That's what governments are for- get in a man's way...what's so hard to understand here?

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Thursday, April 10, 2008 21:15
VIEWED: 4817
PAGE 1 of 1

CHRISISALL

Sunday, March 30, 2008 8:48 PM

A government is like a big immature teenager; it wants what it want when it wants it. No government is above breakin' it's own laws to suit itself, heck, they just make 'executive decisions' or flat out rewrite the laws as they see fit (Patriot Act anyone?).
Many peeps hereabouts like to defend Bush, Cheney, Clinton, the government in general...way I see it, government is like pesticide; ya don't like to use it, but thar be bugs. Then they get resistant, so ya have to use more.
Why all the worship of systems that are inherently corrupt on some level- that see nothing wrong with trampling on the little guy if they feel the need?
Is 'do as I say, not as I do' so acceptable to some?
It's a necessary evil to be sure, but it's still an evil (remember, figure of speech here...).
What's wrong with saying "We have about the best system that can be devised to work on such a large scale, yet it still contains many flaws that may be worked out over time, with the proper attention & action."???
Why do some need to call this attitude 'anti-American', or 'commie', or 'anti-government'?
Is acknowledging a problem a sign of weakness or active hatred?

Does attending to a toothache mean that you're anti-you?

Was Mal exaggerating?

Perplexed Chrisisall

GEEZER

Sunday, March 30, 2008 10:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Is acknowledging a problem a sign of weakness or active hatred?

Depends on how you note what you consider the problem. "I'm concerned about possible loss of freedoms in the war on terror" is a bit different from "Bush=Hitler". One invites discussion, the other rejects all but total agreement.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CHRISISALL

Sunday, March 30, 2008 10:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

One invites discussion, the other rejects all but total agreement.

A very good answer, Geez.
Still, some things are absolutely wrong, from many perspectives...like the whole WMD thing, basing a response to a perceived threat on faulty/incomplete/wishful evidence is a mistake, by any standard. Why defend such a cavalier mentality?
The same applies to Clinton, btw, as if he did no wrong either...most Presidents serve the people...but as a side dish to the main meal IMO.

Enquiring Chrisisall

GINOBIFFARONI

Monday, March 31, 2008 12:35 AM

Think about it as a twelve step program,

The first step being admit there is a problem...

How many American leaders admit their mistakes ? or even the mistakes made by leaders before them ?

Everyone makes mistakes, or does things for the wrong reasons, but by not publicly acknowledging that an error was made, it seems to me to leave the door open to do the same dumb bullshit over and over again, largely to the same result... resentment and outright hatred in the case of your foreign policy.

This goes beyond Bush and Clinton or Dem or Repub.... and someday it has to come to a end

The Alliance said they were gonna waltz through Serenity Valley. And we choked 'em with those words. We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty.

KIRKULES

Monday, March 31, 2008 2:24 AM

I'm not anti-government, I'm anti-BIG government. Most of the problems I have with the government result from it's size, not it's leaders. I love to trash Clinton as much as the next guy, but if it wasn't for his personal flaws and the fact that he continued to grow the size of government, I'd have to admit he was a decent President. Bush's biggest negative in my opinion is the same as Clinton's, he has allowed the government to grown exessivly and added new entitlements(prescription drugs) and buracracies(Dept. Homeland Security).

Big government results in the inefficient use of resources and leads to bureaucracies that think their primary purpose is to justify their own existence for the next budget cycle.

Some like to say you can't solve a problem by throwing cash at it, but I'm not so sure. Can you imagine the amount of money we spend each year on worthless bureaucrats. If you took that money and just dumped it out of helicopters over impoverished areas do you think it would help less than the pittance those areas get now after the bureaucrats take their cut.

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, March 31, 2008 3:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I see it, government is like pesticide; ya don't like to use it, but thar be bugs. Then they get resistant, so ya have to use more.

Then there is Monsanto pesticide. It is so toxic it kills not just pests, but other plants and then the soil itself. Nothing else can grow after you use their pesticide. So the only way to stay in business to to buy Monsanto pesticide-resistant seeds, which is marketed by, yes you guessed it, Monsanto.

Most government solutions serve to make you dependent on more government solutions. Just like Monsanto.

Quote:
Was Mal exaggerating?

Nope.

The question is, WHY do they want to get in a man's way? The answer is simple: control = power = wealth = power = wealth. That is why the easiest thing in the world is for wealthy conglomerates (like corporations) and government to end up being the same thing.

--------------------------
Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed.
--Mahatma Gandhi

KWICKO

Monday, March 31, 2008 3:21 PM

Quote:
Big government results in the inefficient use of resources and leads to bureaucracies that think their primary purpose is to justify their own existence for the next budget cycle.

Some like to say you can't solve a problem by throwing cash at it, but I'm not so sure. Can you imagine the amount of money we spend each year on worthless bureaucrats. If you took that money and just dumped it out of helicopters over impoverished areas do you think it would help less than the pittance those areas get now after the bureaucrats take their cut.

Good points. Think of this example:

The good people who work for the welfare department in this country have one stated goal:
Make sure no one needs welfare in this country.

The irony, of course, is that, if they do their job to 100% completion... they're out of a job, and have to go on welfare!

