<p>In a way, the whole debate about the radios brings us back to evolution vs. creation. The basic question is whether you believe that the scientific methods of experience and observation tell us anything about the world, or if you believe that the universe is completely controlled by mysterious forces not sensitive to prediction from human experience. (And obviously, the middle ground).</p>
<p>To the non-scientific thinker, it makes perfect sense that it’s unnecessary to make plans to respond to emergencies, because some intrinsic quality (like an “R” after a person’s name) is sufficient enough to prevent emergencies from happening. The only problem for the voter is to make sure to pick the side with the quality that’s going to make everything all right. </p>
<p>Whereas to the scientifically motivated thinker, it makes sense to examine a person’s track record and look at whether he can handle relatively simple situations where the course is clear, before deciding whether to trust him to tackle anything more complex and less well-defined.</p>
<p>So for those in the former camp, it makes no sense to plan for levees to be breached, because they have every confidence in the world that it won’t happen. Details like contingency plans and implementing the “lessons learned” from disasters are for the small-minded, reactive thinker, and not “big picture” guys like them.</p>
<p>Not to anyone whose read your posts pooh-poohing the radio issue as a sign that the Democrats don’t understand the “big picture” because the big picture is all about going on the offense, not the defense.</p>
<p>It’s magical thinking.</p>
<p>By the same “logic”, there’s no need to worry about dealing with drug addicts effectively in our society, because the right’s “War on Drugs” is going to keep drugs out…or there’s no need to teach anyone that condoms prevent the spread of AIDS, because if you just tell them not to have sex, they won’t be at risk.</p>
<p>It speaks very strongly to the divide between those who believe that actions have predictable consequences and those who believe that their ideology is predestined to succeed no matter what experience tell us.</p>
<p>Vyse, all you’ve posted is that you think that any republican is better than any democrat. You haven’t posted any actual basis for that. No facts, no specifics, nothing but bile and attitude. You’re in no position to criticize a poster who actually took you up on your challenge by citing facts, events, and documentation.</p>
<p>I’ll take you up on your challenge as well: to return to the original subject of the original post, whichever the three were who raised their hands to indicate that they don’t believe in evolution: they’re not qualified to be president, in my opinion, on that basis alone.</p>
<p>"Tell me Conyat. Who was the last Democrat President who was a “big picture” guy?:</p>
<p>Very, very unfortunately for the world, it was Bill Clinton and the neo-liberals, the single greatest governmental cause of global warming, environmental degradation, illegal immigration, and genocide perpetuated by a world power in the last three decades.</p>
<p>Yeah. If only we had a nutjob like Ralph Nadar as president…</p>
<p>Seriously, folks. It is very difficult to discuss politics with at least a pinch of pragmatism.</p>
<p>The failures of the Bush administration are not really failures of philosophy, but rather a relentless determination to favor political cronyism over competence and corruption over good management. Basic nuts and bolts.</p>
<p>The failure of Clinton and the neo-liberals WAS really a failure of philosophy, a failure to understand the relationship between capitalism, globalization, and responsible trade and monetary policy. It was not a “given” that the U.S. government had to roll over and play dead (no less provide massive incentives) for corporations to move entire industries and jobs abroad to places without labor laws to speak of, and without environmental controls. It was not a given that the U.S. had to support trade policies that resulted in millions of people having to abandon their land in southern Mexico, El Salvador, and Honduras, and head for the U.S. border in order to be able to eat. It was not a given that Al Gore had to promote a trade policy that resulted in global deforestation. It was not a given that genocide had to become an instrument of U.S. foreign and military policy.</p>
<p>There was, and is, nothing “pragmatic” about neo-liberalism, except in writing off the U.S. working and middle classes. No one held a gun to Clinton’s and Gore’s heads in their tireless promotion of NAFTA, WTO, and so-called “free trade”. And there was nothing pragmatic about packaging lies about WMD and etc. to Biden, Lieberman, Levin, & Co., finally resulting in their total incapacity to tell the difference between truth and fiction, regardless of which party was in power.</p>
