and with Downs Syndrome! Palin has given life to McCain ticket, she has more experience in most things than the Obama ticket. She has real executive experience as compared to "community whatever" that NObama has and she is not running for president!

Cole needs an attitude adjustment.

Palin makes liberals panicky. McCain threw a curve ball at them with the selection of Palin. Pumping up the slime level is the only way they know how to handle it.

Maybe tenure isn't such a good idea after all.

Among the signs of growing hysteria in some quarters is a list, supposedly of books that Sarah Palin supposedly wanted to "censor" while Mayor of Wasilla, that is being breathlessly circulated. The list includes, inter alia, the dictionary, and that well-known left-wing classic, "A Day In the Life of Ivan Denisovich." The rest of the list is a similar hodge-podge the contents of which ought to have aroused skepticism – is that still permitted, these days? A little skepticism, about all kinds of assertions? -- . I have read as much as I could stand reading about this subject of Palin the Censor or Vlad the Impaler or Sinbad the Sailer, and find no evidence that there ever was such a "list of books to be censored." But what surprises is the sheer loss of common sense, the display of conspiracy theories, and nuttiness, by those who have whipped themselves up and, having convinced themselves of the Article of Faith that Sarah Palin is a would-be Goebbels, and there are all kinds of Nuremberg Rallies yet to come, and It Can Happen Hear (if there is a Cult of Personality in this race, the first place that comes to mind where it might be found is not on the Republican side).

Among the signs of growing whipped-up nuttiness in some quarters is a circulating list, which is sent around and described as the “list” of books that Sarah Palin supposedly wanted to "censor” on, presumably, ideological grounds (and not, for example, that such books contained too much “violence” for, say, young readers). " The list is self-evidently silly, for it includes, among the list of good, not good, and downright crappy books, the dictionary – ban that! – and that well-known left-wing classic, "A Day In the Life of Ivan Denisovich." The rest is a similar hodge-podge. I have read as much as I could stand reading about this subject—as I did about her non-existent support for that hideous man Buchanan, un petit poujadiste -- and find no evidence that there existed such a "list of books to be censored." The sheer wildness and hysteria of the charges and atmospherics around the charges, on the part of those who find Palin an incipient Goebbels or perhaps even Mr. Hitler himself, lead one to reach, not for a glass of gin (to forget the idiocy), or a gun (to remove the source of the idiocy), but rather, for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association, in order to better comprehend the idiocy.

Yes, if you want to understand what prompts the behavior of those who foam at the mouth when the subject of Sarah Palin comes up, that’s just the book for you.

Cole provides a new definition to the word "reaching."

"...Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association..."

Great Scott, Hugh! Do you know how much that thing costs at Barnes and Noble?

Newsweek has just published a surprising rebuttal piece distancing itself from the nasty splooge campaign against candidate Sarah Palin.

"We've been flooded for the past few days with queries about dubious Internet postings and mass e-mail messages making claims about McCain's running mate, Gov. Palin. We find that many are completely false, or misleading."

As Robert is wont to say, "Read it all.

Juan Cole: What's the difference between Palin and jihadists? Lipstick (Article)

Only a complete moron could come to Jaun Cole's conclusion. Have our schools really deteriorated so much as to allow Jaun Cole to get through?

It reminds me of Linda Blair in The Exorcist. Show them anything holy or true and they vomit green slime.

"Cole needs an attitude adjustment.

Palin makes liberals panicky."
-- from a posting above

1. Juan Cole is not a "liberal" but a red-winged fascist.

2. I am a "liberal."* And Sarah Palin does not make me panicky. She appears to have helped McCain, and whether or not, if he wins, she were to become more than an emblematic, though hardly enigmatic, trophy vice-president, will depend on what she knows, and how quick a study she proves, and that remains to be seen.
__________________________________

* My definition of a "liberal" in the American context:

Someone who would have had no trouble voting for Theodore Roosevelt (McCain's declared hero, who not only was the first president to protect the environment, as a friend of Gifford Pinchot, and an admirer of John Muir and John Burroughs but also inveighed against the "malefactors of great wealth"), FDR in the conditions that the country found itself in in 1933, Fiorello La Guardia, Adlai Stevenson, Millicent Fenwick (a silk-stocking French-speaking Republican "liberal"), Henry Jackson, and many others in both parties who were "liberals" before that word lost its original meaning (in this national context), and started to be applied -- often by so-called "conservatives" whose "conservatism" consisted of a deep marxist belief in economic success as the key to man's happiness, which in turn led them to be defenders of unchecked economic activity as a good in itself, and of economic privilege beyond all reason, or need, or justice -- to all kinds of other people, including (or at least the poster above includes) such people as Juan Cole, who is a comic blend of academic careerism, mental ressentiment (he's not terribly intelligent), and petit-bourgeois fascism, which may explain his fascination with Islam, a collectivist faith that has so much in common, as a Total System never to be questioned by its adherents, with Fascism, a fascism that in the case of John (later appearing as "Juan") Cole masquerades as a "hatred of fascism."

anybody who says that we have leaders (of both sides) like Osama, do not have sense.

Clowns like Juan Cole prove that dim-witted sophistry is often as difficult to combat as clever sophistry.
Didn't Plato say something about avoiding debates with stupid people because you can only lower to their level, where they have much experience and will win, but they cannot raise to yours?

By his own behaviour, it is no clear that there is a total equivallence between Juan Cole's propaganda methods and Goebbels' propaganda methods and Osama Ben Laden's propaganda methods: lying, lying and lying.

One example of the World-Is-Coming-To-An-End-If-We-Don't-Elect-Obama hysteria crossed my computer today. Someone, the writer wife of a writer husband, was seeking signed books for an auction to raise money, that is to raise still more money for the best-heeled candidate -- Barack Obama -- and most fantastically funded campaign in world history, that of Barack Obama. Why did she feel the need? Well, because Obama, as we all know, decided to leave the high-minded road once ostentatiously taken, and to reject public financing on the assumption that the tens and hundreds of millions would still flow in, even after all that he has received and spent.

The request for money was accompanied by this tossed-off in-the-middle-of-a-sentence remark: "But since the world is going to come to a fucking end if Obama doesn't get elected..." How casual, how taken for granted, the semi-hysteria of that remark.

A mad world, my masters!

Actually, Mr. Cole, I think the difference is that in 10 years, Palin would have her youngest in a special needs classroom somewhere, while the jihadists would be instructing him in the finer points of suicide bombing.