And so the cycle of bureaucracy begins afresh...

I like your idea of 'Copter Cash, though. Let's see if we can get a referendum on it, set up a committee to study its efficacy, mainstream it into an earmarked program in next year's fiscal projections, and set up a Cabinet-level position to oversee the new Department of Airborne Monetary Needs, or DAMN.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, March 31, 2008 3:48 PM

It's simple, all Government is... is a set of rules and laws.

Rules and laws initially created to protect and benefit people as a whole.

Over time, due to the way any authoritarian society is run, in fact MUST be run, in order to function...

These rules, multiply, expand, and in the doing somehow become more important than the people as a whole they were intended to protect and benefit.

And the enforcers of them quickly devolve from protectors to oppressors and predators.

Usually about this time a revolution occurs, and the more efforts put into trying to prevent it, the more damaging it is when it does happen.

This cycle, it's ever been with us, in fact our Founders counted on it, and even codified it to a degree with an elections process.

A VERY good example of planned cycle thinking is the Moties from Niven & Pournelles The Mote in Gods Eye - their whole society is built around that cycle.

And once you understand this concept, this cycle, you'll realize why I cannot support any authoritarian society - because it simply will not endure, all such societies are temporary in nature and eventually implode with great destruction.

Me, I would rather break that cycle than feed it or reboot it.

Just call me Crazy Eddie.

-Frem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mote_in_God%27s_Eye

HERO

Monday, March 31, 2008 5:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Why do some need to call this attitude 'anti-American', or 'commie', or 'anti-government'?
Is acknowledging a problem a sign of weakness or active hatred?

Thats just the kinda question I'd expect from an anti-American-pinko-Commie-anarchist.

I'm not saying thats you...I'm just sayin I'd expect that kinda question from one whose motives were suspect at best.

And I'm not sayin your motives are suspect...I'm just sayin that its the kinda thing I'd expect to hear from someone who would gladly kill and consume tasty babies because baby meat is low in fat.

And I'm not sayin you'd kill and eat babies...I'm just sayin that I hear this kind of stuff from folks who want to drive drunk and shoot guns.

And I'm not sayin you go around all drunk and shooting and driving and such...I'm just sayin that this kinda thinking is common among folk with less then a full grasp on their mental faculties.

And I'm not sayingn yer a nutter...I'm just sayin that when it comes to government, shit happens, somebody's got to take care of it, and who ya gonna call?

I am saying the government is the Ghostbusters of the modern world and if you stand in their way you deserve to get crushed by a Giant Al-Queda Marshmellow Man...and you sir and your liberal anarchist Commie-Pinko Baby-eating motives-in-question drunk-driver buddies are the Gatekeeper and Keymaster to Stay-Puff madness and you can say what you want about me...but I for one will not stand by and listen to you bad mouth the United States, Gentleman...(walks out)

I don't think I can be any clearer. Nuff said.

Edited to add: Drinking at lunch...not a good idea. Well, can't be helped now...off to court I go!

H

KWICKO

Monday, March 31, 2008 5:42 PM

Quote:
Just call me Crazy Eddie.

But sometimes a Crazy Eddie solution is the ONLY solution!

Love that book. Love LOTS of Niven & Pournelle's stuff.

And Hero: No more drinking in DUI court! It just seems so... CRUEL... to those you're prosecuting!

CHRISISALL

Monday, March 31, 2008 8:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
I'm not anti-government, I'm anti-BIG government.

Kirk, your whole post was golden.

:smokin':Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Monday, March 31, 2008 8:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

And once you understand this concept, this cycle, you'll realize why I cannot support any authoritarian society - because it simply will not endure, all such societies are temporary in nature and eventually implode with great destruction.

Is it possible that this society might just get a major overhaul...I don't wanna implode.

Jayneisall

CHRISISALL

Monday, March 31, 2008 8:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Thats just the kinda question I'd expect from an anti-American-pinko-Commie-anarchist.

You slimed me.

Venkmanisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, April 1, 2008 1:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
What's wrong with saying "We have about the best system that can be devised to work on such a large scale, yet it still contains many flaws that may be worked out over time, with the proper attention & action."???

You know I don’t think that anyone here has ever argued that there aren’t flaws in the system. I think what some of us are sick of are the arguments that preclude any disagreement. If I had said what you suggest, the only thing some, including maybe you, would have read was “We have [ignored] the best system that can be devised [some such other words and stuff summarily dismissed],” followed by the inevitable response that I’m an arrogant American and a lackey of the Bush administration.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

HERO

Tuesday, April 1, 2008 1:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
You slimed me.

No. I think if you read my entire post you'll find that I'm drawing a distinct difference between yourself and your "liberal anarchist Commie-Pinko Baby-eating motives-in-question drunk-driver buddies".

H

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, April 1, 2008 2:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
You slimed me.

No. I think if you read my entire post you'll find that I'm drawing a distinct difference between yourself and your "liberal anarchist Commie-Pinko Baby-eating motives-in-question drunk-driver buddies".

H

Yeah, just goin' with the Ghostbusters thing...

Staypuftisall

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, April 1, 2008 3:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I think what some of us are sick of are the arguments that preclude any disagreement.

