70 Comments »

The Windy City Windbag said:
Sanford, like Ensign before him, has disgraced himself. Characters with major flaws like this need to be weeded out in these off years in order to clear the path for better candidates. What these politicians do not understand is that the message is not the only important thing, as they embody the message… their character is important too.
As a conservative’s conservative in fiscal matters, Sanford has done significant damage to the message he holds dear. The longer he sticks around in office, the stronger his opponents to that message will grow. In addition, the longer he trolls along, the weaker his allies will become. Political enemies will rightfully belittle him because of his affair, but that will increase their ability to do fiscal damage to the SC economy.
Gov. Sanford needs to go now. Time to work either on his marriage or his divorce, but not on the time or dime of the people of SC.
# 30 June 2009 at 7:24 am

Mike said:
I personally think you guys are full of it when it comes to Sanford.
There is a bit of a double standard. You aren’t calling for the resignation of Larry Craig, so you shouldn’t be calling for the resignation of Sanford.
As a libertarian and one who believes in freedom, as free from society’s intervention in anyone’s private life (especially bloggers come lately), what Sanford does in private is his business.
Yes, he should be investigated for misuse of public funds – and so should Larry Craig.
The other problem with the post is that your standard essentially boils down to “if you are caught, then there is indignation.” Why isn’t this blog asking for a purging of all men and women who are now straying from their relationship? Because they can’t. Because it is illegal. Because it is irrational.
So all you are calling for is resignation if you are caught – pretty thin reasoning if you ask me.
# 30 June 2009 at 6:17 pm

NCViking (author) said:
I haven’t a clue how you concluded that the post boils down to “if you are caught, then there is indignation.”
# 30 June 2009 at 7:40 pm

The Windy City Windbag said:
I’m a bit confused. Why would we call for the resignation of a Senator who is already a former Senator? I might have missed that one while I was calling for Bill Clinton to step down as President last month.
Point of clarification, this blog came into existence in December 2008, so we were not exactly wound up enough to tell a retiring Senator to step down. If we were writing this blog when former Senator Craig decided to do the Airport Wide Stance Boogie, I can tell you that I would have publicly suggested he get out of the way, as I privately complained about pre-blog.
Politics is serious business, in which the policy is not the only part of the message… the person is part of the message. We can easily prove this by taking a lumpy, doughy guy like Al Gore, and put his words into President Obama’s mouth. The former is annoying, while the latter makes the crowds sway. Sanford, like Ensign, and yes… Craig… had serious enough problems that they need to step down from their position. They personally get in the way of the message. It is like pulling one’s pants down and speaking — no one is listening to you, because they are being distracted by your actions. If Sanford were some no-name staffer spouting the same opinions, and caught coming back from his affair, no one would care and it would not distract from the message. Democrats get off easier on this, for better or for worse, because their base cares less about this.
What I am more interested in though is your claim to be a libertarian. On what issues? Just sexual? That makes sense in this context, but not in your responses to posts about Global Warming Climate Change.
# 1 July 2009 at 9:59 am

Mike said:
Windy City,
Fair enough, I didn’t realize you launched in 2008. We’ll leave Larry Craig out of it. We all know that people in various walks of life have the propensities exhibited by Sandford, whether they chase members of their own or of the opposite sex.
To my mind, all of it is off limits. Private lives are private lives.
Moreover, protecting private lives should be the standard. Everyone has a right to it; we should defend that right.
I don’t comprehend the link you are making between libertarianism and climate change. One is a political philosophy, the other is a science.
Feel free to explain what you meant and I’ll address it.
Libertarianism equals privacy and respect for individual rights. I support independence for America from foreign oil as far better than us keep sucking up to Iran, China, and Russia for our oil needs. I do not favor small patchwork solutions like off-shore drilling for two simple reasons: short-sided and we have land leases that haven’t been exploited yet.
It shouldn’t take you gents too long before you will realize that the government is too close to business and that their interests trump your interests – to your loss.
So when it comes to CC, I favor freedom over anything else. I hope someday you will see that as well.
# 1 July 2009 at 4:01 pm

The Windy City Windbag said:
Hi Mike… my point on climate change and libertarianism is as follows. Those who see Climate Change as man-made and catastrophic see government as the answer to the problem. Libertarians (let’s start with small “l” libertarianism first) look to maximize individual liberty (as you said) and minimize the state. The Obama Administration and other CC advocates see the solution of a bigger state solution… pumping more dollars into a state run, managed, and controlled environment. The libertarian would see the market as the solution, not the government. One does not create a market through mandates and criminalizing other behaviors.
The Libertarian Party’s position on environmental issues is as follows:
We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet’s climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.
I consider myself “Libertarian” in many places. Sanford and others have the right to do anything they want, but they also have to face the consequences of this actions. None of us live in a bubble. We can not act out and then expect no repercussions. A pure libertarian believes in eliminating the state from drug laws, but when the drunk or high addict crashes his vehicle into an innocent, his “private” behavior is now public. Sanford’s behavior has clouded the message of his policies and that is why he has to go. He should be allowed to fornicate all he wants, as long as it is OK with those he effects.
And it caused issues for the citizens of SC, and for those who may have supported him nationally.
# 1 July 2009 at 8:21 pm

Mike said:
We have to draw the line on “consequences” somewhere. I suggest what people do in their unofficial hours is where we draw the line. I am very surprised that you would believe otherwise.
Being drunk in private is beyond the line and we should not touch it. Being drunk in public (of taking another example, being drunk in private and harming someone in their or your own home) is not beyond the line. It is now at least between two people and could be even more public.
When it affects their job performance, then it’s clearly our concern.
About Climate Change…
The market is simply NOT the answer to every problem, and it is not a very efficient allocator of resources, contrary to the constant propaganda of certain quarters. To begin with, the market is not a level playing field, so it tends to aggregate results to those who have greater gravity.
Examples of greater gravity and mis-allocation of resources are everywhere. There is: overfishing (several states have to restrict catch), bank lent until they took down the economy, etc…
Part of the problem with markets is that each player has a minimal view of the larger forces at play. A fisherman cannot measure future fishing stock; a bank cannot measure the soundness of AIG; energy companies cannot measure the impact of climate change a generation in the future.
They cannot respond, even if they wanted to, to forces they cannot see and cannot measure.
In markets there are players that can see further. They can see storms coming, or market forces looming, and they move to maximize their positions for the future.
I happen to believe that there are very large national and economic interests that are maximized by Cap & Trade. I’ll explain.
To me, the view that property self interest drives innovation is cartoonish. There are places where you can bet your money and earn a reward, but there are places where anything goes ruins your neighbors.
Before the 1970’s, companies would dump chemical waste into rivers, or into chemical dumping grounds. Entire towns at times were destroyed. The EPA was created to repair this “free-market.” Governments have a role to play to make sure that a chemical dumping plant doesn’t come to your neighborhood. Government in this case is the solution.
So somebody has to step in and set in motion goals: move to green.
Cap and Trade increases the cost of polluting industries in the same way that EPA raised costs on improper disposal of chemical waste. C&T then offers credits to green: forests, solar, wind. It is transformative.
# 2 July 2009 at 4:11 am

The Windy City Windbag said:
But as Viking has done a pretty good job explaining in this space, the Cap and Trade platform creates an uneven playing field in an artificial market where American people and companies put themselves at a disadvantage for no discernible gain. I guess this all goes back to the point where we see too many questions and no planet on the path to doom, and you see scientific clarity and undeniable evidence towards MMCCC (man-made, catostrophic, climate change).
Back to Sanford, public behavior and private matters often cross paths. This appears to be the case here. Let’s use a real life example of where it crosses the line. If a man wants to cheat on his spouse, let’s call him “Bill C”, and he chooses to do so in his office, that is his business and that of his employer, because it involves private behavior on his employers dime (in his office during work hours). No one is setting up cameras to monitor this behavior, and if he gets away with it and his work is not affected, then the employer should not look for it. But let’s just say that this employee, this Bill C. is involved in a sexual harassment lawsuit, and the question is asked to establish a pattern of unfaithful behavior which would lend itself to credibility of sexual harassment charges. Let’s say a question like “did you have an affair or sexual relations with this” specific woman? He can deny it, unless he is testifying under oath. In that case, he has a duty to God and to the foundation of laws established that compels people to tell the truth in court. If that person lies about his relationship, he is now breaking the law, and this private matter has moved into the public arena.
No hard and fast rules, but all need to be taken in a case-by-case basis. In the case of Sanford, Ensign, Craig, Spitzer, and McGreevey, all “affairs” went beyond private and into the public arena, since they involved broken laws and misuse of public funds. One can easily argue that John F. Kennedy’s affairs were private, as they did not seem to affect his job (although using secret service people to shuffle in your mistresses is a bit of stretch).
Best deal, if you are a public figure where your persona crosses with your message, then you should keep it in your pants. If you want to cheat on your wife, choose a different career. There are plenty of powerful people in this world with scorned spouses, and they can be them.
# 2 July 2009 at 7:32 am

Mike said:
There is a clear rule on behavior and consequences. I don’t know why you would say that there are no hard and fast rules, because quite the contrary is the case.
This series of responses are all about a public cry for resignation. My position is that whether drunk or cheating, private lives are private. You should support that, both for someone called “Thomas S” or “Bill C”.
Ever since Republicans thought they could smoke out Bill C with a sex scandal they have had a huge problem on their hands. Their set a standard that their own cannot keep. That is a huge public relations nightmare for R’s and in no small part is why you gents want to get Sanford off of the front pages.
Voters get to make the choices. They voted to keep Bill C (Republicans as well as Democrats voted to acquit in the senate), and they may vote to keep Thomas S in office.
Voters can choose to keep the philandered but let get the drunk out of office, or whatever suits them. Maybe if Thomas S was as popular as Bill C Thomas wouldn’t be facing calls for resignation.
About Climate Change
I disagree with the comment that “… Cap and Trade platform creates an uneven playing field in an artificial market where American people and companies put themselves at a disadvantage for no discernible gain.”
I think the gains are substantial, as I have explained.
We can have a discussion on the economics of it, or the gain or loss of it. Your blog is to foster political propaganda of the right. If that is as far as we’ll get on on every post, then I’ll just let your readers determine who is right, just like with the Thomas S affair.
# 2 July 2009 at 8:15 am