From above: 2. I am a "liberal."* And Sarah Palin does not make me panicky.

Glad to hear your not panicked...Other liberals are...

I didn't say Cole was a liberal. I don't know what he is, and I don't really care...

I won't bother giving you my definition of 'liberal', I am sure you would not like it...

But then, maybe you are not an 'average' liberal.

You are certainly not average when it comes to
knowledge of Islam, which I appreciate.

In terms of politics and social issues, I have my own, and some of them may conflict with yours...Sorry about that...

This is another sign of the growing hysteria and shall I say desperation of the left.Bill O'Reilly interviewed an Obama supporter and asked him if the left knows that every time they attack Palin more people decide to vote for McCain.The latest news is that women and independents are deserting Obama and now he's having trouble raising money after breaking his promise to take public campaign financing.

Kirsten Powers a liberal Dem has a column in today's NY Post about the stupidity of the Obama campaign and their allies attacking Palin.She noted that the McCain campaign has lured Obama into comparing his experience with Palin's.Which only works to diminish Obama. Palin is the one who's run a business, a city, a state and been commander in chief. Obama has done none of those things.He's also never shown the political courage of Sarah Palin. It was Palin who stopped the "bridge to nowhere" while Obama and Biden voted for it TWICE...lol.

"What is the difference between Palin and a Muslim fundamentalist? Lipstick."

Yes, I suppose that lipstick is one difference. Although it is possible that Osama Bin Laden is also a drag queen. But the biggest difference that I've noticed is that thousands of innocent people have been murdered by one of them.

Sounds like Juan Cole should be given a chair to sit in right between Alan Colmes and Keith Olberman. Then all three could spew their stupidity simultaneously.

So Hugh is a self-declared liberal. Why is that not surprising?

Max Publius-
"Didn't Plato say something about avoiding debates with stupid people because you can only lower to their level, where they have much experience and will win, but they cannot raise to yours?"
That is SO true!

It's the old "Christians are just as bad or worse" syndrome.
Half the people in this country have lost their minds concerning this subject. Although I know at least 4 "Yellow Dog Democrats" who will vote for McCain this time.

The Left is panicking over Palin in real bad way, they've now launched a full scale assault in response on her in the MSM, Hollywood and the liberal internet blogs.

Juan is just the latest liberal to join the Palin jihad. The problem is that almost no one reads him who isn't a liberal kool-aid drinker.

That said, Juan baby was never all there, he let his pro-Islamic, American hating views make a ass out of himself numerous times.

Such as portraying Sistani as a moderate and reformer and covering up his hatred of the west and infidels.

This is also the same man who made numerous excuses why the Gulf states gave so little to the quake victims of Indonesia and Pakistan. Basically its our fault the Muslims don't help one another was his argument.

At the end of the day, he's the last person you'd want to get a informed view of the middle-east or American politics.

I suggest they match America's favorite Hockey Mom in a no-holds barred one-on-one game of ice hockey. Osama is probably a wimp without his lackeys; most bullies are.

I suspect Hugh is a "classical liberal", folks; not a "liberal" as in contemporary definitions.

He certainly has Marxism's & socialism's number, something you won't see with those generally thought of as "liberals".

2. I am a "liberal."*

Posted by: Hugh

The only Marx that FDR liberals knew was Groucho and Harpo. Could that be the difference between the old and the new liberal.

I would never have self-identified or self-declared myself as anything -- I'm not, like Obama, "searching for my identity" not even my "political identity" save as to two things: 1) I'm an American citizen and 2) I'm a native speaker of English, had I not been intent on tipping over some ideological applecarts. I can be very destructive during recess.

I wanted to take issue with assumptions, with the of the dismissive and reductive way in which such words as "liberal" and "conservative" are flung about in this apparently world-without-end idiotic batrachomyomachia that mass democracy, combined with near-universal access to the Internet and an eagerness to "have one's say," has led to. Those who cannot figure out, from the guiding-light list I offered -- Presidents TR and FDR, Mayor La Guardia, presidential candidate Stevenson, Representative Fenwick, Senator Jackson -- what that word means or likely means in my lexicon need to brush up not their Shakespeare but rather their Hobbes, their Locke, their Hume, their Mill, their Jefferson and John Quincy Adams and Lincoln, their Thoreau, their Mark Twain, their William James, their Berdyaev, their Ortega, their Barzun.

But why don't we just all agree not to be idiotic about overuse or misuse of these labels? Wouldn't that be a less lazy, more intelligent way to proceed?

I think there is a larger cultural struggle going on that is being missed amidst all the atmospherics of this campaign. Sarah Palin taps right into that segment of American society that has, in recent years, been run roughshod over by our political and mainstream cultural establishment. It is a group that values those very attributes we see extolled every day in this forum, but who got trashed by the MSM starting the instant McCain picked her as VP. Her acceptance speech at the RNC was largely a response to the scurrilous attacks on her that had sprung up over the previous five days. The MSM was taken aback by this, hence their shocked and pathetic response, which was little more than "Mom, she hit back!"

With regard to the war against encroachments of Islam into the West, there is probably no single cultural group that is better wired genetically to vigorously resist Islamic expansionism than the charismatics. One doesn't have to have to agree with their theology to understand the forces they represent. The question for us should be how best to make common cause with them.

HUGH: "I not been intent on tipping over some ideological applecarts."

RESPONSE: He's not even aware that he's already done so...

HUGH: "...which in turn led them to be defenders of unchecked economic activity as a good in itself, and of economic privilege beyond all reason, or need, or justice"

RESPONSE: Typical liberal boilerplate here - and that's "liberal" using today's definition of the word, folks.

Hugh apparently feels that he and people like him are endowed with the wisdom and ethics to decide the appropriate measure of "reason, need" and "justice" when it comes to the lifestyle and wealth of others.

This is very analogous to those who endorse the idea of freedom of speech...as long as that speech is not offensive to anyone.

Right on the money Eastview. I had three former Democratic, working class males in my store yesterday morning all aglow with Sarah Palin's message. Indeed she is a voice not heard on the political scheme. Every attack on her wins more converts, like these, who seem to come from the most unlikely place. I wonder if the big time commenters like Fuhrer Olberman realize this.

j cole imo is proof the all you need to get a phd and teach is to parrot the left wing views of the masters and phd commitys that grade the divel that p asses for a thiassis today

Juan Cole is a Baha'i, which means he comes equipped with some pretty stupid ideas of his own, although not anywhere near as bad as Bin Laden.