It's the "Earth is round" effect. It's difficult for some (including me) to argue something we believe so fiercely in a way that allows for the possibility that we're wrong...pizza is the best food, Bush is a bad President, the Earth is round, period, no discussion except for you to agree.
The torture thing was what pushed me to that point. I RESENT that MY President would sink as low as the 'bad' guys here...this let me know that he's too big a fan of 24, and (IMO) thinks on a much more simplistic level than I'd previously imagined. Like Whitewater- it can't be reasonably argued- it's just wrong. Again, IMO.

One thing though, I don't fault (or care, even) peeps here for bashing Clinton for his many flaws, why do you take such umbrage in the case of the present administration? It's like y'all take it personally or something.

Quote:
If I had said what you suggest, the only thing some, including maybe you, would have read was “We have [ignored] the best system that can be devised [some such other words and stuff summarily dismissed],” followed by the inevitable response that I’m an arrogant American and a lackey of the Bush administration.

Seriously, I'm not perfectly clear on that part of your post, but I wouldn't call you a lackey in ANY case.

The admittedly flawed Chrisisall

LIGHTBRINGER

Tuesday, April 1, 2008 11:40 PM

This seems like a good place to start... Hello, all. Chrisisall, I would suggest the reason many people become incensed over statements that "bash" the current President is that he IS the current president. Some are uncomfortable with what is seen as undermining the credibility of a reigning President "in the face of the enemy" as it were, and I think there are sound historical examples of that, particularly in the sense that it betrays a petty weakness that encourages and informs the activity of some very upsetting and explosive people. A certain level of criticism is only reasonable, but personal attacks and language verging on treason against a sitting Executive are unacceptable... to many. By contrast, bash the hell out of whoever you want the moment they release the burden of office.
It's like having a fist-fight with your CO in the middle of a fire-fight; you're likely to get everyone killed. If you have a problem with his command style, and you both get out alive, you take him aside later and explain your viewpoint with the strong, honest voice that speaks from your pummelling fists, but in private where nobody can see the division between you. This, of course, seems like an "Earth is Round" point for me. However, that's not a very good name for it, seeing as for thousands of years it was quite obvious, except to the gifted elite, that the Earth was flat and riding on a tortoise or a cosmic aardvark or some such. It took the practical mathematics of Eratosthenes to demonstrate otherwise, and most people, if they thought about it at all, STILL thought it was God's cow-pattie for hundreds of years. So as a synonym for "obvious and unworthy of refutation," "the Earth is round" is somewhat lacking. I would suggest perhaps "LightBringer has pissed someone off today."

This may all be a dream, but at least mine's been consistently erotic. -LB

RUE

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 3:35 AM

"Some are uncomfortable with what is seen as undermining the credibility of a reigning President "in the face of the enemy" as it were, and I think there are sound historical examples of that, particularly in the sense that it betrays a petty weakness that encourages and informs the activity of some very upsetting and explosive people."

So, did you have similar reservations about the Clinton impeachment ?

***************************************************************
Speaking of round - what goes around ...

LIGHTBRINGER

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 4:55 AM

Actually, I found the Clinton impeachment rather frivolous. Sure, he lied under oath and all, but I have to admit that while there have been things I've been untruthful about in my time, prevaricating about whether or not you got a hummer in your (read "the people's") office does not mean you would lie about more life-and-death matters concerning the security of the country. Impeachment, on the other hand, is carried out under the legal power of the legislature itself, and I do think it is the duty and province of the separated powers to police each other. Simply put, if the legislature agreed to do it, at some level we all did, just as is the case with the Iraq War. There's a place where "us and them" has to stop and become "we." I didn't particularly favor the war or Clinton's impeachment at the time, but I accept them as having been my doing, as I am a voting citizen. But to your point, Clinton was never seen as a war-time President; that doesn't mean that fighting wasn't going on in Somalia or elsewhere, but it wasn't the sort of thing in which your enemies are a power bloc that draws strength and propaganda from your internecine bickering. An excellent example would be Harry Reed's announcement that the "war is lost." I could happily have strangled the man for uttering such a sniveling, self-serving, and cowardly statement at such a crucial time. There's a man ripe for an impeachment. Two points: A) I'll accept that statement from someone who actually put their butt on the line, but not a politician who wouldn't know a lost war if it came up and lobbied him, B) It doesn't matter whether the statement is true or not; but it may be that if enough people believe it, it will become true.

This may be all a dream, but at least mine's been consistently erotic -LB

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 1:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by LightBringer:
This, of course, seems like an "Earth is Round" point for me. However, that's not a very good name for it, seeing as for thousands of years it was quite obvious, except to the gifted elite, that the Earth was flat and riding on a tortoise or a cosmic aardvark or some such.

That's utter foolishness. Anyone with any sense at all at any time in history can tell that the Earth is round. See a ship sailing into the distance? It disappears. Why can't you see China from where you live? The Moon is round- that should have you at least suspecting that all bodies are. And it you go on a mountain, you can see points of geography not visible from the ground.
You don't need to be a gorram scientist to figure that one out- sheesh!

Chrisisall, trapped in a world he never made

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 1:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by LightBringer:
It doesn't matter whether the statement is true or not; but it may be that if enough people believe it, it will become true.