The Windy City Windbag said:
There is a clear rule on behavior and consequences. I don’t know why you would say that there are no hard and fast rules, because quite the contrary is the case.
My “no hard and fast rules” is in regards to having an affair or scandal in office. Sanford should resign, but others need not. I don’t think Bill Clinton’s affair made him unfit to be President, but lying under oath in a court proceeding is a different matter. People like to make it about the sex. To the contrary, it had nothing to do with the sex.
This series of responses are all about a public cry for resignation. My position is that whether drunk or cheating, private lives are private. You should support that, both for someone called “Thomas S” or “Bill C”.
Private lives are private until they are public and affect the effectiveness and control of the individual’s message. In Sanford’s case, it is. His affair is no longer a private matter. He should go. By the way, I think you mean “Mark S” and not “Thomas S”.
Ever since Republicans thought they could smoke out Bill C with a sex scandal they have had a huge problem on their hands. Their set a standard that their own cannot keep. That is a huge public relations nightmare for R’s and in no small part is why you gents want to get Sanford off of the front pages.
I agree that the GOP has higher standards, and that is OK. I would rather throw a bum out than keep him on and make excuses for his character. If Dems want to justify Murtha’s AFSCAM or Barney Frank’s romp with male hookers, or Spitzer’s romp with high priced call girls, that is their business. I would take the postion that all of them are punishable offenses. Ensign should go. Sanford should go. Craig should have gone.
Also, as I said above, the Clinton scandal was not about sex, but about lying under oath.
Voters get to make the choices. They voted to keep Bill C (Republicans as well as Democrats voted to acquit in the senate), and they may vote to keep Thomas S in office.
The GOP led Senate could not get the threshold it needed to convict the President of “high crimes and misdemeanors”. The Senate is a political body, and the fact that some Dems voted to convict and some Republicans voted to acquit on some of the four charges does not take away that he was impeached and he was guilty of what he did. He was disbarred for 5 years (I believe) for what he did, and admitted as such. The Senate is after all, a political body and not a court of law. More than 50 Senators voted yes to the charges… that counts for something, although not a conviction.
Why is it that people on the right can look at their guy and see faults but people on the left look at their guy and see a halo?
Voters can choose to keep the philandered but let get the drunk out of office, or whatever suits them. Maybe if Thomas S was as popular as Bill C Thomas wouldn’t be facing calls for resignation.
This is a simplistic way of looking at the issue. We all know that in the court of public opinion, Clinton was popular. The leftist press and politicians were able to frame the debate as “all about sex”, which it was not. Constituents called up their Senators and told them to acquit the President. That is what happens in a political environment. President Clinton won that fair and square. He was not convicted on the articles of impeachment. That does not make his lying in a court of law justified by any means.
About Climate Change
I disagree with the comment that “… Cap and Trade platform creates an uneven playing field in an artificial market where American people and companies put themselves at a disadvantage for no discernible gain.”
I think the gains are substantial, as I have explained.
We can have a discussion on the economics of it, or the gain or loss of it.
We probably should not rehash this issue again. You and Viking have discussed this at great length, and I defer to those conversations. We just disagree on the premise of facts.
Your blog is to foster political propaganda of the right. If that is as far as we’ll get on on every post, then I’ll just let your readers determine who is right, just like with the Thomas S affair.
You always call our opinions “propaganda”. We back up our opinions in the posts with facts and links, and sometimes do that in the responses below. Viking, Madman, and I never claim to speak for the Republican Party, although we all lean to the Right to various degrees. It may be provocative to call it that, but it is not based in fact. I no more get my talking points from Rush Limbaugh or Michael Steele than you do from Howard Dean or Al Gore. We certainly can have a discussion without backhanded insults. Remember the abortion discussion?
# 2 July 2009 at 1:49 pm

Mike said:
The right doesn’t have higher standards, and the center doesn’t see a halo. Politics, especially the politics of the right is all about saying key sentences to connect with some voters. They claim family values (and they mean a very shallow form of values), but they chase the skirts and the pants.
What the right has now is a public relations dilemma.
I’ll tell you about family values,
- family values is not who is in the bedroom – its whether they can see a doctor when they need one.
- family values is passing legislation that prevents banks and credit card companies from jacking up interest rates on the poorest of Americans.
- family values is not sending their children to fight unwinable wars for poorly understood reasons.
- family values is teaching them real science instead of that creationism crap in most states where Republicans are in control.
- family values is not running up the debt to $10T (see Bush, Reagan).
- family values is not destroying the economy on some no controls, no oversight mumbo jumbo theory.
- family values is not gutting clean air and clean water so some business (er, donor to the R) can make a profit.
- Any questions on family values?
You called my letting the voters decide simplistic. I’ll just use this sentence to remind you that that’s the constitution.
My comment on propaganda is related to your comment on Climate Change. Each post has lots of supercharged words without any substantiating links. I’ll engage if the tone is facts, not pushing an agenda.
# 2 July 2009 at 2:37 pm

The Windy City Windbag said:
Like Bob Cratchit, I was off making merry this weekend, but only like a right-wing, self-righteous, pants-dropping hypocrite could. Now, back to our discussion:
The right doesn’t have higher standards, and the center doesn’t see a halo. Politics, especially the politics of the right is all about saying key sentences to connect with some voters. They claim family values (and they mean a very shallow form of values), but they chase the skirts and the pants.
The right does have higher standards. We proclaim them all the time, but some of our politicians do not live up to them. The left loves to say it wants to live and let live. “Hey man, if that guy wants to get smoked in the Oval, who cares… that’s not my bag, but he has his right to privacy under the HMS Resolute desk.” That is a low moral bar to set for our leaders. Just because a righty does not live up to the values he professes, does not make the values wrong… it just makes him wrong.
What the right has now is a public relations dilemma.
That, my good sir, is politics. Image, distractions, and perceptions cloud the message… which is why private life for public officials is not always private. We elect the whole person to lead us, not the person who works 9 to 5. Sanford is a disgrace.
I’ll tell you about family values,
This laundry list of “family values” could be found on Kos or Huffington, but would unlikely ever be found on a Libertarian webpage, or spouted by a Libertarian. I believe I have these uttered almost verbatim when Bill Clinton had is private issue problem. There are some that need individual comments…
- family values is not who is in the bedroom – its whether they can see a doctor when they need one.
To start, yes, family values is who is in the bedroom. A good family man starts at home, respecting his wife and children, and the sanctity of that relationship. Anyone who starts off by saying that a cheat espouses family values is likely making excuses for themselves or someone they support.
Second part… about the doctor… that is not mutually exclusive to the first part. One can be a good family man and believe that a person is entitled to see a doctor. There are plenty of people, including Barack Obama, who believe in not only single-payer, but also in loving his wife. In many of your examples, this is not a choice, but rather an addition. That said, my opinion is that everyone is entitled to health care, but not everyone is entitled to whatever service they want. Health services, like any other service industry is based upon a service provided by scarce resources for a price. There is no one… and I mean no one in this country that is denied medical care or seeing a doctor. One can show up in an emergency room in any city and the law requires that the doctor provide services.
What you are trying to say, I would gather, is that everyone is entitled to see the doctor of their choice and have someone else pay for it. That has nothing to do with family values, but everything to do with socialized medicine.
- family values is passing legislation that prevents banks and credit card companies from jacking up interest rates on the poorest of Americans.
No it doesn’t. Credit cards companies are not required to extend credit to everyone that wants it, nor do they force anyone to go out and buy “stuff” to run the debt up. It is not family values to say that the person taking on debt is not responsible for their actions… that is excuse making, and pandering.
- family values is not sending their children to fight unwinable wars for poorly understood reasons.
There are no children fighting in unwinable wars sent by any one in the USA. The US government sent men and women, all volunteers of to fight in a conflict that we won. It is family values to allow men and women to make a choice and then hold them to the commitment. You have the right to believe that the cause was not just, but that would just make you wrong, but you are definitely wrong to refer to these brave men and women as children. Also, if you don’t understand the reasons for this war, then you are not reading or listening. All the Senators and House members who voted for the war understood, but as they are spineless politicians, they made pandering excuses later. That is not family values either.
- family values is teaching them real science instead of that creationism crap in most states where Republicans are in control.
This is a theological question which this column would not allow enough space to engage in a proper debate. Needless to say, I believe that evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive, and I also believe that the your slam on it is also a slam on religious faith. You can not believe in it if you must, but your judging tone does not signify family values.
- family values is not running up the debt to $10T (see Bush, Reagan).
You mentioned that poor people who run up debt somehow exhibit family values when they sponge of of you and me to get their bills paid off. But if the country runs up debt paying for social services, then that is not family values? By the way, you left off how much the debt will increase under Obama. That would double the total debt, up another $6T. By the way, Reagan/Bush 12 years increased the debt by $3.1T, not $10T.
- family values is not destroying the economy on some no controls, no oversight mumbo jumbo theory.
As you would know being a libertarian, success in an economy comes from getting the government out of controlling it. Supply-side economics is not mumbo jumbo, and you saying so does not make it so. It is also not family values to play Robin Hood. It is just legalized theft.
- family values is not gutting clean air and clean water so some business (er, donor to the R) can make a profit.
Big assumptions here. Much of the major legislation regarding clean air and water was passed when someone with an R was in office.
- Any questions on family values?
Apparently there are a lot of questions.
You called my letting the voters decide simplistic. I’ll just use this sentence to remind you that that’s the constitution.
I said that the voters keeping someone in office is based upon more than just their behavior. It is simplistic to say that the voters did not care about sex and that is why Clinton was still in office.
My comment on propaganda is related to your comment on Climate Change. Each post has lots of supercharged words without any substantiating links. I’ll engage if the tone is facts, not pushing an agenda.
There are facts in each post, which you choose many times to ignore or minimize. That does not mean that you can not take on a more even tone, like we did in the abortion topic.
# 6 July 2009 at 10:23 am

Mike said:
You are smoking a bit of dope when you make a statement like: “There are no children fighting in unwinable wars sent by any one in the USA.”
If we kick-ass in Iraq, then pullout and within a few years it’s back to a dictatorship we have won nothing. Same goes for Afghanistan. If your definition of win is drive a tank around and get shot at, then I’d say your definition is horribly misguided.
Win means win. Neither Iraq or Afghanistan have it and are unlikely to get it. Iraq will very likely go back to sectarian violence.
Your statement about credit cards…
My comments were about the excesses in the credit card industry, specifically arbitrarily raising interest rates. It would be one thing if the industry had a defensible paper that showed losses and interest rates as defensive stop-gap measure. The data shows is just squeezing the consumer.
As an American, I want fair and protective consumer laws. You should too.
Who is in the bedroom…
Not all families start with a man in the bedroom. Your answer is a rambling story.
About creationism crap…
It is time that we thought science in science classes. My tone is about the belief that many conservative have in watering down science with issues of faith. On this you are either on science in science classes, or you are for watering down science. On which side are you?
# 6 July 2009 at 3:19 pm