Juan Cole should have a chair named after him at Michigan... The Jack Mehoff Chair of Islamic Apologetics.

There is an ironic symbolism involving Sarah Palin that I'm sure has not gone unnoticed by anyone familiar with their religion.

It was Sarah, wife of Abraham, mother of Isaac, who was responsible for chasing out Hagar and her son Ishmael.

Think the Muslims may have noticed this, too?

Well said Robert, I admire your patience in continuing to explain how to boil water.

My reaction to the Juan Cole type idiot (of which there seem to be many) is generally a strong impulse to flip a birdie, which I realise is not productive, so I'm glad that people like you continue to do the hard work on these issues.

Juan Cole is a Baha'i, which means he comes equipped with some pretty stupid ideas of his own, although not anywhere near as bad as Bin Laden.
-posted above

He also left Baha'i because of its prohibitions on political involvement.

What's the difference between Juan Cole and Osama bin Laden, other than their place of birth?
Poor Osama. He would be so much freer to spread his message of hate if he hadn't been so unfortunate as to be born in the birthplace of Mohammed.

It's so amusing to see a leftist like Juan Cole chastise the Right for desiring censorship. It's the Left which has given us speech codes on university campuses and wants the Fairness Doctrine implemented, a doctrine which is hardly fair and which is replete with censorship overtones. The Left is also entirely responsible for the twin idiocies of political correctness and multiculturalism. As with speech codes and the ill-named Fairness Doctrine, the Right has had nothing to do with these two masterpieces of pure nonsense.

But will someone like Cole ever learn? Not as long as he remains on the left side of the political spectrum he won't. Guaranteed.

Juan Cole should audition for the part of the scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz. He would have a head start in the absence of a brain. Please note in The Wizard of Oz the scarecrow (without brain) was given sole charge of Oz by the wizard. So absence of brain would not disqualify Cole from highest office. In his current role this absence seems to be a prerequiste. If Cole ever had a logical thought it would probably die of loneliness.

Except for the supremacist, murderous, sociopathic, delusional, adherence to 7th century barbarianism thing, Sarah Palin is just like a Jihadist.

But why don't we just all agree not to be idiotic about overuse or misuse of these labels? Wouldn't that be a less lazy, more intelligent way to proceed?

Posted by: Hugh

The words "liberal" and "conservative" have been thrown around by everyone for so long that they are not understood by anyone anymore unless one knows the age and background of the person so described. If Sarah Palin was liberal, I would like her just as much. She is a breath of fresh air. (Hugh is also a breath of fresh air.)

Love your list of those to "brush up on", Hugh.

And though I understand Cornelius' response to your 'belief in economic success as the key to man's happiness, which in turn led them to be defenders of unchecked economic activity as a good in itself, and of economic privilege beyond all reason, or need, or justice' [which, BTW, careful readers will notice you characterized as "marxist"], I am assuming it to mean that economic activity is not the be-all and end-all of our lives.

We each must weigh how much time to allot to the business of supporting our lives. Sadly, in this time and place, that's often "most" of our waking hours.

...With regard to the war against encroachments of Islam into the West, there is probably no single cultural group that is better wired genetically to vigorously resist Islamic expansionism than the charismatics. One doesn't have to have to agree with their theology to understand the forces they represent. The question for us should be how best to make common cause with them.

Eastview

I think your entire statement is right on target. I can only add that Sarah Palin hit a home run on her first time at bat. This was phenomenal to watch. She is a natural. Her family is our family. This gave confidence to the folks that have been "run over" by the elite MSM, politicians, and other elite "Washington" establishment types (both Dems and Repubs). Us folks in the hinterlands now know that Sarah Palin is very capable to stand up to these people and hit them back, as you said.

"Yes, if you want to understand what prompts the behavior of those who foam at the mouth when the subject of Sarah Palin comes up, that’s just the book for you."

-I dislike Sarah Palin for two reasons, which should be of significant importance to the readers of this site.

1. Until she came to political prominence, she was part of the Pat Buchanan wing of the GOP. She is now running from that past and wearing an Israeli flag pin on her lapel to show her "distance".

2. Her husband was a member for years of the Alaska Independent Party, a wing of the Constitution Party.

The Constitution Party is a Nazi party, which has previously nominated a "911 Truther" named Chuck Baldwin for President.

Chuck Baldwin has written many articles, like this anti-Israel, pro-Ron Paul rant. Gee, why isn't this on Little Green Footballs. Man, everybody's brains turns to partisan mush during an election. See you guys in December, when we can get back to worrying about the real enemy instead of "Ossetians".

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080115.html

"Furthermore, Christians need to understand that Jewish interests are not always harmonious with the interests of Christianity or the interests of the United States. Israel certainly did not act in a friendly fashion when it attacked the Navy intelligence ship, the USS Liberty, in 1967. That attack was the second deadliest against a U.S. vessel since the end of World War II. The attack also marked the single greatest loss of life by the U.S. intelligence community. 34 U.S. servicemen were killed and 173 were wounded in that attack. In addition, Israel is often found to be engaged in espionage within the United States. Should America turn a blind eye to such activities? Of course not."

It is that, yes, and something more -- the something in the second part of the sentence you quote. And that is a reference to one of the Seven Deadlies -- Greed -- that needs to be contained either by a sense of what is seemly, but now that such a notion appears to have become extinct, a little after the passenger pigeon but before carbon paper and the slide rule -- then it is up to government to do something about this.

The maldistribution of wealth that makes the American Republic into a banana republic, with Graspingness and Greed positively worshipped, held up for admiration in Fortune 100, 200, 300, 400 lists, and Forbes 100, 200, 300, 400 lists -- no doubt embarrasses the intelligent rich with a conscience, and who cares about the others. No, the disparities of wealth, and the way people can acquire great wealth (think of who are the Russian, the Arab, the Colombian rich, or think of how, in China, 90% of the new rich are the children of high Party members), in order to obtain some perspective, and there are all kinds of hedge-fundish and bailout and insider-dealing reasons for refusing to assume that everything is hunky-dory here at home) unjust and unhealthy.