This elitist statement depends upon the idiot factor of the masses. You obviously believe that the masses will believe whatever they are told; I believe that eventually truth wins out over ignorance.

I did not vote for Unification.

Chrisisall, with a brownish coat

RUE

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 3:12 PM

"There's a place where "us and them" has to stop and become "we.""

And wouldn't that have been when the twin towers were attacked the first time ?

***************************************************************
I'm guessing you're repubican b/c what I see is the typical repubican double standard. It's OK for a repubican congress to waste tens of millions of dollars investigating the Clintons b/c somehow they are 'we', though Clinton, as president wasn't. But it's not OK for a Democratic Congress to even criticize a president b/c they are NOT 'we', though Bush, as president, is.

Care to straighten this out ?

HERO

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 3:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
That's utter foolishness. Anyone with any sense at all at any time in history can tell that the Earth is round.

I think that evidence supported that the earth was curved, like the surface of a ball, but I'd be hard pressed to say for certain from personal observation that its round. Yes its round...I learned that in school, I've seen pictures, but absent those two things...how would anyone know for sure.

H

RUE

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 3:39 PM

"I'd be hard pressed to say for certain from personal observation that its round. Yes its round...I learned that in school, I've seen pictures, but absent those two things...how would anyone know for sure."

Simple observation and a little logic ?

If it's flat on a clear day you can see forever, or if there is an edge you will be able to see it and get to it. The only way to have a horizon that you can never get to is by the earth being a globe.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

HERO

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 5:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
If it's flat on a clear day you can see forever, or if there is an edge you will be able to see it and get to it. The only way to have a horizon that you can never get to is by the earth being a globe.

You point would only be valid if the flat earth were small and uniformly flat.

You can't see forever because your view of thr horizon would ultimately be obstructed by distance, mountains, Rosanne Barr, etc. A good example is the great plains. Big, flat and great...but you can't stand in Missouri and see Colorado.

I also note that while the curve of the Earth's surface is obvious, especially to sailors, a curve does not necessarily translate into round.

At best an otherwise ignorant of the truth but observant person could observe a curved surface (like the surface of a mound). They might suppose its got on edge or that its round. And the moon to plain sight is round...but so is a coin when seen from a distance. Likewise the moon and the sun would apprear to move around the earth. Its not until one invents a telescope and some failry complex math that more distant stellar observations make it apparent the Earth is in motion along with the heavens.

I note for the record that when such observations might be a one-way ticket to the Inquisition...it tends to make radical scientific notions harder to accept regardless of the evidence.

H

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 5:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

I think that evidence supported that the earth was curved, like the surface of a ball, but I'd be hard pressed to say for certain from personal observation that its round.

Just talk to anyone from another country & ask 'em where the flat part is, silly.

If it's curved, it's logical to assume the curve continues, hence roundness until proved otherwise.
You think, sir, like a biped.

Chrisisall

RUE

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 5:37 PM

snicker

"if the flat earth were ... uniformly flat"
Oh, you mean like the ocean ?

"a curve does not necessarily translate into round"
Ah, but it does - by the fact that the horizon advances with every mile you advance. New and different horizons show up, even out there, on the ocean, which we all know (or I hope we all know) can't be 'mounded'. The only way to keep going over a hill out on the ocean is if the earth is indeed a globe.

In fact, it was the early sailors who originally figured out earth was round from just such observations - and some logic.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 5:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

And the moon to plain sight is round...but so is a coin when seen from a distance. Likewise the moon and the sun would apprear to move around the earth.

The moon rotates and shows different faces constantly, hence, NOT a coin...hovever, the Sun circling the Earth is an entirely understandable (if wrong) concept.

Don't be denseisall

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 5:47 PM

What was this thread about again?

FLETCH2

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 5:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
The moon rotates and shows different faces constantly, hence, NOT a coin...hovever, the Sun circling the Earth is an entirely understandable (if wrong) concept.

But it doesnt, we only see one face of the moon, it's face locked to the Earth, that is why there is an "unseen" dark side.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 5:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:

But it doesnt, we only see one face of the moon, it's face locked to the Earth, that is why there is an "unseen" dark side.

No way, it rotates- it can't possibly be the EXACT same side year round, that's just crazy-talk. The far side is fully 18% visible on different full moons, killing the coin theory.

Astronomical Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 5:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
What was this thread about again?

How we shouldn't raise any government up as something to be blindly followed...and astronomy.

Blind Chrisisall

RUE

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 6:33 PM

My entry was to try correct some badly mangled statements claimed as facts. I just hate seeing obvious errors merged into the common 'wisdom' unaddressed.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

HERO

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 8:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Ah, but it does - by the fact that the horizon advances with every mile you advance.

Unless you've gone all the way around then you can't prove this to be true. How do you know that just one mile more you wont see the edge? You know it through education and pictures and modern thinking, but I doubt you or the average 'Earth is flat' type from long ago ever went all the way around to find out for sure.

Things are not so obvious until they are established fact, explained by science, and accepted into the collective knowledge of everyone.