The Windy City Windbag said:
You are smoking a bit of dope when you make a statement like: “There are no children fighting in unwinable wars sent by any one in the USA.”
No sir, no dope. It is a fact: there are no American children fighting in Iraq. All are men and women over the age of 18, and all were volunteers. Second, you need to explain why the war is unwinnable. Did we win against Germany in 1918? Not according to your definition. They went right back to fighting us 20 years later. What about the Revolution? England came back and resumed hostilities with us in 1812.We have turned over sovereignty to Iraq, and most recently we turned over control of the major cities. Is your idea of success peace forever? We went to war with Saddam’s Iraq, and we are leaving with a much more friendly and less militaristic government in charge.
If we kick-ass in Iraq, then pullout and within a few years it’s back to a dictatorship we have won nothing.
Neither country is a dictatorship, although they are short of USA peace.
Same goes for Afghanistan. If your definition of win is drive a tank around and get shot at, then I’d say your definition is horribly misguided.
When did the war in Japan and Germany end with victory? Our current definition is 1945, but we have had troops in both places ever since. We called it an end when they surrendered. Rebuilding came later. There were pockets of resistance from both, but we did not say the war ended when troops went home.
Win means win. Neither Iraq or Afghanistan have it and are unlikely to get it. Iraq will very likely go back to sectarian violence.
If that is the case, we should have an 18-month time table to get out, regardless of conditions on the ground.
Your statement about credit cards…
My comments were about the excesses in the credit card industry, specifically arbitrarily raising interest rates. It would be one thing if the industry had a defensible paper that showed losses and interest rates as defensive stop-gap measure. The data shows is just squeezing the consumer.
Your description sounds like visions of fat-cats sitting around the bank table adjusting rates to places way out of bounds for the pure reason to bankrupt people, all while chomping a cigar and laughing. That seems a little out of line. These banks have entire financial departments that work up ratios that match risk with the appropriate rate. The companies are allowed to make a profit, and should not be forced to lose money as they are forced by Uncle Barney to loan to unqualified individuals who charge their cards to the hilt. Your scenario sounds a lot less plausible than mine.
As an American, I want fair and protective consumer laws. You should too.
Protection goes hand and hand with personal responsibility. I want consumers to be responsible for what they do… and so should you.
Who is in the bedroom…
Not all families start with a man in the bedroom. Your answer is a rambling story.
You call it “rambling” because you can not debate the merits, so you ignore and dismiss it. You know how well reasoned my argument is, and cannot deny that morality is a good thing. You also ignore the whole debate on socialized medicine as you concede that I am 100% correct. Thank you for your affirmation.
About creationism crap…
It is time that we thought science in science classes. My tone is about the belief that many conservative have in watering down science with issues of faith. On this you are either on science in science classes, or you are for watering down science. On which side are you?
Wow… that is a bit black and white. I think from previous post responses you have said that religion is bunk, and therefore that hooey should not be taught to our children. Pure Creationism is not science, no more than pure Global Warming Climate Change is pure science. I could shut you down by saying that the debate is over, and that anyone denying Creationism is like a Holocaust denier. Then this whole discussion would be over. That is the scientific method that is being taught in our schools today. Anyone who questions a theory is labeled and shunned, ridiculed and maligned. Is that the kind of science you are talking about? If so, which side are you on?
# 6 July 2009 at 7:13 pm

Buzzkill said:
To ask Sanford to resign while Barney Frank and his ilk remain in office is ludicrous.
# 6 July 2009 at 8:05 pm

Mike said:
- family values is not who is in the bedroom – its whether they can see a doctor when they need one.
Ok, you said I couldn’t address the merits of what you said about the bedroom, so let me address it here
- the post was that we (conservatives and libertarians, or if you prefer left and right) should worry more about providing affordable health care than whether they have an extra marital relationship (EMR).
- I say that EMR is a private mater between their marriage. Fine with me if we read all about in the paper, but ultimately I don’t care what Sanford or Barney or Craig do (or with whom) on their spare time.
- Your reply was a parse on the mutual exclusiveness of the elements in the sentence, about the statuesque role of an upstanding family man, and about how access to medical care is an addition and not a choice, about Obama and single-payer, about favoring rationing of health care, and about my favoring socialized medicine.
- I say the above just by taking all of the elements in your response. Surely you cannot expect me to address all of those elements in your reply if you only casually bothered to speak to my point.
- But let’s discuss the central issue of the question, health care (as I already addressed why I don’t care Sanford’s predilections):
– Your post simply goes to it’s all socialized medicine without a view of the problem that might actually benefit you in terms of cost reduction and benefit everyone else in terms of access.
– We need to move beyond a single dimension cry, it’s socialist medicine. We can solve this problem.
– Whether a person pays for it or not, today when you go to the hospital you get the standard level of care. We value life above money. Money will let you fly in a specialist, and homelessness will let you go back to living on the streets, but in the hospital you will get the same imaging services, the machines, the same drugs, and a well trained doctor.
– The hospital tab is paid for by either a health care program (if you have one), or out of your own pocket (if you have some money), or by a government run health fund that pays hospital for community services. Community services funds have been around for at least 100 years and predates any gov’t program.
– The people who get hurt the most in a health crisis are the employed-poor. These are people who work but cannot, for various reasons, get insurance. It would be great to simply lump all of those as just the drags of society wanting a handout, but they are in fact the people who work for small businesses, often make between $20k to $50k/ yr.
– Health care costs between $8k – $16k / yr for a family and it is impossible to get if there are any risks: risk of diabetes, risk of heart condition, risk of lung conditions, and about 300 known risks for diseases.
– So the problem is: as a taxpayer you pay when these people go to the hospital anyway, how do we structure a program that gets people to pay for their own health care.
– Add to that how do we reduce costs in the system so that it becomes less expensive for the Gov’t to run Medicare, for you and/or your employer to be able to buy health care at a more affordable price, and for us to be able to pay for those who will just never be able to buy their own insurance.
– Health care is not all doom and gloom everywhere in the world. There are plenty of countries that have very good health care systems where everyone is entitled to health care. It is only in the US that this is a huge problem.
– I prefer a competition based system where a portion of your salary is taken to buy you insurance of your choice. You would say I want this program from this carrier. Carrier’s would have to cover basics: doctor visits, and both routine and catastrophic medical treatments.
– The program would not be able to raise premiums on risk or pre-existing conditions. The basic tenet of insurance is to spread risk among a large population.
– Yes, like it or not, in America everyone is entitled to see the doctor. It is paid for by insurance.
– I’ll ask you to not respond by a simplistic: we’ll some people want socialized medicine. I ask you to answer using a realistic health care proposal.
# 7 July 2009 at 1:42 am

Mike said:
Creationism in school
On the actual subject matter, which was evolution, you have dodged the subject. Is science going to be taught in science classes? It is pointless to argue further if you are going to dodge the question.
If your view is that the way the scientific method is taught today is to label anyone who questions science findings as a Holocaust denier, then I would say you have absolutely no understanding of how science is taught at all in science classes today, from the Elementary to the College level.
Your statement is so twisted from reality that it is difficult to even know where to begin. Evolution has nothing to do with Climate Change. They are not even in the same discipline!
Your pots simple enough to throw out in the following sense: science encompasses a lot of subject material that includes physics, chemistry, biology, ecology, and geology. There is even greater detail in biology, ranging from anatomy to molecular biology.
Clearly you do not intend for us to believe that the scientific method is thrown out in all of these disciplines.
I have been in classes ranging from the 6th to the college level and I can attest that science and only science is taught there with a strong dose of the real scientific method: gathering of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
To me it is black and white: creationism does not meet in any way the scientific method (in fact it demands suspension of it) and does not belong in the classroom. It belongs in a church of worship.
# 7 July 2009 at 2:41 am

The Windy City Windbag said:
Buzzkill, we Republicans have our standards, and we can not lower them because the people of Massachusetts (Frank), Pennsylvannia (Murtha) and Louisiana (Jefferson) have neither the common sense nor morals to vote their bums out. We need to throw Sanford out because it is the right thing to do.
# 7 July 2009 at 9:52 am

The Windy City Windbag said:
Mike, I am not sure how a conversation about moral and family values has evolved into the merits of a single-payer or socialized form of health care. You used “seeing a doctor” as a high family value. I took that single statement you had and responded to it in a paragraph. You now accuse me of taking a simplistic approach to the matter.
That makes no sense… Viking’s post has nothing to do with healthcare, but rather with Sanford’s affair. I argue that the candidate needs to display moral values, and responded to your laundry list of so called family values.
I don’t want to stray too far off topic, and know that we will be talking health care in the near future. I will save your response for that day, and we can continue a health care discussion on a health care post.
My bottom line, you cannot separate the political man and his immoral behavior. No one is in his bedroom scoring his tenderness or measuring his romantic side. That is private. What we can do is make a judgment… if the man is willing to screw over his wife, what will he do to me, the voter?
# 7 July 2009 at 10:07 am

The Windy City Windbag said:
Mike, the same goes for Creationism and Evolution. Probably a better topic for another post. In short, the Scientific method of which you claim to say is so important is applied the same way regardless if the science is chemistry, physics, evolution, or climate change. The scientific method is ever correcting previous hypotheses. If you test the hypothesis, and the results support it, it is not said to be “true” (that is not scientific), it is said to be an “accepted hypothesis”. Evolution, as solid as it appears to be, is nothing more than an accepted hypothesis. Some people choose not to accept it. I think they are running into the wind of evidence, but that does not change the fact that when presented with credible scientific theories and evidence, that a principle can not be questioned. I don’t see the Bible has a scientific journal, but as a history of a people. You can not hold up Genesis and say that is science, but you can not hold up the Origin of Species and call it “true” unless you are being unscientific.
But I don’t have to go to far to prove that questioning the science of global warming is not allowed or encouraged, but in fact you are as bad as a Nazi… see what is said by the Goracle: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6658672.ece
# 7 July 2009 at 10:22 am

Mike said:
The post is about values. Those values extend past whom you sleep with, they go to the heart of what you value. My definition of family values is how well you support families.
Your replies to my list of family values included a lot, and some of which included a statement about Obama and single payer.
I am happy to forgo discussion until another day.
# 7 July 2009 at 10:22 am