<p>Bush & Co. are entirely guilty of failure to execute. Clinton/Gore executed exquisitely, with consequences that we will continue to feel for decades.</p>
<p>I would be very, very careful about whom you consider the nutjobs.</p>
<p>To me, this is philosophy, or at least aberrant psychology. </p>
<p>It’s entirely rooted in the idea that their “side” is so inherently superior, that they simply do not have to be accountable to anyone. Keeping the superior ones in power is more important that governing well or ethically, and ethics and competence should always be sacrificed to maintain power.</p>
<p>Some of the statements that come from the administration supporters simply drip with this philosophy.</p>
<p>Maybe they’re not qualified to be biology teachers. If you’re looking to hire an accountant for your accounting firm, would you ask him his opinion on bioregenerative resources in space?</p>
<p>No, but if I asked that accountant what he thought 1+1 equaled and he said 3, I’d be worried about his grasp on reality - like those presidential candidates.</p>
<p>No, but they do need a firm grip on the difference between fact and fiction, and the shades of gray in between - again, something those candidates are at least slightly lacking.</p>
<p>I find it totally mystifying that people like Vyse constantly criticize Clinton for not haven taken out Ben Laden; but Bush? Following 9/11, he just doesn’t think much about Ben Laden. </p>
<p>So Clinton? Criminal to have not attacked Ben Laden by sending missiles into a adversarial country. Bush? Claims it’s not important to go after him in a country that we now control. Okay, I just don’t see the consistency.</p>
<p>If you know someone who doesn’t believe in evolution just show them what has happened to this thread. Wow! I leave her for a half day and look where we’ve gone.</p>
<p>Actually, Clinton launched a cruise missle attack against OBL training camps in Afghanistan in 1998 and was widely criticized for it, especially by Republicans.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You might want to read Bruce Reidel’s article Al Qaeda Strikes Back in the May/June issue of Foreign Affairs magazine.</p>
<p>He argues that Al Qaeda is stronger than ever and backs it up with the shocking increase in Al Qaeda attacks over the last several years. Specifically, he argues that the US has made a strategic blunder by abandoning Afghanistan and the hunt for bin Laden and Zawahiri and, more importantly, by giving Al Qaeda exactly what it needs for recruiting – a long, bleeding occupation of an Islamic country:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Reidel argues that we blew it by pulling our military resources out of Afghanistan and that we should be redeploying major resources there now in a better late, than never, attempt to cut the head off the snake.</p>
<p>No, but they have tremendous control over policy. And when you have a president who doesn’t accept the scientific method, and thus refuses to let experience inform policy, the potential for harm is astronomical.</p>
<p>First off, you have situations where administration officials use our tax dollars to fund research, then when they don’t like the outcomes, simply change the numbers to whatever they think the results should be. (Numerous examples of this from the current administration, including an official who just resigned over it). Then they base policy and spending on the number they invented.</p>
<p>Also, you have an administration that continues policies that simply do not work, because they refuse to believe that the experience data means anything. Spend one billion taxpayer dollars on abstinence-only education and find out it doesn’t work? Their answer is that we just need to spend even more money on it. Have a think tank involved in policy whose predictions have been wrong time and time again? No biggie, keep using them and ignoring wiser heads, because “this time they have to be right”; “there’s too much riding on it to believe they could fail”, and other forms of wishful, magical thinking.</p>
<p>You’re really all over the map in your distaste for anyone who’s views aren’t yet polarized to the extreme left. Could we please stick to the topic(s) at hand?</p>
<p>Giuliani drastically decreased crime in NY, and rebuilt a city literally on the verge of collapse. What has Hillary done other than make anti semitic slurs, kiss palestinian despots, and bust out the southern draaaaaawl?</p>