For example, I never could prove by first hand knowledge the existence of England until I visited there some years back. Up until then it was a matter of faith and fairytale as real or unreal as any other place seen old in story and picture. Now take someone without anything to base such faith upon...perhaps someone that knows nothing of England, perhaps does not even suspect England. Their subsequent belief that England does not exist is perfectly reasonable given the extent of their knowledge. Likewise it is impossible to understand their point of view to someone for whom such knowledge is readily apparent.

The world was not flat...but there was a time when for all mankind knew it could have been. Such time has passed and perhaps we are all a bit diminished for it.

H

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 8:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Things are not so obvious until they are established fact, explained by science, and accepted into the collective knowledge of everyone.

In a time long ago I would have STRONGLY suspected the Earth was round for my stated reasons, just as I STRONGLY suspected the WMD thing was a hoax, er, I mean, error.

Some of us are blessed with gifted insight to go along with simple logic, I suppose.

Not that difficult Chrisisall

HERO

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 8:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
No way, it rotates- it can't possibly be the EXACT same side year round, that's just crazy-talk. The far side is fully 18% visible on different full moons, killing the coin theory.

Unless there are different moons...In ancient times, Chinese people believed that there were twelve Moons as there were twelve months in one year. At the beginning of each month, the mother, Heng-O, washed her children in a lake at the extreme western side of the world. Then each Moon, one after the other would travel in a chariot for a month journey to reach the opposite east side of the world.

Or perhaps the moon is merely starving himself in an eternal chase of the sun as the Inuits believed: Anningan (aka Moon Boy) continually chases his sister, Malina, the Sun goddess, across the sky. During this chase, he forgets to eat, and he gets much thinner. This is symbolic of the phases of the moon, particularly the crescent.

To satisfy his hunger, he disappears for three days each month (new moon) and then returns full (gibbous) to chase his sister all over again. Malina wants to stay far away from her bad brother. That is why they rise and set at different times

The Hindus explain it this way: The Moon was thought to be the storehouse of the elixir (Soma aka Diet GodCoke). When the gods drink soma, it is said that the Moon wanes because the gods are drinking away some of its properties. Some people think that the Moon is inhabited by a hare. That is why all hares are viewed as incarnations of Soma.

And for native Americans:
January Wolf Moon Hungry wolf packs howled at night
February Snow Moon Heaviest snowfalls in the middle of winter
March Worm Moon Start of spring, as earthworms (and the robins that eat them!) began to appear
April Pink Moon An early spring flower called "moss pink" started to bloom
May Flower Moon Many types of flowers bloom in May
June Strawberry Moon Strawberries were ready to be picked and eaten
July Buck Moon New antlers of buck deer, coated with velvety fur, began to form
August Sturgeon Moon Sturgeon, a large fish found in the Great Lakes, were easily caught at this time of year
September Harvest Moon Farmers could continue harvesting until after sunset by the light of the Harvest Moon
October Hunter's Moon Hunters tracked and killed prey by moonlight, stockpiling food for the coming winter
November Beaver Moon Time to set beaver traps before the swamps froze, to make sure of a supply of warm winter furs
December Cold Moon The cold of winter sets in

All perfectly reasonable explanations.

H

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 8:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Some of us are blessed with gifted insight to go along with simple logic, I suppose.

Not that difficult Chrisisall

Too bad some of us were not blessed with modesty as well.

KIRKULES

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 9:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
snicker

"if the flat earth were ... uniformly flat"
Oh, you mean like the ocean ?

The oceans surface would be curved even if the earth was not spherical. Gravitational anomalies caused by differences in density and thickness(mountains)of the earths crust cause an effect similar to the meniscus effect.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 9:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

All perfectly reasonable explanations.

Then I would have been cast out as the village blasphemer, for none of that s**t would have flown with me.

Evernaysaying Chrisisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 9:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Things are not so obvious until they are established fact, explained by science, and accepted into the collective knowledge of everyone.

In a time long ago I would have STRONGLY suspected the Earth was round for my stated reasons, just as I STRONGLY suspected the WMD thing was a hoax, er, I mean, error.
Some of us are blessed with gifted insight to go along with simple logic, I suppose.

Really? Because I could more easily forgive the mistake of assuming the earth flat, then I could that the moon appears to rotate. One can make fun of the earth being flat since one lives in a world where such knowledge is widely excepted based on a lot of solid evidence to be false, but the logic itself is not as “simple” as you think. The truth is that the flat earth idea can be explained by the fundamental theorem of calculus, or basically that any sufficiently small region of any real surface will always appear flat. If, given our minute physical comparison to the enormity of the earth, we could simply know that the earth was spherical that would tend to cast doubt on the entire field calculus.

On the other hand, one can in fact examine the moon and see quite clearly with one’s own eye that lunar features remain constant on the lunar disk. The same side of the moon always faces the earth.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 9:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I think what some of us are sick of are the arguments that preclude any disagreement.
It's the "Earth is round" effect. It's difficult for some (including me) to argue something we believe so fiercely in a way that allows for the possibility that we're wrong...pizza is the best food, Bush is a bad President, the Earth is round, period, no discussion except for you to agree.

That’s refreshingly honest. Yes, we all find ourselves defending inflexible opinions sometimes. I have done it more then once, often to my own discredit.