There are the deserving rich and the undeserving rich. The deserving rich -- see Warren Buffett -- will know where, or in case of need can seek intelligent help in figuring out where, to put their discretionary wealth. The undeserving rich are another matter. Similarly, there are the deserving poor, and the undeserving poor. The deserving poor deserve help, and the undeserving poor don't. There are ways to tell the difference. But as a start, the whole edifice of Greed As The Highest Good and motivating force of humanity has to be given a whack, and then another. There are ways to do this, obvious ways, that have nothing to do with the slightest hint of socialism, nothing to do with nationalizing a single company.

"though I understand Cornelius' response to your 'belief in economic success as the key to man's happiness, which in turn led them to be defenders of unchecked economic activity as a good in itself, and of economic privilege beyond all reason, or need, or justice' [which, BTW, careful readers will notice you characterized as "marxist"], I am assuming it to mean that economic activity is not the be-all and end-all of our lives."

The problem comes in when a government enacts actual policies and penalties for economic behavior, and the philosophical rationale for those. The conservative ideal is to try to avoid interference as much as possible, the liberal ideal is to change life, but this doesn't mean there aren't conservatives who try to change life and liberals who are more or less wise about limitations. The conservative view I think is looking at the long term health of a society--if a society keeps on propping things up and interfering, it perpetuates economic weakness and a sort of addiction to ways of fixing that weakness which perpetuate the weakness. The conservative view is to facilitate an economic health in the long run that will "grow" strength over time, and that will resemble a situation where rich fat cats are given complete license while beggars are on the sidewalks outside. But if you define strength as utopia where there are no poor people and no fat cats, like some liberals do, then you'll never be satisfied and you'll become addicted to the never-ending search for that utopia through social/economic engineering.

Yes sir...and in your infinite wisdom, you and your liberal fellow-travelers are to be the arbiters deciding who are the "deserving rich" and the "undeserving rich"...and no doubt the arbiters of how to dispose of the wealth of the "undeserving"...

....and as for those poor souls in the under-developed world whom you feel shouldn't necessarily be endowed with available life-saving medicines out of your concern for overpopulation and resource scarcity...I suppose they qualify as the "deserved poor".

Unbridaled capitalism is a form slavery. Even Henry Ford once said after giving a raise in pay to his workers, (paraphrase) "I must pay my workers well in order for them to be able to buy my autos.". Today, there is no such sentiment among corporations. That is why we have illegals all over the place for cheap labor so as to reduce the hourly pay of legal citizens. These corporate types couldn't care less if the USA becomes a banana republic. These same corporate types are able to financially make a difference in our lawmaking process. The politicians are not listening to the people.

It is important to keep in mind that a scientific study made several years ago proved that the brain is not thinking when engaged in political talk.

Please note in The Wizard of Oz the scarecrow (without brain) was given sole charge of Oz by the wizard. So absence of brain would not disqualify Cole from highest office.

Posted by: James

Remember, however, that the Wizard gave the Scarecrow something better than brains, i.e. a diploma. What a wonderful parody of the modern university! All the university presidents -- the wizards -- handing out diplomas to the Ph.D. candidates -- the scarecrows -- in the various "studies" -- gender studies, black studies, Islamic studies, gay studies, etc. And all of them think they are now entitled to run the country, because they have that piece of paper. They are truly brainless.

Ebonystone,

Interesting (and appropo) metaphor.

I once saw a car with personalized tags that read "two phds"...

I thought to myself:

"what a fitting example of class and humility from someone so apparently brilliant."

The Wizard pointed out to the Scarecrow that all those deep thinkers that came out of the universities had no more brains than the scarecrow.
BUT they had one thing he didn't have - a diploma.

Mega Dittos Cornelius. Don't be afraid to try to turn this blog into exactly what you think it should be. I for one, can never quite get my fill of mindless partisan Talk Radio style Republican party cheer leading.

Abu Allah,

Strawman point.

On this particular thread, I've not made a single reference to political party affiliation. I've responded to the liberal postulations from another poster, which is my right.

Comparing her to "a Muslim fundamentalist" is a cheap shot. I'm not particularly nuts about her, but I have much less respect for cheap shots and below the belt hits. I don't like it when "political analyists" (or whatever this guy is} underestimate the intelligence of voters.

Capitalism, like democracy, must be infused with a sensible moral order accompanied by the rule of law which stems from an enlightened legal system. Without a proper morality and legality, one gets crony capitalism or a sham democracy or both. So often when criticism ensues against capitalism or democracy it really points to a dearth of ethics or law, though the criticizer rarely realizes this and thus erroneously concludes that it's capitalism and democracy which are at fault, when in fact that is not the case at all. Capitalism and democracy work just fine when accompanied by a wise moral code and a fair legal system. In fact, no better system for running a society has ever been found.

These idiotic statements by Obama supporters might just be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Unbridaled capitalism is a form slavery. .....
The politicians are not listening to the people.

Posted by: Spot on at September 9, 2008 4:21 PM

Excellent post, Spot on! I didn't want to repeat the entire post but it is thoughtful in it's entirety. In fact, this post could well belong on the 'Fitzgerald: Spending money like dhimmis' thread. Extending the thought 'Unbridaled capitalism is a form slavery', Wahhabbis have exploited this weakness of west to the hilt. They have bought off key western politicians, specially, but not limited to the Bush family. Salim Bin Laden and Al Mahfouz's 'investments' in Arbusto and Harken Energy paid off on and right after 9/11 when all Bin Ladens escaped to safety when all American flights were grounded. But, wahhabbis must have been plesently surprised when Bush family extended family ties to prince Bandar (would he have been a Bush had he not been wealthy?).
You see, thanks to corrupt politicians like Bush and Clinton, capitalism seems to be cutting both ways.

Hugh,

I'm ALL FOR book banning! THINK of all the rot and evil that can be swept away with a good bonfire! I say, abolish feeble-mindedness and mental pathologies--ban the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders NOW!

For the die hard liberals, or what ever non label you may want to add on or not, FDR's policys made the Great Depression even longer and far worse, the Democrats's favourite president FDR would be appalled at today's Democrats, must be rolling in his grave.

"Spot on", Zena. I thought I myself had acquired a DSM diagnosis, only deluding myself I was reading JihadWatch for a moment.

The only Marx that FDR liberals knew was Groucho and Harpo.

FDR doesn't seem that different from Karl or Uncle Joe to me. Perhaps some of the fans of all three of them (there seem to be a few above) could outline their differences, and explain why socialism is a greater bulwark against Islam than a democratic republic.