Mike said:
Mr Windbag,
With regards to Evolution, the theory of Evolution is about as certain as the theory of Gravity. Both are theories in the classical Greek definition of postulate (theory is Latin, but the idea is Greek).
A postulate is an explanation for the observed behavior.
I am not sure what the problem is with you declaring that only science should be thought in science classes. I’ll give you some points for almost saying it in a manner so convoluted as to make you church elders proud.
And underlying all teaching of science is the scientific method. The method works both ways. The postulate must not only explain all observed facts, it must invent a way to test the hypothesis. It can make a prediction and validate that the outcome fits expectations.
I don’t have a clue why proof of the Holocaust is even part of the thread, or how it relates to science. I’ll simply postulate that some bearings have come loose in your mushy gray matter (humor intended).
Given everything you know about science, the scientists that have worked on CC, all of the institutions and peer review articles that have been published, and the research that has been going on in CC for that last 50+ years, would you not think that all-of-it has passed the scientific method test? (Or in your mind are they all lemmings who threw scientific discipline out the window? )
They have followed the scientific method. They have accounted for alternative answers. They have been measuring. And they continue to refine it. Who is right, you or thousands of scientists?
# 7 July 2009 at 12:34 pm

The Windy City Windbag said:
With regards to Evolution,
We are spending an awful long time debating something we agree on. Maybe we should move on regarding evolution and concentrate on Sanford’s behavior. I will say this, you speak with absolute certainty on everything. I speak with a little more humility. This universe is billions of years old. It is wide and vast. I do not claim to know how it began, or if it was created. My linear mind is much too simple to be able to speak with certainty on anything that complex.
I am not sure what the problem is with you declaring that only science should be thought in science classes. I’ll give you some points for almost saying it in a manner so convoluted as to make you church elders proud.
I am Catholic, and therefore do not have church elders. On the other hand, I am saying that science should be taught in science classes… I just want it taught scientifically.
I don’t have a clue why proof of the Holocaust is even part of the thread, or how it relates to science. I’ll simply postulate that some bearings have come loose in your mushy gray matter (humor intended).
The reason the Holocaust has been brought into the science discussion is because Al Gore, Panicker-in-Chief as well as many other so called scientists have used the comparison to describe those who disagree with them.
Given everything you know about science, the scientists that have worked on CC, all of the institutions and peer review articles that have been published, and the research that has been going on in CC for that last 50+ years, would you not think that all-of-it has passed the scientific method test? (Or in your mind are they all lemmings who threw scientific discipline out the window? )
I think there are many who believe that (1) there is man-made, catastrophic, climate change, (2) those who believe there is man-made climate change that is not catastrophic, (3) those who believer there is catastrophic climate change that is not man-made, (4) those who believe that there is climate change that is neither man-made or catastrophic, and finally (5) there are those who do not believe there is any climate change at all. I think the least credible are #5, but I think that the others all have a point of view and proof to back up their theory. With all of these different opinions, it is tough to say that there is one truth out there. I think Viking, Madman, and I all agree on that. Personally, I believe in #4 or #2, although I think that there is a grade between them.
They have followed the scientific method. They have accounted for alternative answers. They have been measuring. And they continue to refine it. Who is right, you or thousands of scientists?
As I said, it is not me vs. all of them. There are scientists who do not believe in the #1 scenario. There are literally thousands of credible scientists who believe #2 or #4. I will not tell them to get out of the way just because St. Al is in a panic.
# 7 July 2009 at 1:52 pm

Mike said:
Your war with St. Al has gotten in the way of:
- science being taught in schools
- consumed large portions of a thread on Sanford
- keep pushing the Holocaust denier story (as if it were personal)
We can debate CC only if you don’t hit panic buttons of your own: Holocaust, St. Al, catastrophe
Almost anyone I know understands that CC is gradual and that we haven’t hit the tipping point yet. I seriously doubt that Al Gore is in a panic. He is merely pointing out the science that “we are screwing up the environment for future generations.”
We can discuss civilly what we are doing and when to future generations only if the tone stays civil. Getting on about St Al and Panic is a non-starter.
# 7 July 2009 at 2:17 pm

NCViking (author) said:
Since you two tossed in CC, I will chime in …
Science Class does not just encompass The Scientific Method and Science is not gathered consensus opinion. The Scientific Method involves gathering data, testing and reproduction of a hypothesis before conclusion. We have covered the many holes in the CC hypothesis in debate so I will not rehash it again but state there are scientists (whom Mike dismisses) that are finding many of them. The lack of predicted warming in the troposphere is one example. It should not be taught in schools as fact, neither should Evolution and I think that is the point.
Science Class as we know it in schools also encompasses Scientific theory to help explain things that cannot be tested with absolution. In the case of Evolution, CC or Intelligent Design it is theory – observation then postulation – used to explain the ‘origin of the species’ as Darwin pointed out or why the earth’s climate changes. Neither of the three can be tested in the lab with absolute results. Viruses may mutate but this isn’t a confirmed test that Evolution of all creatures is fact. Archaeologists are still struggling to gather evidence to help prove the hypothesis. There is nothing wrong with teaching Evolution, it’s a very good theory, as long as it is clarified as such and not misrepresented as fact. This is why I often draw parallels between Eugenics and CC. Scientific theories mistaken for fact and being acted upon en masse for the greater good can have catastrophic results. We should always proceed with prudence, not hysterics and silence of debate.
People advocating the theory of Intelligent Design are just asking for it to be considered as an alternate theory of the ‘origin of the species’ and universe for that matter. There is ample evidence that suggests that a creator may exist, whatever it may be, and varying levels of acceptance of this theory. The argument then becomes what merits consideration to be taught in Science class? This is subjective opinion, not Science, and it has been the opinion of the Supreme Court that Intelligent Design does not belong in schools because it is religious in nature.
# 7 July 2009 at 2:25 pm

The Arch City Madman said:
I’ll go with door #4 Monty Hall.
# 7 July 2009 at 6:34 pm

The Windy City Windbag said:
NO PANIC FROM AL GORE???
Are you serious? Here are some quotes that I found from St. Al… please tell me you don’t sense panic:
Two thousand scientists, in a hundred countries, engaged in the most elaborate, well organized scientific collaboration in the history of humankind, have produced long-since a consensus that we will face a string of terrible catastrophes unless we act to prepare ourselves and deal with the underlying causes of global warming.
–AL GORE, speech at National Sierra Club Convention, Sept. 9, 2005
How much time might we have left before ‘business as usual’ would lead to our crossing a point of no return?
There are people who I really respect a lot, who are on the cutting edge of scientific expertise, who I think do know what they’re talking about, who are now saying that we probably have around 10 years in which to make significant changes, not to do everything, but to make significant changes lest we cross a point of no return.
Al Gore: Questions and Answers, United Artists Pavilions, Denver, Colorado, May 11, 2006
The warnings about global warming have been extremely clear for a long time. We are facing a global climate crisis. It is deepening. We are entering a period of consequences.
– AL GORE, speech at National Sierra Club Convention, Sept. 9, 2005
We have all the technologies we need, more are being developed, and as they become available and become more affordable when produced in scale, they will make it easier to respond. But we should not wait, we cannot wait, we must not wait.
– AL GORE, speech at National Sierra Club Convention, Sept. 9, 2005
For a long time, the scientists have been telling us global warming increases the temperature of the top layer in the ocean, and that causes the average hurricane to become a lot stronger. So, the fact that the ocean temperatures did go up because of global warming, because of man-made global warming, starting around in the seventies and then we had a string of unusually strong hurricanes outside the boundaries of this multi-decadal cycle that is a real factor; there are scientists who point that out, and they’re right, but we’re exceeding those boundaries now.
–Al Gore
By the way, it is not personal for me with Vice President Gore. Everything I say about him (save calling him St. Al or the Goracle) is based upon something he has said or done. You can not deny that he compared questioning GW CC to Holocaust denying. You can say that I take it personally, but if I were Jewish, or a survivor of Nazi tyranny, I would take it very personal.
Non-starter indeed.
# 7 July 2009 at 7:15 pm

The Windy City Windbag said:
I hear you Madman. I am pretty sure that there is an effect of pollution on our climate, I just don’t believe that it is catastrophic or the Earth is not adaptable. More “pollution” comes from one volcano eruption than from all man-made activities over many years.
But I can not speak to this better than our resident expert… our Viking.
You have historical questions about Presidents or the White House, I can help you there.
# 7 July 2009 at 7:21 pm

Mike said:
First, about Intelligent Design…
ID believers such as yourselves happen to think that this theory — with no evidence whatsoever — belongs in school along side a theory that has stood the test of time, evolution.
No supporting evidence, vs time tested. You just can’t be serious.
The entire basis for ID is a few sentences in a book by one religion (Judaism), who has split into tens, if not hundreds of smaller fragments (Christianity, Islam) and all of it’s variants (Coptic, Eastern, Protestants, Sunni, Shia).
Here is a 2-hour presentation for the trial that will answer some of the standard questions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
What is strange for me is the following
- ID, no evidence whatsoever
— you gents believe and want it taught in schools
- CC, lot’s of evidence
— you gents want it out of schools, out of media
And I should trust conservatives with education?
# 8 July 2009 at 2:04 am

Mike said:
No Panic from Gore at all
From the standard definition of words,
– Panic is defined as “sudden fear” as in fear of sudden or eminent threat.
– Concern is defined as long term fear, as if a course of action may lead to unwanted consequences.
– Terrible catastrophes (or terrible consequences) is defined as outcomes that are grave leading to droughts, starvation, population migrations, and deaths.
I’ve looked over the quotes you presented and NONE speak of eminent catastrophes. The scientific community believes that we will start to reach a tipping point around 2015-2020. It isn’t, and he recognizes it, that at 2016 we’ll all just boil away. The catastrophes will be slow in coming, but once the tipping point is reached, they will also be largely unstoppable.
For example, the “string of terrible catastrophes” will, over time, alter the ability of the US to produce wheat, or that in the next 25 years, prevent states like Texas from being cattle grazing states.
FIRST QUOTE: 2005, terrible catastrophes. It underlies the implications of CC if it is unaddressed. It does not give a time scale. By definition not a panic.
SECOND QUOTE: 2006, How much time might we have left before ‘business as usual’ would lead to our crossing a point of no return? Describes the scientific community consensus that by mid next decade we will be reaching a tipping point in greenhouse gas emissions.
The scientific community, and Al, have been saying this for 20 years now, so panic is far from the motivator.
THIRD QUOTE: 2005, The warnings about global warming have been extremely clear for a long time. We are entering a period of consequences. According to scientific consensus, it is all true. Again, where is panic?
FOURTH QUOTE: 2005, We have all the technologies we need … But we should not wait, we cannot wait, we must not wait. No time scale, no panic.
FIFTH QUOTE: Talks about the 70’s. By definition not a panic.
Yup, it’s all Al’s fault that you keep calling him St Al. It has nothing whatever with you taking personal responsibility. I believe you when you say you are not taking it personally (yup).
I asked my friend Bernie about being offended. His comment: it’s meshugas what these goys believe. They have no idea.
(it’s crazy what these gentiles believe. They have no idea.).
So let me ask you — what part of this do you guys not believe:
“Two thousand scientists, in a hundred countries, engaged in the most elaborate, well organized scientific collaboration in the history of humankind, have produced long-since a consensus that we will face a string of terrible catastrophes unless we act to prepare ourselves and deal with the underlying causes of global warming.”
–AL GORE, speech at National Sierra Club Convention, Sept. 9, 2005
# 8 July 2009 at 2:40 am