Some ideas, such as the flat earth, we can postulate. We know it’s a fact - we don’t have to keep redefining the wheel, but one must be careful about what one postulates. When you start taking subjective views, such as ‘Bush is a bad president’ and insisting them to be fact regardless of the evidence, then you are doing exactly what you are now criticizing others for.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
One thing though, I don't fault (or care, even) peeps here for bashing Clinton for his many flaws, why do you take such umbrage in the case of the present administration? It's like y'all take it personally or something.

Well, I generally don’t take offense unless offense is intended, but even then only rarely - I don‘t have a very thin skin. It has nothing to do with the administration. The last time I took offense at something someone directed at me or about me on this board was concerning sex education, not the administration. Most of the time, I find the audacity and fruitcakeisms of Bush-haters more funny then offensive.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Seriously, I'm not perfectly clear on that part of your post, but I wouldn't call you a lackey in ANY case.

The point is that certain people will only read as much of what I say, as they need to support their twisted views of me.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, April 3, 2008 3:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
In a time long ago I would have STRONGLY suspected the Earth was round for my stated reasons, just as I STRONGLY suspected the WMD thing was a hoax, er, I mean, error.
Some of us are blessed with gifted insight to go along with simple logic, I suppose.

I've strongly suspected that Al Qaeda was not primarily responsible for 9/11 since 9/11/01. For me there are clues in abundance, just like the curvature of the horizon and the shapes of the moon.

--------------------------
If the earth were round, then why don't we fall off when we get to the other side?
--Round Earth Skeptics

RUE

Thursday, April 3, 2008 4:26 AM

"Unless you've gone all the way around then you can't prove this to be true. How do you know that just one mile more you wont see the edge?"

Why is this getting to be like dealing with Rap ? Oh yeah --- simple facts - and logic - just aren't enough to do the job.

How do you know you won't see the edge ? How about because you've been cresting a hill in the ocean for the last 5,000 miles ? Now maybe it's just me, but I don't think you could make a big enough mountain out of ocean water to make that happen. DUH ! (Same goes for gravitational effects and earth's spin - which you forgot Kirk'ules' (is that like a variation of picayune kirks? you know globs, globules ... kirks, kirkules) - jeez - the effect is in the order of a few meters over thousands of miles. Now somehow - don't know why this idea came to me, but here it is - I don't think that effect - which is only visible from space or from doing highly sensitive measurements - is enough to create a false illusion of roundness where it doesn't exist.)

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Thursday, April 3, 2008 7:03 AM

Actually I believe some Greeks figured it out with a star and a very deep well. It's not blindingly obvious though, otherwise supposedly intelligent people wouldn't have thought the earth was flat into the 16th century.

RUE

Thursday, April 3, 2008 5:25 PM

Other sailors figured it out from the common experience of climbing up the mast to see further - to actually see a different horizon.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

KIRKULES

Thursday, April 3, 2008 8:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
and earth's spin - which you forgot

What makes you think the Earth spins? It seems obvious to me that no matter were I am on Earth the Sun rises in the East and sets in the West. If you just used simple logic it would be obvious to you, like it is to me, that the Sun revolves around me. Since the Sun clearly revolves around me, I think we can assume the entire Universe does.

LIGHTBRINGER

Thursday, April 3, 2008 11:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
That's utter foolishness. Anyone with any sense at all at any time in history can tell that the Earth is round.

Okay, I think many of you have served to demonstrate my original point very well. That point was this: People (and by that I mean you) tend to believe that they know things for reasons that aren't valid. For instance, I believe that the world is spherical, but the reality is that I believe that not because of all the supposed evidence, but because people would call me crazy if I didn't. Why would they call me crazy? Because everyone knows the world is spherical! In most disciplines, there are only a limited number of people who actually have access to the tools and specialized knowledge to actually know something with a sense of reasonable certainty. Everyone else, inluding in many cases respected "authorities," just believe what they are told, believe the evidence that is presented in its finished, sometimes sanitized, form. They don't really know anything, but they have the satisfaction of believing they do. And that's the point I was originally making. The problem is that most people are quite happy to be told, and feel secure in a false sense of knowledge. And this is most evident when they say things like "It's common knowledge! Why would you even need to argue it?" This is almost a sure sign that they don't really know why the thing is supposed to be true, they've just always assumed it was. Here's one I like; next time you're talking about the War Between the States, and somebody says something like "Slavery was the cause," or "Slavery was bad and had to be stopped," ask them "Why is slavery bad?" They'll give you all kinds of obvious answers born of the Age of Enlightenment, but ultimately no one seems to be able to answer a question like that without assuming the "right" answer a priori. Similarly, we're all "Oh, any idiot can see that the Earth is round!" when what we really mean is "Anyone, that is, living in the 21st century with the benefit of over 2,000 years of research on the subject and the gloss of hindsight." Greek physicians used to believe the brain was simply an organ for cooling the blood, for Pete's sake. How would you go about demonstrating definitively that it is the seat of consciousness instead, despite how obvious it appears to you? So that's all, I'm telling you not to assume ultimate truths where there may only be conditioning and egocentrism.
Thanks to Hero and MacCool (haha, Gaelic fun!) for reasoned and informative posts; Fletch, I'm sure you know that the unseen side of the Moon gets just as much light as the seen one, albeit there's no one there to hear it fall. Thanks to the rest of you for leaping on this digression like rapid dogs and often with similarly subtle reasoning ability.
Moving on, Chrisisall, I believe I apply the same standard to administrations and legislatures of both parties. I don't like anyone spending money stupidly or frivolously, and even less do I like politicians creating issues where there needn't be any. It's simply that more often than not it's the Democrats who do these things; that may simply be their legacy as the "opposition" party in late 20th century American politics. Their whole raison d'etre is to disagree with the core principles of the nation, and to pander to those who lack the self-respect or intelligence to actually function as citizens. Their platform, as with any socialist party in an affluent society (go figure that one), is to promise to redistribute the wealth and resources of those who are doing things right to those who are doing things wrong; that is, to the populus mobile, the moronic, lazy, and self-indulgent, the wheedling children who make up an alarming proportion of today's America. So, I'm sure somebody will have something to say about that, and try to throw in something about the role of government in all this. Ta ta...