No system can "perfect" the moral failings of man. Neither democracy (rule of law democracy--not talking about Pakistan here) or capitalism alleviate the human condition. However, there are systems which serve to accentuate man's moral failures. Socialism, Fascism, and Islam fall into that category.

My support of capitalism is no more absolute than my support of democracy or even rule of law. However, capitalism is the only economic framework on earth which can maximize human freedom---to let people decide for themselves what their goals are, and to make whatever tradeoffs are desired in terms of money, career, family, leisure, etc.

Will people make choices not grounded in wisdom? Sure. But what is the alternative?

Capitalism. Democracy (rule of law style). These systems are flawed, but remain better than anything else out there.

Ladies and gentlemen: you're looking at the situation the wrong way round. Every time this sort of thing pops up, it represents a chance to spread the word about Jihadwatch, and Robert, and the points he's trying to make. Look up the Salon article; see what I've written there. Add to it, expand upon it, enlarge it. Get the message out. It can't succeed while we sit swirling around here all day, bickering amongst ourselves as to what, precisely, "liberal" means, as if that will matter in the end if we lose. The 9/11 "Troof" movement only has the clout it does because of its constant screaming message; think how much more powerful our message would be, grounded in facts. Write on the Salon message boards; post links; post statements of cool impervious fact.

Get the message out.

Nothing else matters.

Prophet Geoff

Geoff,

Fair point.

I'll make my last input on the subject today...

Friends,

A pluralistic society needs a super-structure - government - to arbitrate between the competing interests. The role of government also includes serving the broader public interest through the regulation of monopolies and protecting the life and property of its citizens. Congruent to the fulfillment of these obligations, government must raise sufficient funds through the imposition and collection of taxes. Invariably, low taxes attract money and investment (producing jobs), high taxes result in capital flight in the search for better returns; small government results in a dynamic private sector, large government results in inertia.

In a free society, a man or woman should be able - in their "pursuit of happiness" as enshrined in the Constitution - to dispose of their own assets however they see fit. Schemes to super-impose a new morality on society and eliminate the scourge of "greed" are destined to end up like all other Utopian adventures...in the lure of totalitarianism.

The idea Hugh has put forward, that government should be empowered to decide the parameters of human "need" - and he was very explicit in this...is profoundly Leninist in its essence ("to each according to his needs").

He assures us that greed can be tamed with ways "that have nothing to do with the slightest hint of socialism"...at the very same time that he insists "it is up to government to do something about this."

Folks, beware of those so eager to rectify "the maldistribution of wealth". It almost always involves the empowering of the state and the dimunition of the individual.

Wellington

you might enjoy reading some discussion of what English Catholic G K Chesterton had to say on the subject of property, and how his ideas are panning out in some circles today

Here are some links to get you started.

http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2004/jun2004p16_1661.html

http://www.cjd.org/paper/roots/rchest.html

http://www.ihspress.com/outline.htm

http://distributist.blogspot.com/

I should add - I don't have the specific reference to give at the moment, but in one of his books GKC poured scorn on the idea that 'the rich man can't be bribed'. He was of the opinion that many a rich man HAD indeed been bribed, and that many rich men COULD be bribed.

You might also like to combine Chesterton's "The Outline of Sanity" (collected GKC essays on economic subjects, recently re-printed) with Jacques Ellul's "The New Demons" , "The Technological Society" and "Money and Power" (title of English translation: French title is 'L'homme et l'argent', that is, 'Man and Money'). And track down D L Sayers' essay, 'Why Work?' - I think it was published in a collection called 'Creed and Chaos'.

PS Chesterton is the author of the poem 'The Battle Of Lepanto", and in his book "The Everlasting Man" he does a pretty good demolition job on Islam.

Both Chesterton and Jacques Ellul were much more like what the Bible calls a 'prophet', than anything we usually think of when we hear the word.

I'd first like to agree with JSobieski in that systems themselves (in whatever capacity they serve) exist not to reach an oft-persued perfection but the mitigate to the greatest extent the fallen nature of man. A Republican form of government was created in such a way as to avoid centralization of power and attempted to dilute decisions to the lowest level.

In regards to Mr. Cole's piece, I must say that it really doesn't make sense. If you laid out the "accomplishments" (I use this term loosely for Mr. Laden) of Mrs. Palin and Mr. Laden, you would see a stark contrast with very, very few actual items in agreement. If you then took those items and looked at the founding rational and desired effects, then that list would probably trend close to zero. I would mark this towards shoddy journalism and a lack of desire (dare I even say laziness or even contempt) to find truth.

Sory if this posts twice. My computer's being wiggy. Even Muslims with PhDs can't recognize a logical fallacy, and even when they can it's still all they've got in their intellectual arsenal. This is why Muslims should not be admitted to colleges in the first place. If you buy into Islam, then you necessarily can't recognize circular logic, the basis of all Islamic dogma, then you lack the logical faculties of a brain-damaged 5-year-old. If you can't think in terms of unitary logic and recognize that 2 contradictory statements can't both be true, then you can't think scientifically. Islamic 'logic' is always dualistic. But colleges keep admitting people who think that human beings were created from water, clay, and a blood clot. Muslims are retarded. UMD is retarded for hiring him and for giving him tenure.

Seriously, how did Edward Said get a PhD when his entire thesis was a logical fallacy? How bought-off, extorted, or corrupt would a committee have to be to give a PhD to a guy who vilifies half the world and then refuses to hold the East to the same standards to which he holds the West, who provides half an argument, when it goes without saying that the one half of the argument always nullifies the other? Juan Cole, John Esposito, Edward Said, and Yvonne Haddad aren't even capable taqiyya artists. How do they keep getting published?

The idea Hugh has put forward, that government should be empowered to decide the parameters of human "need" - and he was very explicit in this...is profoundly Leninist in its essence ("to each according to his needs").

Agreed.

Perhaps we could encourage Hugh to prattle regarding anthropogenic global warming, so as to complete the derailing of this thread.

