Let's see: Fidel Castro, Mohammar Qadaffi, Ted Kennedy, Yasser Arafat,
Robert Byrd, Saddam Hussein, Frank Lautenberg. I see a trend here.
Denys
-----Original Message-----
From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of John Lee
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 10:18 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: But they looked so good together...
As the old saying goes, politicians and diapers need to be changed
periodically and for the same reasons. I would venture to say that there
is less turnover in the US Senate than in most other nations' "leadership"
bodies, including those whose governments supposedly fix the results of
elections.
John Lee
At 11:22 PM 9/21/06 -0400, Mark Wonsil wrote:
>Wirt wrote:
> > There are two groups who you can trust *not* to provide accurate
science,
> > the fundamentalists of the religious right and the funders of the
various
> > anti-regulation institutes (the Cato Institute, the American Enterprise
> > Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, etc.). Unfortunately
> > they are now the mainstays of the Republican Party.
>
>I would narrow it to one group that you can't trust: those who are funding
>anything. Their economic goals are usually antithetical to yours, if not,
they
>wouldn't have to pay someone to force their ideas on you.
>
>As for Cato and the Republicans? They're so Bennifer. Here's one of today's
>featured selection on the Cato Home Page (www.cato.org):
>
>Buck Wild: How Republicans Broke the Bank and Became the Party of Big
>Government
>By Stephen Slivinski
>
>A scathing look at how the Republican Party, once the paragon of fiscal
>conservativism, has embraced Big Government and become even more
irresponsible
>with taxpayer money than the Democrats.
>
>Price: $25.99
>Publication Date: August 2006
>ISBN: 1-5955-5064-X
>Number of Pages: 260
>Hardcover
>Categories: 2006 Titles, Hot Topics, New Releases
>
>About the Book
>Buck Wild offers a scathing critique of the Republican Party and explains
how
>its abandonment of limited government principles jeopardize the future of
the
>Grand Old Party and the nation.
>
>Through gripping narrative and trenchant analysis, Stephen Slivinski tells
the
>surpising story of the GOP's unfortunate transformation, revealing how and
why
>Republicans have:
>-become the biggest spenders in Washington since Lyndon Johnson.
>-abandoned the keystone principles that catapulted them to power in the
first
>place.
>-betrayed taxpayers and fiscal conservatives.
>-planted the seeds of their own undoing in the coming elections.
>
>Buck Wild tells the story of how the Republican Party lost its head and
also
>explores urgent questions about the fate of limited government, including
>whether conservatives within the GOP can save the party from itself before
>it's too late.
>
>A fight for the heart and soul of the Republican Party is brewing. Buck
Wild
>explains how the GOP reached the breaking point and what it means for the
>future of the party and American government.
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>
>Unlike Wirt, I am not a Republican. I am also not a Democrat. While
>anti-regulation comes closer, I'm not an anarchist either. It really
doesn't
>take much observation to see the path that regulation takes: start with
good
>intentions; propose a solution that puts a 3rd party in control; accuse
anyone
>who disagrees with said solution as anti-good intention; declare victory.
>
>Any student of history knows the real outcome however. Over time the
>regulators become captive to those who were to be regulated. The regulatory
>system breaks down because the people who put it in place are no longer in
>control; the regulatory agency loses its mission and the goals of the group
>become diluted and the agency becomes ineffective and even at odds with its
>original purpose. This behavior is just as true in the private sector with
a
>corporate board of directors as it is in the public sector with a
regulatory
>agency.
>
>At one time, it was quoted on this list that a good part of science
involves
>people challenging ideas by saying bull$hit. I took that sentiment to heart
>and carry a healthy dose of skepticism about any claim made by any person
>regardless of their political leanings. I still believe it is healthy to
>question. I still think it is good science and I still believe it's
important
>to identify the holes in our claims, not for the fun of knocking them down,
>but to add to the data points that may help fill in those holes.
>
>I am saddened by the negative effects that politics has had on science.
Yes, I
>understand that scientists are human and have engaged in political
wrangling
>forever. But I am extremely disappointed when people stop seeking knowledge
>and move to censure or ad-hominem attacks. Personally, I feel there's
always
>something more to learn and the best way to do it is through interaction.
We
>don't always have to agree but if we cut off communication, we do so at our
>own detriment.
>
>Kindest regards,
>
>Mark W.
>
>* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