The Windy City Windbag said:
I think the bulk of your reply on ID is aimed towards Viking’s response, so I will let him respond to most of it… but I will say this much:
Science is the beginning of wisdom, not the end. Great thinkers, philosophers, ethicists and yes – the religious – have offered us wisdom throughout the years to which there is no fossil records.
As for Climate Change, I resent the fact that there is a huge debate on climate change, but schools choose to show only one side of the debate — the left’s version, since educators tend to be leftists. If science and reason are the ultimate goal of educators, then they need to show both sides. I don’t want climate change out of the schools, but until it is settled or proven, or an accepted hypothesis, all sides should be debated.
# 8 July 2009 at 5:40 am

The Windy City Windbag said:
No Panic from Gore at all
From the standard definition of words,
– Panic is defined as “sudden fear” as in fear of sudden or eminent threat…
I’ve looked over the quotes you presented and NONE speak of eminent catastrophes. The scientific community believes that we will start to reach a tipping point around 2015-2020. It isn’t, and he recognizes it, that at 2016 we’ll all just boil away. The catastrophes will be slow in coming, but once the tipping point is reached, they will also be largely unstoppable.
Let’s put it this way, the planet is billions of years old. If the planet is headed for a “tipping point” in the next 10 years, in the grand scale of things, that is “sudden fear” in relation to the planet’s age. This Earth has been warmer, and it has been cooler. Saying that catastrophic storms and the like (many scientists openly laugh at the idea that hurricane activity, for example, is directly linked to alleged MMCGW) and saying tipping points are upon us sound like rabble rousing panic to me. We will have to agree to disagree, I guess.
Where you see even tempered language, I see demonizing opponents’ points of view and calls of doom and gloom. The quotes I submitted were ones that were easily found doing a Google search. There are thousands more.
Yup, it’s all Al’s fault that you keep calling him St Al. It has nothing whatever with you taking personal responsibility. I believe you when you say you are not taking it personally (yup).
I am not sure where I am not taking personal responsibility for something.
I asked my friend Bernie about being offended. His comment: it’s meshugas what these goys believe. They have no idea.
(it’s crazy what these gentiles believe. They have no idea.).
Nazi language is offensive regardless who said it. When a Republican uses language of the impending jackbooted march or silencing of clitics as Nazi like, it is offensive. When lefties put an image of W up and transpose it with Hitler, it is offensive. Hitler is one of the 5 worst people in the history of the world… comparing anyone to him is over the top, unless it is Stalin, Pol Pot, Mau, or Saddam.
So let me ask you — what part of this do you guys not believe:
“Two thousand scientists, in a hundred countries, engaged in the most elaborate, well organized scientific collaboration in the history of humankind, have produced long-since a consensus that we will face a string of terrible catastrophes unless we act to prepare ourselves and deal with the underlying causes of global warming.”
–AL GORE, speech at National Sierra Club Convention, Sept. 9, 2005
It is misleading. Yes, there is truth in the number of scientists, from the number of countries, and the description of the work is accurate enough. But it states that there is a consensus, which is not true, as there are thousands of scientists in hundreds of countries engaged in elaborate, well organized, scientific collaboration and have found theories of MMCGW to be premature conclusions at best, but undoubtedly exaggerated and misleading for sure. The second part is the implication that there are unavoidable catastrophes ahead if we do not act as he says we should. There is no proof of that, just flawed computer models that have been proven incorrect over and over again, as they are full of assumptions that turn out to be inaccurate.
Besides that, it is a nice statement.
# 8 July 2009 at 5:56 am

NCViking (author) said:
Mike, why do you continually misrepresent the people you are debating and their positions? For example, I gave no indication in my comment what my ‘beliefs’ were, yet you create a Benny Hinn caricature to make a point. This tactic does a great disservice to any argument you are presenting. Stick to what we say.
So, to indulge you, here are my beliefs on the subject so no misinterpretation or misrepresentation is necessary:
Climate Change is a theory and I have no problem with it being presented in schools, it is an important topic being debated by society, as long it is done so as a theory NOT fact. I would also add that opposing viewpoints on CC must also be presented as to show the problems with it and avoid idealistic indoctrination, which happens to be occurring in my childrens’ school district. I know this for a fact because I am a father to two in school and have witnessed it first hand. I also know that our school district is likely not an isolated incidence of this. In other words, the theory is fine but the ‘religion’ of CC should not be shoved on our kids.
Evolution is a very good theory and should be taught in schools (I said this in my comment) as long as it is done so as theory NOT fact. It is a great way to explain how life came to be in its modern form, though it does not explain how life started in the first place nor why humanity is unique.
Intelligent Design is a theory involving the premise that everything was created with purpose by a divine entity. There is evidence of this everywhere, up to and including my own consciousness and the fact humanity for all of known human history has been biologically ingrained to seek for and worship a creator. No other known life has done such. Also, only one life form is moved by the beauty and symmetry of creation, making music, art … in other words we may even sense the creators work. Evolution can explain developing an opposable thumb and the skills for farming or building a shelter, but it cannot explain why we (only humans) find the sun setting over the corn field magical and are moved by the symmetry and beauty of the Sistine Chapel. The only reason we have science in the first place is because humans are ingrained with an insatiable appetite for knowing how it all works. No other known life form acts this way. Why?
I don’t have any problem pointing out the above facts in school as long as it is done so showing that these facts are quite curious and show humanity’s uniqueness. Leaving this out ignores the most important piece of anthropology and the unknown phenomenon that makes us human. But it should NOT be done so to shove any religious belief or religion on our kids. The Supreme Court has ruled Intelligent Design does not belong in schools and I respect that decision, though I disagree with it based upon my interpretation of its purpose.
# 8 July 2009 at 6:55 am

Mike said:
WCW,
Except for your explanation of the CC statement, the rest of your reply was a rant. First, it warps Panic by claiming over-billions-of-years. Oh please! But it is nice that you are pedaling back from panic.
Your rant goes into ‘Nazi language,’ which has nothing to do with calling CC deniers the same par as Holocaust deniers. Adding Pol Pot makes your rant far off in the fringes of somewhere.
Al’s statement about consensus is that: the thousands of scientists who have worked on this research are in consensus. That part is undeniable as it is a fact.
I’ll quibble and ask you to explain: thousands of scientists that dissent with CC. Somewhere in this blog I have stated that Inhofe has tried (in vain) to get a list of dissenters and couldn’t. He created a list of 400, some of them controversial entries. For example, he included meteorologists, which don’t count (they aren’t qualified researchers).
So, where are the thousands? Are they qualified?
# 8 July 2009 at 7:33 am

Mike said:
NCV,
Not sure what I said that misrepresented your position, but I am willing to correct it.
– The evidence of a creator is hardly that we see beauty in the sunset. That is really one of the best examples of natural selection.
– A propensity to worship a greater power is also hardly evidence of a creator. It is most likely evidence of natural selection.
I’ll explain both.
Humans are not the fastest or most powerful species. Today’s humans are the winners of the best brains. Brains helped humans overcome famine, drought, floods, and warfare. It saw patterns in animal migrations and the seasons.
To succeed, humans had to form societies. It was the marriage of many talents: muscle, brains, the ability to produce useful tools and clothes. Both communications and the ability to select the better products among many competing tool makers evolved. Communication led to recounting events, describing history, and it eventually led to entertainment. Humans learned to make choices of what was best.
Best elaborate art forms rather than stick figures. Best a wheat field than a desert, although both have beauty. Best a lush green mountain range than a barren one. Best snow capped mountains over a spring field, for that means there will be water flowing in the streams.
The propensity to worship a greater power comes from the shear forces of nature, period. Why can a flood suddenly wash away an entire family or a village? Surely some greater power is at work. But that greater power does not mean it must automatically be the Creator.
Your position is that Evolution must be presented as a theory, not fact. Would you present gravity as a theory, not fact?
I think you just want your Creator ideas to be presented as fact.
# 8 July 2009 at 8:35 am

NCViking (author) said:
Not sure what I said that misrepresented your position, but I am willing to correct it.
You stated that ‘us gents’ don’t want Climate Change taught in school, this is not at all what I said. Nor did I ever say I wanted it out of the media and I can probably speak for Windbag that neither did he. You also lumped me in as some ‘ID believer’ prior to ever reading my views on it. I only agree with the factual human aspects of it and feel this should be presented free of religious beliefs or religion. The Supreme Court says it doesn’t belong and I respect that. I am not picketing the school over it.
… Humans learned to make choices of what was best.
Many animals entertain themselves and some express feelings, love, emotions, even laughter in the case of chimpanzees … this is not uncommon. Many creatures construct elaborate things, control their environment and surroundings, use tools, work together, communicate with sophistication, etc. This does not explain why only one creature (humans) seeks a creator and worships or why we are moved by the beauty of creation or awed by its majesty.
The propensity to worship a greater power comes from the shear forces of nature, period.
You are right in one sense. Ants can build wondrously complex structures for necessity, protect them, and provide for their organized communities. Yet, when they get washed away by a storm, they just build again. Bears can sense the seasons, have knowledge of the environment and recognize and fear natural threats, yet don’t ponder them with wonder. The mere fact that we as humans are amazed by the power and beauty of creation and nature speaks volumes.
Your position is that Evolution must be presented as a theory, not fact. Would you present gravity as a theory, not fact?
It depends. Gravity can be proven by experimentation, yet there are forms and instances that require speculation. Evolution involving natural selection to explain the origin of species and life cannot be proven. It is a theory and as I have stated before it is a good one and should be presented.
I think you just want your Creator ideas to be presented as fact.
The ideas that need to be presented as fact are: humans are the only creatures who seek their creator. Humans are the only life form that sees beauty in creation and is moved by it. Humans are the only life form that creates for the sake of beauty, not necessity. These traits make humans different from ants or chimps or any other ‘evolved’ life on earth. 90% of this distinctly unique life believes they come from some sort of creator. These facts cannot be ignored or dismissed when postulating about the evolution of life and humanity.
# 8 July 2009 at 10:13 am