I'm with Cornelius. State power should always be treated with most skeptically. Yes, the private sector can err, even egregiously at times, but government errs more so and with more power and more often and with less accountability. With few exceptions, government is best which governs least (and since Islam is the one major religion which demands no separation of the secular and spiritual for all mankind, let all those of good sense beware-----after all, what could be more inimical to human freedom than a religion which is also a world government, and to use Hugh's description, a Total Belief System?). Most of the miseries of mankind over the past century can be traced to too much public power gone awry (think the fascist or Marxist state for starters). By comparison, private power in erroneous mode is a piker over the same time period. In short, the amount of government which exists in a state in comparison to the amount of freedom available to the average citizen is an inversely proportional one. Concomitantly, it is a great error to prize equality (except under the law) over liberty.

By the way, thanks, dumbledoresarmy, for the references. I will consider them, though I would observe here that Christianity, for me, has long had a little too much of a whiff of socialistic thought for my tastes. I will concede, though, that, just as the Christian can perform nimble metaphorical somersaults to justify war, so can the Christian live with the capitalistic ethic if carried out optimally.

I won't bother to respond to the caricature of my position provided by one poster ("C...") above and apparently seconded by some others; no re-runs of the cartoon of Road-Runner and Wile E. "C." at this site.

But since anthoropogenic global warming has been raised, I won't refrain from offering "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic," a series by Coby Beck containing responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming.

"There are four separate taxonomies; arguments are divided by:
• Stages of Denial,
• Scientific Topics,
• Types of Argument, and
• Levels of Sophistication.

Individual articles will appear under multiple headings and may even appear in multiple subcategories in the same heading.
Stages of Denial
1. There's nothing happening
a. Inadequate evidence
 There is no evidence
 One record year is not global warming
 The temperature record is simply unreliable
 One hundred years is not enough
 Glaciers have always grown and receded
 Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
 Mauna Loa is a volcano
 The scientists aren't even sure
b. Contradictory evidence
 It's cold today in Wagga Wagga
 Antarctic ice is growing
 The satellites show cooling
 What about mid-century cooling?
 Global warming stopped in 1998
 But the glaciers are not melting
 Antarctic sea ice is increasing
 Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
 Sea level in the Arctic is falling
 Some sites show cooling
c. No consensus
 Global warming is a hoax
 There is no consensus
 Position statements hide debate
 Consensus is collusion
 Peiser refuted Oreskes
2. We don't know why it's happening
a. Models don't work
 We cannot trust unproven computer models
 The models don't have clouds
 If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
 Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
b. Prediction is impossible
 We can't even predict the weather next week
 Chaotic systems are not predictable
c. We can't be sure
 The modelers won't tell us how confident they are in the models
 Hansen has been wrong before
 If we can't understand the past, how can we understand the present?
 The scientists aren't even sure
 They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
3. Climate change is natural
a. It happened before
 It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
 The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
 Greenland used to be green
 Global warming is nothing new!
 The hockey stick is broken
 Vineland was full of grapes
b. It's part of a natural change
 Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle
 Mars and Pluto are warming too
 CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
 The null hypothesis says global warming is natural
 Climate is always changing
 Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
 The CO2 rise is natural
 Today's warming is just a recovery from the Little Ice Age
c. It's not caused by CO2
 Why don't they ever mention water vapor?
 Water vapor's greenhouse effect overwhelms CO2
 There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
 Mars and Pluto are warming too
 CO2 lags, not leads
 What about mid-century cooling?
 Geological history does not support CO2's importance
 Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
 It's the sun, stupid
4. Climate change is not bad
a. The effects are good
 A warmer world will be better
b. The effects are minor
 Any ice melt will just go into groundwater
c. Change is normal
5. Climate change can't be stopped
a. Too late
 Kyoto is ineffective
b. It's someone else's problem
 Why should the U.S. join Kyoto?
 The U.S. is a net CO2 sink
c. Economically infeasible
 Action on global warming is suicide
Scientific Topics
1. Temperature
o There is no evidence
o The temperature record is simply unreliable
o One hundred years is not enough
o Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle
o A warmer world will be better
o It's cold today in Wagga Wagga
o Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
o The satellites show cooling
o Global warming stopped in 1998
o They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
o Some sites show cooling
2. Atmosphere
3. Extreme events
a. Temperature records
 One record year is not global warming
 It's cold today in Wagga Wagga
b. Storms
c. Droughts
4. Cryosphere
. Glaciers
 Glaciers have always grown and receded
 But the glaciers are not melting
a. Sea ice
 Antarctic sea ice is increasing
b. Ice sheets
 Antarctic ice is growing
 Greenland used to be green
 Any ice melt will just go into groundwater
5. Oceans
o Sea level in the Arctic is falling
6. Modeling
. Scenarios
 Kyoto is ineffective
 Hansen has been wrong before
a. Uncertainties
 We can't even predict the weather next week
 Chaotic systems are not predictable
 We cannot trust unproven computer models
 The modelers won't tell us how confident they are in the models
 The models don't have clouds
7. Climate forcings
. Solar influences
 Mars and Pluto are warming too
 It's the sun, stupid
a. Greenhouse gases
 Why don't they ever mention water vapor?
 Water vapor's greenhouse effect overwhelms CO2
 There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
 CO2 lags, not leads
 CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
 What about mid-century cooling?
 Geological history does not support CO2's importance
 Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
 Mauna Loa is a volcano
 The CO2 rise is natural
 Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
 The US is a net CO2 sink
 Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
b. Aerosols
 What about mid-century cooling?
 If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
8. Paleo climate
. Holocene
 It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
 The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
 Greenland used to be green
 The hockey stick is broken
 Vineland was full of grapes
 Today's warming is just a recovery from the Little Ice Age
a. Ice ages
 CO2 lags, not leads
 Global warming is nothing new!
b. Geologic history
 A warmer world will be better
 Geological history does not support CO2's importance
 Climate is always changing
 Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
 If we can't understand the past, how can we understand the present?
9. Scientific process
o Global warming is a hoax
o There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
o There is no consensus
o The null hypothesis says global warming is natural
o Position statements hide debate
o If we can't understand the past, how can we understand the present?
o The scientists aren't even sure
o Consensus is collusion
o Peiser refuted Oreskes
Types of Argument
1. Uninformed
o There is no evidence
o One record year is not global warming
o One hundred years is not enough
o There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
o A warmer world will be better
o Action on global warming is suicide
o There is no consensus
o We cannot trust unproven computer models
2. Misinformed
o It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
o The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
o Antarctic ice is growing
o CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
o Greenland used to be green
o The satellites show cooling
o Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
o It's the sun, stupid
o The U.S. is a net CO2 sink
o But the glaciers are not melting
o Antarctic sea ice is increasing
o They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
o Vineland was full of grapes
3. Cherry Picking
o It's cold today in Wagga Wagga
o Antarctic sea ice is growing
o The satellites show cooling
o Global warming stopped in 1998
o Antarctic sea ice is increasing
o Vineland was full of grapes
o Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
o The sea level in the Arctic is falling
o Some sites show cooling
4. Urban Myths
o The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
o CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
o Greenland used to be green
o Hansen has been wrong before
o They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
o Vineland was full of grapes
5. FUD
o The temperature record is simply unreliable
o Glaciers have always grown and receded
o Why don't they ever mention water vapor?
o Water vapor's greenhouse effect overwhelms CO2
o Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle
o Kyoto is ineffective
o Mars and Pluto are warming too
o It's cold today in Wagga Wagga
o CO2 lags, not leads
o There is no consensus
o Antarctic ice is growing
o Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
o We can't even predict the weather next week
o Chaotic systems are not predictable
o What about mid-century cooling?
o The null hypothesis says global warming is natural
o Geological history does not support CO2's importance
o Climate is always changing
o Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
o Mauna Loa is a volcano
o Global warming is nothing new!
o The CO2 rise is natural
o The hockey stick is broken
o Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
o The models don't have clouds
o Global warming stopped in 1998
o If we can't understand the past, how can we understand the present?
o If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
o The scientists aren't even sure
o Antarctic sea ice is increasing
o Peiser refuted Oreskes
o Vineland was full of grapes
o Observations Show Climate Sensitivity Is Not Very High
o Sea level in the Arctic is falling
o Today's warming is just a recovery from the Little Ice Age
6. Non Scientific
o Global warming is a hoax
o Kyoto is ineffective
o Why should the U.S. join Kyoto?
o The modelers won't tell us how confident they are in the models
o Hansen has been wrong before
o Position statements hide debate
o The scientists aren't even sure
o Consensus is collusion
o They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
7. Underdog Theories
8. Crackpottery
o Any ice melt will just go into groundwater
Levels of Sophistication
1. Silly
o There is no evidence
o Global warming is a hoax
o One record year is not global warming
o Action on global warming is suicide
o Mars and Pluto are warming too
o Mauna Loa is a volcano
o Any ice melt will just go into groundwater
o The modelers won't tell us how confident they are in the models
2. Naive
o One hundred years is not enough
o Glaciers have always grown and receded
o Why should the U.S. join Kyoto?
o It's cold today in Wagga Wagga
o CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
o We can't even predict the weather next week
o We can not trust unproven computer models
o The satellites show cooling
o Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
o The models don't have clouds
o Global warming stopped in 1998
o It's the sun, stupid
o If we can't understand the past, how can we understand the present?
o The scientists aren't even sure
o Vineland was full of grapes
o Some sites show cooling
3. Specious
o The temperature record is simply unreliable
o Why don't they ever mention water vapor?
o There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
o Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle
o It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
o The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
o A warmer world will be better
o Kyoto is ineffective
o CO2 lags, not leads
o There is no consensus
o Antarctic ice is growing
o Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
o Greenland used to be green
o What about mid-century cooling?
o The null hypothesis says global warming is natural
o Geological history does not support CO2's importance
o Climate is always changing
o Global warming is nothing new!
o The CO2 rise is natural
o Historically, CO2 never causes temperature change
o Hansen has been wrong before
o Position statements hide debate
o The U.S. is a net CO2 sink
o But the glaciers are not melting
o If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
o Antarctic sea ice is increasing
o Consensus is collusion
o They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
o Peiser refuted Oreskes
o Vineland was full of grapes
4. Scientific
o Water vapor's greenhouse effect overwhelms CO2
o Chaotic systems are not predictable
o The hockey stick is broken
o Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
o Sea level in the Arctic is falling
o Today's warming is just a recovery from the Little Ice Age