This may be all a dream, but at least mine was consistently erotic.

RUE

Thursday, April 3, 2008 11:54 PM

At at certain point no one can 'know' anything - not even their own existance. So one has to make some assumptions somewhere. If you draw the line at no assumptions can be made anywhere, then you are nowhere.

***************************************************************
Also, just to point out - no where in the constitution does it say capitalism or god. So I guess the founders were godless socialists and those are the core ideals of the country.

Ta ta ...

CHRISISALL

Friday, April 4, 2008 12:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by LightBringer:
Thanks to the rest of you for leaping on this digression like rapid dogs

I think you assumed too much about a keystroke there, Socrates

.

Fast canine Chrisisall

LIGHTBRINGER

Friday, April 4, 2008 12:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by LightBringer:
Thanks to the rest of you for leaping on this digression like rapid dogs
I think you assumed too much about a keystroke there, Socrates.

Fast canine Chrisisall

Damn you, damn your eyes! You caught me in an error, but I'm comforted that it wasn't one of spelling or grammar. Good call on the Socrates bit, too; maybe we can drag the Cynics in too with all this rabid canine business...

This may be all a dream, but at least mine was consistently erotic. -LB

FLETCH2

Friday, April 4, 2008 1:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by LightBringer:
It's simply that more often than not it's the Democrats who do these things; that may simply be their legacy as the "opposition" party in late 20th century American politics. Their whole raison d'etre is to disagree with the core principles of the nation, and to pander to those who lack the self-respect or intelligence to actually function as citizens. Their platform, as with any socialist party in an affluent society (go figure that one), is to promise to redistribute the wealth and resources of those who are doing things right to those who are doing things wrong; that is, to the populus mobile, the moronic, lazy, and self-indulgent, the wheedling children who make up an alarming proportion of today's America.

Or another explanation for the rise of the various "social democratic" parties is that they were created to ensure the continued survival of the current economic system and the incumbent elites. In this theory the 1918 Russian revolution so scared those in power (because the elites in Russia had been executed) that they feared similar uprisings in their own countries. By creating movements that promised the disgruntled masses "jam tomorrow" it was hoped to dull the attraction of radical Communism and this allow business as usual. The idea was that these movements could throw some bread to the populous, persuading them to support a social contract that didn't favour them rather than resort to violent revolution to change the current order. In this context "welfare" is what it has always been --- antirevolution insurance.

Or in short, the Democrats exist to keep the disaffected in the system rather than on the streets.

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, April 4, 2008 2:11 AM

"Most people don't have a clue, don't want one or need one, they like to think they have a good bead on things..."
-Agent K

LIGHTBRINGER

Friday, April 4, 2008 6:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Also, just to point out - no where in the constitution does it say capitalism or god. So I guess the founders were godless socialists and those are the core ideals of the country.

It is certainly true that the words "capitalism" and "god" do not appear in the Constitution, or in the Declaration. Then again, the word "revolution" does not appear in the Declaration either, nor "socialism" in the Constitution. The problem with nit-picking semantics like this is that they willfully ignore the plain intent of the document and its writer[s]. In reality (you know, where I live), the concepts of capitalism and free enterprise are inextricably bound up in the aims and ideals of the American Revolution. You can't have a nation founded on the "God-given" right to self-determination, individualism, and a citizen-driven democracy without positing capitalism as a corollary. That is, capitalism wasn't the goal of the founders, it was simply an utterly necessary component as well as a welcome product of those goals. Capitalism, personal freedom, and political freedom are only facets of the same gem, and as both communist and fascist revolutions have demonstrated repeatedly, when you take away one or the other, the rest swiftly fall. So to make myself clear: socialism and its collectivist ilk are diametrically opposed to the Enlightenment ideal of the free and self-determined human being. Whatever up-side you may think such political philosophies have, they have shown themselves historically to be unacceptable, and they are anathema to any free person with a grasp of human nature.
Just as a side-note. "God" is in fact not mentioned in the Constitution, but is in the Declaration. Two points:
A) I do view the Declaration as establishing the founding principles of the nation. Many argue that it has no legal power, and that's fine, because it is simply a primer which lays out the fundamental assumptions of the "new order." And it should be noted that Jefferson ultimately justifies virtually all of those assumptions about equality and liberty by playing the God card, the old "deus ex machina" that makes everything right. This was my point in an earlier post where I asked "Why is slavery wrong?" Most answers to that question presuppose the principles that Jefferson laid at the feet of Deity. So one could argue that if you don't believe in a Creator, you in fact cannot "hold these truths to be self-evident."
B) The fact that the Constitution doesn't mention God doesn't say anything either way. The Declaration already made its point, and unless you're planning to build a theocracy, you don't have any reason to refer to God in the instruction manual for your new government. Also, of course, the current Constitution was the 2nd such blueprint, replacing the Articles of Confederation, though I don't think they mentioned God either. The point is, the manual for your toaster may not mention "electricity," but it's kind of assumed that electricity informs the process.