The Windy City Windbag said:
Except for your explanation of the CC statement, the rest of your reply was a rant.
Dismissing my point-by-point argument as a “rant” does not make it less credible. As I have said, it is thoughtful and well reasoned. If I were to do the same to you, I know what your response would be because I have seen it before: “I noticed that you failed to address my points on X.”
First, it warps Panic by claiming over-billions-of-years. Oh please! But it is nice that you are pedaling back from panic.
Fact: the planet is billions of years old. In the grand scheme of things, on a planet where climate is ever changing, it is silly to say that a change in a couple of degrees takes us to a tipping point or is out of the normal range of events. It is panic.
Your rant goes into ‘Nazi language,’ which has nothing to do with calling CC deniers the same par as Holocaust deniers. Adding Pol Pot makes your rant far off in the fringes of somewhere.
As Viking has said, you have misrepresented my position and distorted it for some reason. Al Gore, a non-scientist whose opinion you think “counts”, compared those who disagree with MMCGW to Nazis. That is another fact, which I linked to in a previous response. I find Gore and other so-called scientists’ insistence on bringing up the worst regime in the history of the planet and comparing them to those they disagree with pretty offensive. Not as offensive as some who survived their brutality, as I obviously did not experience it first hand, but the rhetoric is still over the top. My point in bringing in Pol Pot is to say that only he and very few others deserve to be compared to Nazis. Saying that bringing this up makes my statement in the fringes leads me to ask this question: what it the color of the sky in your world?
Al’s statement about consensus is that: the thousands of scientists who have worked on this research are in consensus. That part is undeniable as it is a fact.
I’ll quibble and ask you to explain: thousands of scientists that dissent with CC. Somewhere in this blog I have stated that Inhofe has tried (in vain) to get a list of dissenters and couldn’t. He created a list of 400, some of them controversial entries. For example, he included meteorologists, which don’t count (they aren’t qualified researchers).
So, where are the thousands? Are they qualified?
This is an old argument between you and Viking. You seem to dismiss any scientist that (1) does not have a particular degree; (2) does not have agreement with MMCGW mantra; and (3) uses sarcasm. I will not rehash this argument, as there are literally thousands of words on posts and responses related to MMCGW between you and Viking on this exact point. I will let his greater expertise speak to this.
For whatever reason, you can not get back to the central point of Viking’s post, which has to do with Sanford. These tangential topics are all interesting, but not relevant.
# 8 July 2009 at 10:50 am

Mike said:
NCV,
Let’s not confuse abiogenesis, or theories about the origins of life from inanimate matter from evolution, which is the theory of natural selection. These are two different matters.
Theories of ID tend to merge the two issues, and indeed they must in order to have a viable theory. ID must also address the impossible: which is why we, who according to ID are so special, share 99% of DNA with Gorillas. This extreme match speaks of a common ancestor and split evolution lines.
It is pure speculation that Gorillas and other life forms don’t try to seek their creator. For all you know, Gorillas have a deep and abiding belief in a Creator. Their belief system would be more complete since they don’t have to explain why their DNA is 99% compatible with humans (a lesser species in their view, I’ll speculate).
It is your choice to reaffirm your view of a creator by being in awe of the power of the wind. (your quote: “The mere fact that we as humans are amazed by the power and beauty of creation and nature speaks volumes.”)
I’ll go out on a limb here and say that your belief in a Creator leads you to the believe that the planet isn’t going to just go into uncontrolled overheating. It is a belief that the creator will come back and fix the chemistry, or that the chemistry will right itself, because there is a creator.
Just speculation on my part.
# 8 July 2009 at 11:09 am

Mike said:
WCW,
We’ll take it one point at a time.
We can argue forever whether you meant panic in a short time frame or in a billion year time frame. I think your use of panic is an attempt to discredit the message. If you’d like me to believe otherwise, feel free to say you didn’t mean it that way. I think my point is made that panic as in eminent danger is hardly what Gore is saying, unless you define 10-20 years as eminent.
In the grand scheme of things, CO2 has never been higher since the last ice age, and it hasn’t been this high in at least the last 400,000 years.
Your entire argument seems to boils down to this: You are hoping that it will right itself. Or at least you are saying that the planet will right itself no matter how much CO2 we pump into it. IPCC scientists differ with you. They are the scientists, you are not.
It is a misrepresentation to say I’ll dismiss any scientist that does not agree with the CC mantra. You’ve lost the right to complain about misrepresentation for ever right there. I have never said that, ever.
Nor scientists that have a particular degree. You know drilling and analyzing ice cores doesn’t require a climatologist. There are many specialties that can speak about composition, forces, concentrations, past events.
My complaint is the use of people who clearly have not looked at specific issues with climate and voice an opinion. Dr Carter has been discredited so often, so many times, and to no surprise to me. He made classic mistakes, such as taking very short periods of time and calling it an end of climate change. He’s been rebuffed on so much of his presentation: calling cooling when it was an El Nino effect, or claiming CO2 has no effect on temperature. As if his sarcasm wasn’t clue enough that he wasn’t a serious researcher.
I have noticed that the CC naysayers have tone it down quite a bit. There used to be tens of reports claiming CC is not happening. Now I hear a lot less.
As for Al Gore and the worst regime in history…
He did not compare you to the worst regime in history. He compared you to people who deny that the worst regime in history committed its atrocities.
You find it offensive. You find it offensive to be compared to Holocaust deniers. You feel that you are not denying the evidence that is there; that you are denying the conclusions of the evidence.
You have used terms like Nazi language, Pol Pot, and many other terms to prove something that Al never said. Now you are so far off asking me about colors.
Are you denying the evidence that is there on CC?
I don’t want to be insulting in any way. I cannot correct how you feel about Al’s statement. Maybe it was pretty harsh; maybe he was trying to make a reasoned point about evidence.
For whatever reason, …Sanford.
You posed questions. I am obligingly responding.
# 8 July 2009 at 11:42 am

NCViking (author) said:
I am speaking of facts. It is radical speculation to propose the idea that any other creature other than humans seeks a creator with no basis in anything or evidence whatsoever. It is a fact that humans do and according to the evidence, the only creature that does. It shows the incredible weakness of your argument to even mention that.
Also, I am not arguing the merits of Evolution and if you read what I said, neither am I advocating for Intelligent Design. Just presenting facts. Your blinding belief that I am some sort of partisan Evangelist clouds your interpretation of what I am saying.
This is a good time to end this subject as it seems your comments have ‘devolved’ into ridiculous.
# 8 July 2009 at 12:05 pm

NCViking (author) said:
I will only address the Dr. Carter issue. You are way off base, so much so that your credibility is waning. Dr. Carter never postulated short term climate fluctuations showed anything, only that such events (cooling) refute the short-term climate change hysteria presented by the media and Al Gore. He even goes on to say that it would be ridiculous to do so (watch the video). He is simply testing the hypothesis presented.
The ‘inconvenient’ facts are that it is not warming at all out of the ordinary, in the short term or the long term.
# 8 July 2009 at 12:21 pm

Mike said:
NCV,
I’ll address both of your points here.
My point about whether Gorilla’s think about a creator was meant to be dismissive of your view that just because humans happen to think about a creator therefore he must exist.
Your viewpoint is humans happen to think about a creator therefore he must exist. You offered it as proof. Of course, it isn’t proof at all.
You also offered as proof that the mountains are majestic and the sunset’s are beautiful. I say natural selection favored humans who could appreciate beauty (they would make better mates).
As for Climate Change and Dr Carter….
In Carter’s 5 points he most certainly observed that it wasn’t getting warmer at all because of a dip in temperatures. Many CC deniers jumped on that data, until it was shown that this was an El Nino effect.
Al Gore speaks of climate change in the 100 year mark (2 C). It’s greenhouse gases that will hit a tipping going in the next decade or so. He hasn’t refuted Al Gore on anything.
The question on the table, the one Dr Carter did not address – and should have if he intended to be taken seriously – and one that I will pose to you as well – is how much CO2 can you pump into the atmosphere before it starts to become a factor?
Unless you can answer that question you cannot refute CC on anything.
# 8 July 2009 at 1:22 pm

NCViking (author) said:
First point: I did not present facts as proof of a creator, I did present facts to support the theory of one. Appreciation of beauty and seeking a creator has no use in survival and natural selection.
Second point: Dr. Carter did not observe that there wasn’t any warming at all because of a short-term dip in temperatures. He was testing a hypothesis (not his). Dr. Carter showed using the best data that the warming is likely not at all out of the ordinary in historical terms or modern ones.
Your continued attempts at dismissal by shooting the messenger or asking questions of absolution is poor debate techniques. I would argue nobody knows for certain what the answer to your question is. The real question is does the impact of the amount of CO2 released by industry (4% of the total) even matter at all? The historical climate records show likely not, since it shows little to no correlation between CO2 levels and temperature and 4% is a pitance compared to the rest of nature.
# 8 July 2009 at 3:18 pm

The Arch City Madman said:
Didn’t this start as a post about Sanford? Just checking.
# 8 July 2009 at 4:20 pm

Mike said:
asking questions of absolution? In what way?
I don’t think there is a fine hair’s difference “present facts as proof of a creator” and “present facts to support the theory of one.”
I happen to think that appreciation of beauty and seeking a creator has tremendous value in survival and natural selection. The theory of a creator served the same purpose in the early days of civilization as it does not: it creates laws. Thou shall not several things. Order creates productive societies. It had a significant role to play.
Scientists who know about climate disagree with your stated assertion that 4% amounts to nothing. Greenhouse gases, which include the CO2 that amounts to 4%, exert a radiative force. That is the force that traps infrared radiation that in turn traps heat.
An increase of 1% of CO2 is an increase of 25% of the radiative force. Substantial.
I am including a link to one of the IPCC reports from the 2007 (4th assessment report) in which they measure actual observations with man-made contributions. See page 11.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
IPCC scientists describe temperature increases today as being higher than at any time in the last 125,000 years.
# 8 July 2009 at 5:10 pm

The Windy City Windbag said:
Mike, you are responding to me, and I am responding to you. I have tried to right this ship many times, so the best thing for me to do is let it go and remind us all (as Madman has done) that this is a post about Sanford.
# 8 July 2009 at 6:48 pm

NCViking (author) said:
Seeing beauty in creation does not serve survival of the fittest. It is a distraction. Seeking a creator is counterintuitive to survival and also a distraction. Standing around hoping a deity will zap away natural catastrophe is a good way for humanity to go extinct. I know you believe this because you attempted to mock me about the idea regarding CC. Seeking a creator being only a survival mechanism to establish discipline and order is a flawed idea. Ants have a bounty of both and live, build, adapt and thrive – without seeking a creator. Many others do also, including wolves, bees, etc.
The theory of Evolution may serve to help explain how living things came to be in their modern forms but it does not explain why only one creature seeks its creator and is moved by the beauty, symmetry and majesty of creation.
So there are three ways we can consider how creation and humanity came to be: 1.) Ignore the question. 2.) Believe it just is. 3.) Believe there is some sort of creator.
1.) does a disservice to the advancement of humanity. 2.) makes no logical sense. 3.) observing the facts that we are spinning around on the only known life-sustaining rock orbiting a giant ball of gas in an infinite nothingness with trillions of other rocks and gas balls; we are somehow programmed to seek a creator; we are moved by the beauty and symmetry of creation, likely sensing this creator; and we are alive and conscious debating this subject and Mark Sanford’s shenanigans (keeping it real for Windbag) provides pretty good evidence to support this.
But, then again, it is only a theory.
Regarding CC, I will defer to the already published lengthy debates we have previously done on this subject.
# 9 July 2009 at 7:59 am