What an ass.

Hugh: I will be brief and quote John Coleman, a certified meteorologist and founder of the Weather Channel. He is on record saying, "Man-made global warming is the greatest fraud in history." I agree and would also note that, to date, not a single scientific study exists which conclusively proves that any warming in the environment over the past century or so is due to man. All we have are correlation studies and computer model projections, neither of which constitute definitive proof of any kind, but both of which have notorious track records for inaccuracy. Oh, by the way, that supposed warming culprit, CO2? Well, 97% of the stuff is produced by nature and during the late Paleozoic Era some 300 million years ago we went through an horrific ice age when atmospheric CO2 levels were ten times what they are today. That's all for now (though I have a lot more).

Yes, Juan Cole is, indeed, an ass.

. . . And his gaseous emissions are a significant cause of anthropogenic global warming.

Beauty & The Beast!

If we teach creationism in schools then we should NOT teach science, anthropology, history or any other subject that is contradictory to this. As for believing in miracles; you have to ask how many amputees have grown another leg due to their diligent Christian beliefs and endless prayers. Leave the boogy man in the cupboard and teach that for which there is 'real' evidence and let the rest be taught at Sunday school and at churches. This goes for any religion based on a god or deity. Get real and move on from this ice-age thinking. Ooops, I forgot there can be no ice-age to believers in creationism, nor Darwinian theory, nor common sense.
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall, and so should creationism fall from any school curriculum.....

Much as I hate to find myself agreeing in any way with the loathsome Cole, my fear is that Governor Palin does indeed favour the replacement of U. S. Constitutional law by religious law or at least wishes to see it interpreted in such a way as to be in harmony with and directed by the latter. I suspect that she also believes that a woman's place - except in her case - is in the home, cooking and making babies.

It's a cheap point to say that she is not an Osama type murderer nor, obviously does she adhere to the standard Islamic tenets cited. It would be interesting to know what her views are regarding Rapture. Some believers in this doctrine are ultimately as hostile to the Jewish religion as are the majority of Muslims, depsite their apparent support for Zionism and Israel.

Governor Palin seems to me to combine all the worst qualities of both Bush and Cheney and she is also both more ignorant (than Bush) and less experienced (than Cheney). I am not calling her stupid though - quite the contrary, more's the pity.

