We'll be flying Jet blue to Mars in about twenty years and on the way there we'll be using our own portable "hubbles".

Cheers!

VR

I can see it now..."Martian" TER discussion boards..lol



-- Modified on 1/31/2004 7:04:56 AM

Actually, I was thinking along similar lines (see post below).

There is a certain consistency with this adminstration. When U.S. forces arrived in Baghdad, they immediately took up defensive positions at the Oil Ministry (important to Bush) but left the National Antiquity Museum and Library unguarded (not important to Bush). It became clear that Rumsfeld et al. didn't think that saving these world treasures were worth a single life, U.S. or Iraqi. I think at last count approx. 70% of the Antiquities Museum inventory was stolen, and the National Library was completely burned. I guess with a President who professes not to read newspapers, that he would probably also think the earliest known exemplars of human writing (seals, cuneiform tablets etc.) aren't of any importance either. On the other hand, ancient Iraq (Sumer) has their own creation myth (Gilgamesh Epic) which conflicts with Biblical creation. Maybe Bush was just eliminating the competition?

Since the Hubble telescope provides the most convincing evidence to date that the universe is greater than 10 billion years old, and not ~8000 years as believed by creationists, one wonders if Bush was catering to his political base by ending the project. Sounds crazy, but no more crazy than the Georgia Board of Education being on the verge of removing the word "evolution" from scientific textbooks.

-- Modified on 1/31/2004 7:14:50 AM

First, the Hubble, deployed in 1990, was designed with a 15 year life span and that included the servicing. Second,the Hubble is being replaced by the James Webb Telescope, a far more powerful orbiting telescope by 2011. Hubble at it current rate should become non-operational in about three to four years. No one has "killed" Hubble. But with recent concerns over the safety of the existing shuttle program, the need to finish the space station, and the added cost of extra safety checks not to mention the limitation of the fleet to probably a max of three flights a year due extra down time in-between missions because of the added safety measures, something has got to give. One could argue that the funds could be rerouted from the silly "Man on Mars" agenda ( we should probably work out or rover problems first) but you would still have a hue and cry from the masses on why we are endangering lives and wasting tax dollars servicing a decaying telescope

At the most you will be without an eye in the sky for 3 years. And frankly the bulk of the important scientific information comes from telescopes that are not visual such as gamma ray, X-ray,infrared,etc. The "nerds" if you will gobble up the hard data from those metrics far more than the visuals from Hubble.

Lastly I'm a Libertarian (yes big L) not a Bush supporter or detractor. The suggestion that Hubble is being scratched because Bush is creationist is reactionary and simplistic. With that logic he should have already paved over the La Brea Tar Pits and bombed several ongoing digs in the Gobi. No,in this case the blame should not be laid at Bush who recently added an extra billion dollars to the NASA budget over the next 5 years but at the arrogant dept. culture within NASA. For too long they have been living of the laurels of Apollo and satisfied with the dog and pony quality of the Shuttle, all the while ignoring a variety of safety issues that were identified through numerous memos from their own safety engineers. This coupled with a basic ambivalence over the past 30 years from both major political parties and the American public in general towards space and its cost has kept NASA in disarray. Invariably whichever party is out of power either laments the excessive costs which should be used to help the poor or the lack of funds  hindering the advancement of science; either argument used by either side depending on which way the polls are blowing.

Thus spoke Zarathustra

Nicole, I think 2sense and you make an interesting point.  It is certainly very possible that Bush's creationist constituency is a factor in many science-related decisions his administration makes, including the decision to shut down Hubble.

But we will continue to move forward in our understanding of the universe, even as some try to pull us backward.  We have to keep "fighting the good fight" in this area, though.

I am not a Bush lover by any means (well I guess I am...depending on whose Bush it is and I can't quite give up this Crack Habit that keeps me prowling these boards)....in fact I have  complete and udder contempt for the guy in my vain attempt to milk the subject, his entire family and the collective herd of horses that they rode in on and can trace his family tree to Mildred Pierce and Adolph Hitler. BUT....But what you say and the churlish acrimony with which you say it is pure left wing vitriolic Bushit (pun intended)....