NCViking (author) said:
Sorry, forgot to answer a question.
asking questions of absolution? In what way?
“Unless you can answer that question (how much CO2 can you pump into the atmosphere before it starts to become a factor? ) you cannot refute CC on anything.” Conditional, absolute, unanswerable with certainty.
# 9 July 2009 at 8:01 am

Mike said:
I thought you guys wanted this thread to end?
Absolution is receiving forgiveness from a church or religious body.
The question on CO2 is a question about whether you feel there is a limit to how much CO2 we can pump into the atmosphere, and what triggers we can measure that would tell you that it is too much – hopefully before runaway warming.
Is there a limit, or can we just go on indefinitely? What if I can show you that human factors are already affecting the environment?
About belief in a creator as natural selection…
I can make the case that belief in a creator is an important part of natural selection. In fact, I would say that it was essential to survival.
We know that for humans to survive they must form a society. This affords protection, allows young children to grow up in a reasonably protected environment, and one generation needs time to teach the next generation what it has learned. Societies leads to protection of territory, of hunting and grazing grounds. eventually it leads to agriculture and trade.
In order for a society to work together there must be rules and consequences. Rules protect members from theft, murder, enslavement. For most of human history, people worshiped not a creator but spirits. So you cannot say we are predetermined to seek a creator. People worshiped the golden calf and other idols mentioned in the Bible.
Spirits they worshiped. They worshiped for help from droughts, plagues, locus, … They worshiped for guidance.
They honored their ancestor spirits, and totally selfishly, acted in ways that would honor them. Selfishly because early humans felt that the spirits could send them death, diseases, and other misfortunes.
Societies codified those beliefs. The spirits dictated laws for all aspects of life.
Societies with organized laws, judges, and rules are far more efficient than those without them. This efficiency was the essential ingredient in survival. Eventually, those efficient societies grew faster than the less efficient ones. Religion won.
Only one tribe, the Jews, believed in a single spirit who was responsible for all events. Just one. Hundreds of thousand humans and only one has the belief in a creator. Sure, some believe that the giant turtle laid the earth as its offspring, and others believe that a giant crocodile is the birth of the universe.
What this proves is that humans are hardly predisposed by a creator to believe in him.
As far as I am concerned, your reply will be the last on this thread.
# 9 July 2009 at 4:25 pm

NCViking (author) said:
Using the term absolution was bad grammar on my part. Read the response to your question which clarifies what I meant.
Again, many living creatures form complex, organized, protected, thriving societies without the need to seek or worship a creator, spirits, a golden calf, the sun, a single god, a group of gods, giant crocodiles, space aliens, the stars or whatever you want to call it. These creatures do not need to ‘ponder it all’ or look to the sky with wonder to survive and/or dominate their environment. Why would humans need to ask for the aid of invisible deities or use spirituality as a means to create order when packs, herds, hives and all other complex communal creatures do not? This is uniquely human.
# 9 July 2009 at 5:41 pm

Mike said:
Since you asked why….
You are trying to assert a Judo-Christian-Muslim notion of deity on all humans. Even today, J-C-M compose less than the majority of all humans.
Most don’t even recognize the notion of a single deity, or of a deity at all. The vast majority of the world worships ancestors (see Africa, China, Japan, much of India, almost all of Asia, Native Americans).
Your argument is that because JCM’s call upon a deity, therefore there is one (or as I think you called it, a theory of a creator). The fact that most don’t argues against your theory.
Not to be missed is that your theory is pure speculation. It does not prove a creator at all.
Most of the early earth’s population (before science) heard the wind and thought it was a spirit. The saw unexplained but natural phenomena and explained it as the movement of spirits.
Spirits were all about them. It is in their writings. The Greeks attributed all natural phenomena to spirits, their word gods.
You can believe that a deity exists because you think there is one, but lots of fact speak to the contrary:
If there is a God, then why has he let humans wonder about the world without laws and structure and even basic protection against diseases for at least 100,000 years if not more? Does he not care?
I think it is because he doesn’t exist, now or ever. A pure fantasy that began with “wind as the manifestation of a spirit” that then evolved into the notion, at least for some, of the JCM deity.
# 9 July 2009 at 7:31 pm

NCViking (author) said:
No, I am not asserting Judeo-Christian-Muslim anything – never even mentioned it. Again, you misrepresent me and my argument several times to aid your own.
Your historical and modern references are inaccurate and also leave out the important fact that belief systems all involve the supernatural, beyond us, whether monotheistic in JCM or polytheistic in Taoism, Hinduism, etc. or ancient ancestral worship. It’s uniquely human and dominant in the human condition. Of the 6.7 billion people on earth, 6.6 billion still believe in something supernatural, or 98.5% (54% are J-C-M, by the way). I would argue that the evidence is quite clear that it points to something inside of us that seeks some sort of creator, or something beyond us, whatever you want to call it or whatever that might be. And, as I have argued before, it really serves no purpose for survival.
If there is a God, then why has he let humans wonder about the world without laws and structure and even basic protection against diseases for at least 100,000 years if not more? Does he not care?

I don’t know. I can’t even begin to understand something as abstract and infinite as a creator of all this. More questions … What is all this stuff, life, earth, stars, space, matter, etc.? Why did life start and evolve in the first place? Why do I wonder at it all? Why am I here, alive and conscious to experience it? Why is it in me to want to know these things? Why do I and 98.5% of the rest of humanity believe in a higher power or something beyond what we see? Why does a beautiful piece of music, art or a sunset move me? Why are we the only creatures that contemplate these things? These are factual traits that are unique to humanity and are real – it seems to point to something more. Ignoring them leaves out the most important piece of anthropology and the unknown phenomenon that makes us human. Historical documents are dominated with humans wondering about, communicating with, philosophizing over, witnessing, envisioning, experiencing something beyond us. Who knows what is true and what is not, belief in something from this abstraction is quite personal, but the fact that humans are like this is undeniable. You are more than free to ignore this and the questions or believe everything just is, but I personally believe that it is contrary to the evidence.
One last note: religion developed as a way for people to try and understand or answer the questions I posed above, not to create order in society.
# 10 July 2009 at 6:03 am

Mike said:
NCV,
I said spirit, you had said creator, not spiritual being. My entire point is that humans do have a tradition of explaining the unknown as spirits. They do not seek the creator.
The creator is a primary feature of the JCM (and a few other) religions. So long as you speak of a creator, you are speaking from a JCM (or similar) tradition.
I am glad to see that you have defined your position in the same way I have defined it, that humans sought answers in spiritual ways. We agree.
Now comes the hard part. My point, which you have yet to touch, is that humans explained natural forces as the work on supernatural forces (spirits and gods, and magic).
I have stated several reasons why a belief in spirits and super natural forces have shaped human evolution. The belief in spirits is a religion complete with laws. That religions have passed down laws is a given. Laws create order; order creates better (more effective) societies; more effective societies vastly increase the chances of survival; those members lived longer and produced more off-springs.
Don’t just dismiss this with your statement “it really serves no purpose for survival” because obviously it does.
I can describe why the appreciation of music, art, and sunsets is required for survival, but for now I’ll stick to one subject: spirits.
# 10 July 2009 at 11:25 am

NCViking (author) said:
You are the one making something Judeo-Christian out of this and getting hung up on one word. Creator, god, gods, spirits, whatever, humans seek (insert here), look for (insert here), try and talk to (insert here), ponder (insert here)’s creation, or what to make of it all. We look in wonder and ask why? 98.5% of humanity for all of recorded history! It is a human condition, unique to humanity, that points to something supernatural. NOT needed to organize the society, protect our offspring or thrive as I have repeatedly explained why and will do so again below.
Many complex, successful, thriving communities of creatures do not seek a creator, or spirits, or a space alien to maintain order, discipline and to protect their offspring. I have given examples: wolf packs, ants, bees or any creature that moves in flocks and herds. In the case of ants, they are extremely successful, organized, build sophisticated structures and societies and protect their offspring. They are impossible to get rid of, yet they find no need for a dirt spirit or to contemplate life. Heck, the most successful survival creatures on earth – crocodiles – around longer than nearly anything, don’t find any need to seek the swamp spirit or the big crocodile that pushes the stars around.
# 10 July 2009 at 11:55 am

Mike said:
The issues raised by our debate fall into two separate and distinct categories:
(1) Humans believe in spirits. We both agree. (All 98.5% agree).
(2) Believing in spirits had an evolutionary edge, and it played a role in natural selection. We disagree. I am not sure whether you believe that it played no role whatsoever. Can’t tell by your story.
Just because ants and crocs have other survival mechanisms does not in any way negate the point of view that humans who had a belief in spirits gained an evolutionary edge. In fact, it reinforces it.
Whether you are an ant or a human, natural forces can destroy your habitat. Belief in a spirit won’t help you one bit.
However, between two set of parallel societies, the one working most effectively would have the survival edge. Tens of societies jump out as effective winners in survival. Belief in laws from a god created their cohesion.
I’ll give you one example: the Ten Commandments. Can’t say it didn’t help them.
# 10 July 2009 at 1:03 pm

NCViking (author) said:
I will expand upon your thoughts.
1.) Humans believe in something beyond our own existence, something supernatural – some believe in spirits, gods, god, creator, aliens or whatever. Supernatural may be a better term for it and it is distinctly unique to humanity.
2.) We obviously disagree about whether it provides an evolutionary edge or not. Many creatures do not need to believe in the supernatural to provide great order to their societies. Prehistoric humans were pack creatures, hunted, survived and thrived in controlled groups, it is innate within us. It is also common to many other creatures like wolves, which provide careful protection to their pups.
Evolved knowledge and control of our environment, standing upright, an opposable thumb, big brains, wielding tools, pack hunting and already organized communities all helped humanity expand, thrive and dominate. Suddenly seeking a supernatural power or wondering at the power of rain or wind and worshiping it, asking if there is life after death, seeing beauty in it all, or creating art had nothing to do with law and order. It blossomed within already existing societies to help answer the questions of our existence, like the biblical story of Creation and the Garden of Eden, the splitting of some cosmic egg (China), fornicating sea monsters (Mesopotamia) or whatever. In some, it became an integral part of their society. It’s an integral part of many societies today. These questions of pondering do not serve survival, only living, consuming, controlling the environment and expanding do. They are a distraction and only serve humanity’s unique, inherent need to understand where we came from, why we are here, and I would add – the unique need to find our maker. Do you really think human sacrifice to the Aztec gods helped our species survive? How about Jonestown and the whole community drinking poisoned Koolaid for some supernatural belief? There are many more. You wouldn’t see an ant colony doing that because it is quite counterproductive to survival. It is mysterious and uniquely human.
# 10 July 2009 at 2:28 pm