One doesn't have to agree with Sarah Palin, the person, or with whatever fundamentalist beliefs she may have, to recognize that she has triggered the release of some very powerful pent up social forces in the U.S. Retrograde the world view of her fundamentalist coreligionists may be in the minds of many, but one would have to be blind not to recognize that something quite remarkable is happening. Simply citing a litany of what we think is wrong with these views (creationism, end times, rapture, etc., or worry about how these could be taken advantage of by Putin), while interesting, is to an understanding of the underlying forces at work as counting thorns on a bush is to an understanding of the ecology of the surrounding forest. What, exactly, is it that commands the hearts of so many millions, and which seems to have been overlooked or dismissed as irrelevant by the Hollywood, WDC and MSM custodians of American culture?

Its getting deep here. Let me see if I can remember where we started.

First, I must remind everyone that a scientific study was conducted many years ago. This study, using a brain scan, determined that, that part of the human brain that handles rational thinking abruptly stopped operating when the test subjects began discussing politics. Simultaenously, that part of the brain that normally handles emotions began operating. From this experiment we can conclude that there can be no rational discussion of politics.

Eastview makes the point that something profound has happened with regard to the introduction of Sarah Palin into the campaign. I agree. I think that her introduction into the abiss of this race, has suddenly overloaded all the emotional circuits in our collective brains. Her striking beauty alone would do it for most men. But her phenominal delivery of her first national speach, her beauty, and her observed simplicity in overthrowing the leading corrupt bulls of her party in Alaska overloaded all of our emotional circuits. As a result we are left in an emotional spin as is clearly indicated by the range of comments here.

You see, thanks to corrupt politicians like Bush and Clinton, capitalism seems to be cutting both ways.

Posted by: Alert

Wellington's comments about capitalism are right on target. Capitalism when contained in a legal framework approved by the people, serves everyone better than anything else yet devised. It is our legal framework that is out of kilter. Our politicians have done this purposely so that they can benefit with power and money.

It is wrong to pick out one politician and take issue with them, when most of the others are doing the same thing. For example: Sen. Chris Dodd, chairman of the banking committee, took some $80,000 in reduced interest rates on his property from Countrywide Financial and he said that it was ethical according to the ethics committee. The same can be said of the former Speaker Hastert in a multi-million dollar property deal involving his earmark. And on and on it goes. These folks are not representing us.

Young Bush is operating in the only world he has ever known. His father's friends are his friends. How can we pick him out and place all the blame of this corrupt system on him. I personally think that he is not up to the job but I don't believe he is wantonly corrupt. I'm sure I could say the same about others.

So it is music to my ears to at least hear McCain saying that he plans to tackle all this corruption. (I don't hear this from Obama.) Then when McCain brings Sarah Palin on board, it means to me that he just might be serious. And I believe that he has the right capabilities to do some good if he carries through.

"In short, the amount of government which exists in a state in comparison to the amount of freedom available to the average citizen is an inversely proportional one."

A quote we would all do well to countenance. Well said old buddy.

Have a little respect for our future president, Predident Palin.

It is no coincidence that global warming, on the whole, was derived by astro-physicists and not by chemists.

Physics is elegant, chemistry is messy.

Physics can be tought at purely theoretical level. In contrast, I have never heard of a class on Theoretical Chemistry.

Physics is about cause and effect, while chemistry is about equilibrium and the recovery of equilibrium.

In Physics, there are many complexities that can essentially be ignored in real-world applications. For example, Newtonian physics can ignore relativity, quantum mechanics, and other 20th century developments in most applications. Astro-physics is particularly well known for a lack of precision, which is understandable given the grand scale of the subject matter.

In contrast, a Chemistry 101 textbook at the most junior or junior colleges teaches that no chemical reaction, not even the strongest acid and strongest base, ever goes to completion. The concept of an equilibrium cannot be ignored in any chemistry course.

The theory of global warming is an example of what happens when physicists try to do chemistry. The models are elegant and it sounds persuasive (physics always sounds more persuasive than chemistry), but it doesn't make it so.

I ignore Chemists when they speak on physics, and I ignore Physicists when they speak on chemistry.

Spot on, excellent point about rational thinking while discussing politics. This would appear to apply to religion, as well. If you throw in sex, then you've got all three topics that are to be avoided in polite conversations - the same three that drive TV ratings.

In terms of capitalism, criticism of our existing economic structure is hardly a criticism of capitalism.

Pure capitalism cannot exist (in contrast, the total absence of personal property rights can exist). However, we are so far from capitalism at this point that to criticize the SQ is not a criticism of capitalism.

If I had a dime for each time someone points to our current healthcare system and says "see, markets don't work for healthcare" I would be rich instead of merely annoyed.

McCain chose the wrong Palin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf1y9s73Nos&eurl=http://www.michaelpalinforpresident.com/

"gratitude",

teach that for which there is 'real' evidence and let the rest be taught at Sunday school and at churches. This goes for any religion based on a god or deity.

This being the only sentence in your post with which I agree, and it since it is strangely your main point as well, then I can say, that we "fundamentally" agree. No religion should be taught in school. Ever. I will refrain from invective against your atheism. In the spirit of the cooperative spirit of this site, I'd appreciate it if you would do the same.

Read current public school textbooks. They are devote to and obsessed with teaching of religion these days, primarily Islam. Unfortunately, they do not teach that correctly or truthfully, either.

philiph,

I think you might find your views more appropriately expressed at the Daily Kos or Salon.com. I'd provide a link, but you can just refer to your "Favorites". (Heads up, goofball, no true Christian wants to have you make a false profession or live under false obeisance to "religious law" (unlike Islamists). The Constitution has been quite compatible with Christianity for 200+ years.)

correction

taught in public school

Eastview, You are right. I forgot to mention religion. As you say, the TV networks must be working overtime.

I found a recent government report that details extensive testing and conclusions regarding a recent discussion we had. Also, I included a recent article from one of the report's authors. If you haven’t seen these, they may help you in any future discussions on the subject.

http://www.empcommission.org/docs/A2473-EMP_Commission-7MB.pdf

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/02/invisible-nuclear-threat/

Spot on - Thank you! I've downloaded both articles. They're both solid and authoritative and will, indeed, be useful in future discussions.

Spot on - one for you here.

Spot on - and another one here you might enjoy if you're into the physics. This is one of the earliest NRL analyses of photochemical effects induced in the upper atmosphere (my specialty), which relates to what one would actually see if any of this happened, as opposed to engineering and operational threat issues.

Eastview, Thank you for the articles. I have downloaded them. I try to keep up with the developments in physics though this is not my field. My field is EEE. I have followed Dr. Graham's work for many years.