This may be all a dream, but at least mine was consistently erotic. -LB

RUE

Friday, April 4, 2008 7:39 PM

" The problem with nit-picking semantics like this is that they willfully ignore the plain intent of the document and its writer[s]."

Not willfully nit-picking. For example, the original text of the Declaration of Independence was "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and Property ..." but property was too big a stumbling block. What if the new government wanted to, for example, collect taxes itself ? So property was out and the more useful but less explicit 'pursuit of happiness' was put in. Now of they HAD left 'property' in you might argue that they were at least indirectly supporting capitalism (a thing which, if I may reiterate, didn't exist at the time) but it's not there and so you can't point to anything other than your vague - and 1950's generated - 'everybody knows' notions. (And I thought you'd didn't hold with 'everybody knows' or 'common wisdom' factoids. You seem to have have adopted the concept after lambasting it earlier.)

Also, I think you would have a hard time finding individualism - which is a very modern concept - anywhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. So consider this a challenge - please find it for me.

"Capitalism, personal freedom, and political freedom are only facets of the same gem ..." Again, let me point out that is a very modern concept created in the 1950's, along with the insertion of the phrase 'under god' in the pledge. The three - god, democracy and capitalism - were explicitly tied together for propaganda purposes via a vis the godless, communistic totalitarians. There have been and are many countries that have democratically chosen a socialistic or partially socialistic economic system.

Democracy, which is a political system, and capitalism or socialism, which are economic systems, are not even in the same category.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

LIGHTBRINGER

Friday, April 4, 2008 8:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
There have been and are many countries that have democratically chosen a socialistic or partially socialistic economic system.

Democracy, which is a political system, and capitalism or socialism, which are economic systems, are not even in the same category.

Rue, I'm proud to have elicited such a thorough response from you. Thank you for the attention.
And of course, I disagree. For one, the "right to property" was problematic because it isn't something you are inherently born with. By definition, you are born with life, and by assumption liberty, but very few people are born with property, so it doesn't really fit the category Jefferson was angling at. "Pursuit of happiness" can be presumed to mean anything the individual construes, including property and wealth.
I would also like to note that Adam Smith's An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations was also published in 1776, so it can certainly be argued that capitalism, while not called by that name, was already in the consciousness. It is quite evident to me that the foundation of the US was driven primarily by a desire to secure more control over one's own wealth and property, eliminate restrictions on trade, and reduce or even eliminate the burden of taxation.
I know it's lame, but here's a Wikipedia excerpt from the article on "Individulism":
At the time of the formation of the United States, many of its citizens had fled from state or religious oppression in Europe and were influenced by the egalitarian and fraternal ideals that later found expression in the French revolution. Such ideas influenced the framers of the U.S. Constitution (the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans) who believed that the government should seek to protect individual rights in the constitution itself; this idea later led to the Bill of Rights. According to Ronald Scollon, the "fundamental American ideology of individualism" can be summarized by the following two statements: 1. The individual is the basis of all reality and all society. 2. The individual is defined by what he or she is not." Explaining the latter statement, he says that American individualism emphasizes that the individual is not subject to arbitrary laws, and not subject to domination by historical precedent and preference.
I would argue that "individualism," while once again perhaps not called by name, is rampantly evident in the mores and actions of early generations of Americans, and has in fact become less common over time as the jaws of the state,in concert with urban industrialization, closed in.

I'm trying to be less long-winded, but one more point. I must categorically disagree with your contention that political and economic systems are "not even in the same category." I don't see how they can be separated; an economic system defines the relationship between self and others, the nature of wealth and ownership, and various other elements that must be reflected in the political arena, and vice versa. As for democratic societies democratically choosing socialist economic policies, I would argue that as far as they do so, the less free they make themselves. Maybe that's not a big deal, but it rarely seems to stop with a little sacrifice of liberty. Then there's the whole question of whether a "democratic" decision is actually a good or right one in the first place; that's another a priori argument we tend to make. The Confederacy democratically voted to secede, so what was the problem?

This may be all a dream, but at least mine was consistently erotic. -LB

BROWNCOAT2007

Thursday, April 10, 2008 9:15 PM

Heh, my Philosophy Professor assigned us a report on "Why is Democracy the best form of Government?" Gotta say that I took the stance that any form of government may not be called the "best" simply because people are always gunna look out for number 1, and if we give our governmental control to a person... well...

Democracy may be the... least harmful form of government, but the idea of a government is flawed... not going all anarchist or anything here, very fun thread Chris

Also... Kirk, good plan, but... well... violence would ensue... I almost guarentee it