The issue is a two year window of inoperability for our quest for knowledge as the Hubble is set for retirement in 2010 anyways and will, if not reparied by our antique and dangerous Shuttle Fleet will go out of service by 2008.  It's replacement is currently under developemnt and is scheduled for launch before 2010.  I am providing a link for your review.

I know this guy is a narrow minded Hockey Puck but I see no reason to take the Single Bullet Theory mentality to this extreme.....and believe me (or else) I'm a Conspiracy Theorist going back to 1966 and am still looking for Kennedy's brain AND have been to Dealey Plaza and have the goods on the entire Bush family as I previously mentioned).

The truth is out there!

The Dude



-- Modified on 1/31/2004 8:55:43 AM

Hubble, believes that it can do good science beyond 2010.

The cost of building the Next Generation Space Telescope will exceed that of continuing to upgrade Hubble.  It is very far from certain that the NGST will be built at all.  NASA's history is full of planned projects that never happened.

Even if NGST is built, the two-year window you mention is likely to grow to five years, ten years, or  more, a time period that is a substantial part of the remaining lifetime of a middle-aged religious person who is offended by the science Hubble does on a daily basis.



-- Modified on 1/31/2004 8:56:06 AM

i wonder what GWB's mind finds easier to comprehend (let alone believe) that the universe is 13.7 billion years old or that it dates back only to 4004 BC ?  the fact that the HST (and later WMAP) determined the former age estimate (to an unprecedented accuracy of 1%) must fly in the face of everything he "believes" as a bible-endorsing Christian

although Bush's science advisor John Marburger has a spotless scientific reputation, he has admitted that he's never had a single 1-on-1 meeting with Bush and more than half his time is now spent on counterterrorism (not scientific research per se).  moreover the office of Science and Technology Policy (which was near and dear to Clinton) has been moved from the Old Executive Office Building to further down the street from the Whitehouse, in what many felt was a somewhat symbolic gesture of this Administration's view of its uses

although Marburger did defend Bush's snub at the Kyoto Protocol (saying it hurts the US business interests) even when the National Academies told Bush that it was based on valid science and (naturally) defends him in public, he did have this to say about GWB: "He's not a scientist, doesn't claim to be a scientist, and he doesn't particularly want to be a scientist, as far as I can tell ... It's not something that [he] naturally goes after"

I cannot believe that half the populace of this country feel that he is doing a good job.  I AM, however, heartened by the fact that for once, the Democrats seem interested in nominating the guy best suited to countering Bush's weakness with his own strengths, so he can win, rather than an idealogue or protest candidate who would be bound to be beaten.

as long as I pay less taxes in capital gains he is welcome to stay in office. Any democtrat will kill everybody with their absurd taxe increases. I know I am selfish, lol

-- Modified on 1/31/2004 9:08:01 AM

This is kind of off topic, but relates well to the subject at hand.  I just read Deception Point by Dan Brown and was blown away by it.  The basic story line is about NASA and the different groups both for and against it.  It's a real page turner and should be great reading for any of you interested in NASA and their triumphs and failures over the years.

There was a very good update on the status of the Hubble on Science Friday on NPR (www.sciencefriday.com). The January 30, 2004 program should be archived soon on the Science Friday website, and available as a streaming webcast.

The program confirms the points raised by jackvance above. Namely, that there's a lot of science left to be done. There is about $200 million of equipment already built to upgrade the Hubble, including new gyroscopes, batteries and scientific instruments to cover other electromagnetic wavebands. Of course, this money would be wasted if the Hubble is not serviced. Also, NASA is planning a robotic mission to splash Hubble down into the sea (another $300 million). As the NYTimes pointed out, it will cost about as much to bring down the Hubble as it would be to service it and keep it functioning.

One other point about the NGST/Webb. None of it's equipment has yet been built, which confirms jackvance's view that the NGST may simply be this NASA generation's version of "vaporware".