Mike said:
Simply having an appetite for learning and for explaining the world around us is hardly proof of a creator. Most species, including humans, learn through pattern matching. This trait can be seen in birds, fish, probably reptiles, and of course all mammals. It may be a trait of all complex organisms.
Learning is inherent to survival. Humans clearly look at a broader set of patterns than all other species. They look for cause and effect on a much broader scale. This inherent trait led to believing that the wind is a spirit, and other similar stories of gods and forces.
Your argument has been that belief in the supernatural is inherently human. We agree. 98.5% agree. But does it prove a creator?
I say that the story goes on from here and that this innate belief turned to religion and laws. Laws aided significantly in survival. You and I are a product of those who survived.
I can agree with your statement that: “Prehistoric humans were pack creatures, hunted, survived and thrived in controlled groups…”
To be effective, to survive on a number of levels (food supply, food allocation, defense, construction, and working together) requires some rules. These rules are essentially laws.
These laws don’t have to be fair: farmers may pay a “tax,” say extra food or meat portions, to soldiers and the King in exchange for protection.
As we can observe from several early societies, laws often have a basis in religion, and religion a basis in the belief in the supernatural. It is far easier to enforce a “law” if it is god given (we know this because we use this argument in our own society every day).
You asked, “Do you really think human sacrifice to the Aztec gods helped our species survive?”
The question is really not did it help our species survive. The question should be did it help their society survive. To survive our species literally required groups of humans, acting independently of each other, to survive. The species needed at least one group to thrive.
Which is an excellent question you ask: to thrive at least one group had to have laws.
We know from looking at diversity that many groups survived.
# 10 July 2009 at 4:37 pm

NCViking (author) said:
This is probably a good point to wind this down.
Learning to construct things and manipulate the environment for survival doesn’t require being spiritual, believing in the supernatural, worshiping or seeking life after death. Needing an abstract deity to enforce order is not needed by all other complex communal life. It wasn’t and isn’t needed by humans to survive or thrive being pack creatures by nature. Was it used? Sure. So were Kings edicts. Religion was also often wrongly used to manipulate, scare and suppress people for power, which often led to destruction and death.
This still does not explain the fact that humans are the only creatures who seek or worship a god, gods, spirits, creator, space aliens, whatever … something more. Humans are the only life form that sees beauty in creation and is moved by it. Humans are the only life form that creates for the sake of beauty, not necessity. It just so happens that only one, intelligent species on a giant rock floating out in the middle of nothingness ponders these things, and it dominates our collective consciousness. Quite curious.
# 10 July 2009 at 6:22 pm

The Windy City Windbag said:
Your argument has been that belief in the supernatural is inherently human. We agree. 98.5% agree. But does it prove a creator?
Just because I am a big fat jerk (OK, I am just a little pudgy, not really fat.. really!), I have to raise this.
We are told that consensus proves that something exists, at least when it comes to climate change. So, if 98.5% of the people believe there is global warming, are you willing to concede they are wrong, especially since there is not 98.5% that believe in global warming? According to this reasoning, it just ain’t so.
(of course, not a perfect comparison, but who am I to be perfect… I love the Cubs!)
# 10 July 2009 at 7:58 pm

Mike said:
Another example is 98.5% believed that the Earth was flat and the center of the Universe. Who are we to argue with those facts!
(To the CC part, consensus among scientists is entirely different than consensus among non-scientists).
To NCV, somehow belief in ufos and space aliens doesn’t help me visualize your position. I think what you are describing is pure human pattern matching (learning).
We should wind this down: I am not convinced that simply belief proves a creator (as in your original intent) and apparently my position hasn’t been sufficiently convincing.
# 11 July 2009 at 2:53 am

SC Southern Belle said:
As a SC resident, I’m obstinately opposed to having a governor who cannot represent the state of SC in a more respectable manner. Tax payers are opposed to having a governor who uses state funds for his extra-curricular activities.
Climate control – you guys are giving importance to an issue that is complete BS. Please find another topic to concentrate on. Here’s an idea…hunger.
# 6 November 2009 at 2:15 pm

Trackbacks

Larry Roibal» Blog Archive » Mark Sanford

Lt Saloon | the Tattlesnake – Sanford Scandal Lays Bare American …

Was Gov. Mark Sanford Outed By the Nsa Using the Patriot Act …

Fitness Blogger » Blog Archive » Mark Sanford Should Resign! | The Great Illuminator

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford Sent Risque E-Mails To Argentian …

Krauthammer says Romney, Not Palin, Is Ready to Lead Republicans | The Great Illuminator

How’s That Working With Your Allies Working For You? | The Great Illuminator

Is Al Gore being sued by over 30K Scientists for Global Warming fraud? | The Great Illuminator

Goodbye Sarah Palin! | The Great Illuminator

Leave your response!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website (optional)

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

Our Growing Debt

Countdown Timer

• Election Day 2012:
  in 32 months, 3 weeks, 4 days, 3 hours, 57 minutes, 18 seconds

Latest Illuminations

• Economic Crisis of Confidence
• If Socialized Healthcare Is So Great…
• Cato Analysis and Fact Check of SOTU Speech
• State of the Union Déjà vu?
• Purple Predestination
• Prince Composes New Vikings Fight Song (Oh Yes He Did!)

Latest Headlines

• S. Korea's parliament approves dispatch of troops to Haiti+
• S. Korea's parliament approves dispatch of troops to Haiti+
• Key 10-year JGB yield edges down in morning on stock losses+
• LEAD: Tokyo stocks fall on continued Europe risk woes, strong yen+
• Chinese dissident in China imprisoned for Tiananmen articles+
• Convera Corporation Files Certificate of Dissolution, Trading of Common Stock to Cease After February 8, 2010 Payment Date Set

HotAir.com - Latest Blog Entries

• Newest target of tea partiers: Er, Ron Paul
• Amazing: At 3 a.m., “Red Eye” beating CNN primetime in key demo
• Without Murtha, Dems now one vote short of passing ObamaCare in House
• Scarborough: Did Chris Wallace roll his eyes at Palin?
• House GOP to Obama: We’ll meet with you about ObamaCare — if you agree to start over
• Gallup: Obama approval hits new lows on economy, health care, deficit

MichelleMalkin.com - Latest Blog Entries

• John Murtha dead at 77
• About that “Green Police” Super Bowl ad
• Attention, NYC: White House still stuck on stupid
• Obama’s Kabuki summit invitation: Just say no
• Is the fix in? NY guv resignation rumors swirl
• Colorado Springs Derangement Syndrome

Hugh Hewitt - Latest Blog Entries

• Hugh Hewitt: Allen West and Alex Berenson
• Hugh Hewitt: Memo To Leaders Boehner and McConnell
• Hugh Hewitt: "Memo to Arianna: Stop Being Silly" and IBizReporting.com
• Hugh Hewitt: Why the MSM Don't Understand Palin, Beck, Limbaugh Etc
• Hugh Hewitt: "Emirs of Kleptocristan"
• Hugh Hewitt: A Wonderful Discovery

Charles Krauthammer - Latest Articles

• The Electorate vs. Obama's Agenda
• The Real Detainee Scandal
• The Meaning of Brown
• The Fall of Obama
• The Gitmo Obsession
• Hollow Words on Terrorism

TownHall.com - Latest Blog Entries

• Meredith Jessup: GOP Walking Health Care Tight Rope
• Greg Hengler: Sanchez: Palin & Tea Party Push "Anti-Intellectualism"
• Kevin Glass: Captain America Takes on the Tea Parties
• Michael Medved: The Trouble With Government Jobs
• Carol Platt Liebau: What's Planned Parenthood's Real Agenda?
• Meredith Jessup: RIP: Rep. John Murtha Dies at 77

Subscribe to Posts

Email:

Categories

Select Category Abortion  (4) Afghanistan  (3) Africa  (1) Airlines  (7) Bill Clinton  (5) Budget  (10) Canada  (3) Card Check  (1) Children  (3) China  (3) Climate Change  (56) Constitution  (2) Crime  (6) Democrats  (61) Dick Cheney  (2) Economy/Business  (131) Entertainment  (58) Environment  (17) Europe  (3) Family  (11) Featured  (4) Fox News  (1) Gas  (4) George W. Bush  (3) Goofy  (110) Grassroots  (5) Great Britain  (5) Headline  (1) Health  (24) Health Care  (17) Hillary Clinton  (1) Illinois Politics  (12) Immigration  (5) Iran  (6) Jimmy Carter  (1) Joe Biden  (5) Legal Issues  (8) Life  (69) Media  (81) Media bias  (26) Medicine  (16) Mexico  (6) Michelle Obama  (1) Military  (8) Mitt Romney  (4) Music  (3) Nancy Pelosi  (7) National Security  (13) North Korea  (2) Obamania  (43) Pirates  (1) Politics  (325) POTUS  (47) President Obama  (165) Religion  (5) Republicans  (30) Rush Limbaugh  (4) Russia  (3) Science  (28) SCOTUS  (1) Socialism  (8) Sports  (12) Stimulus  (34) TARP  (21) Taxes  (26) Technology  (2) Terrorism  (14) The House  (32) The Middle East  (5) The Senate  (27) The U.N.  (2) The World  (36) TSA  (1) Uncategorized  (1) Unions  (4) United States  (5) Venezuela  (5) Vice President  (5) W  (9) What Others are Saying …  (2)

Center Links

• Best Internet News and Politics
• Energy Power Alternatives
• The Economic Advisor

Conservative Links

• Cassy Fiano
• Charging Elephants
• FieryDog
• FitsNews.com
• Founding Bloggers
• Franklin’s Locke
• Hot Air » Top Picks
• Michelle Malkin
• nonsensibleshoes.blogspot.com
• Pundit and Pundette
• Rob’s Rantings
• The National Review Online
• The New Republicans
• topconservativesontwitter.org
• Townhall.com
• urbanconservative.com

Great Forums

• Discarded Lies
• PurplePride.org

Liberal Links

• Dissenting Justice
• PCLiberal.com