-- Modified on 1/31/2004 10:45:55 AM

While I agree with The Dude that it is not necessarily a "conspiracy" issue, Jack Vance and 2sense have provided vaild counterpoints.

In my mind, this, like almost everything regarding this administration (and, to a lesser extent, ALL administrations), comes down to two issues:  money and political power (same issue?).

As the budget/tax cut issues have shown with this administration, the present is managed very intently (something that doesn't have an absolute need or a political payoff is being cut back or eliminated...gotta pay for those tax cuts), while the future is full of "big idea" issues that are waaaayyyyy over budget (especially if the tax cuts are made permanent and defense spending stays up there...and God help the politician that suggests their repeal).

I could read a long list of programs that have had funding cut back or eliminated that I think are more important than ANY space exploration, given the polarized nature of our political budgeting process.  However, this issue to me is less a matter of the creationism/evolutionism issue than another example of our Compassionate Conservative giving an impression of something (supporting space programs...the whole "Mars landing" thing, for example) for political mileage, while in reality he is signing off on budgets that cut funding (gotta pay for those tax cuts).  While keeping HST up there may not cost more for now than bringing it down, it likely will in the near future, and even if it isn't much more, there is no political mileage in doing so.  People always want something "newer and better", so give the people what they want!The few people who are yelling about their programs being cut aren't as many who "oooh and aaah" over a new space progam press briefing.  Keep people distracted.  To quote one of my favorite B-movies:  "Sleep.  Conform.  Marry and reproduce.  $ is your God."

I am glad 2sense mentioned earlier about the Georgia school board issue.  Gotta love Jimmy Carter's statement on that issue.

You don't like Bush, me either.  Low IQ doesn't sit well but he appeals to the average Joe because he is just like them.  Clinton is much brighter and used it fairly well but like all of the abused the position...and chose BBW's to play with. So stupid decisions by bright folks happens.  Bush has spent MORE than Clinton even without the war!

I think the fact is that we desparately need to fix this two party thing we got goin on.  Demo's and Rep's are both physcally irresponsible for different reasons.

And yep, I'm using an alias.

Economy started into recession 2 years before Clinton left office.
Bush graduated from an Ivy league school near the top of his class I believe!

I believe those quotes (i.e., "Sleep.  Conform.  Marry and reproduce.  $ is your God.") are from John Carpenter's "They Live".

The premise of this movie is that aliens have taken over, and are hypnotizing us with rays beamed from televisions. The title is from a quote in the film: "They live, while we sleep".

I don't know, but this is as good as explanation as anything to account for George W.

my referneces to Mildred Pierce and Adolph were humorous and yet truthfull.

Barbara Bush is the great-great-great niece of Franklin Pierce, the 14th President of these United States.

A far more unknown and yet surprising fact about his grand-fathers' realtionship with the Third Reich is a well kept secret.

Prescott Bush, the father of Bush 41 was a director of Union Banking Corporation as well as a partner in Brown Bothers Harriman with Roland and Averell Harriman.  At counsel to this firm were both John Foster and Allen Dulles.

In 1942, the Union Banking corporation was siezed by the Federal government for funding financial enterprises that supported Hitler as far back as 1924. Please research Fritz Thyssen for further information.

The Nationa Security roots of our current administration run deep through the valley of death and one only need research W's father's involvent in the Bay of Pigs, Noriega, Iran Contra to recognize that there was never a mistake in our 'intelligence' re:  WMD's in Iraq.

Once ONI always ONI....once a spook, always a spook.....and I'm not paranoid, I'm just informed.

So this is the tip of the Ice Berg to my reference to ol' Uncle Addy.....

The Dude

To those interested, the attached link (with its associated links) will provide a better picture of the scientific merits of the Hubble, and what we can do to save it.

-- Modified on 1/31/2004 12:28:40 PM

I think the air pollution in SC is clouding your thought process. You believe the Hubbell challenges Bush's notion of creationism? Are you serious? This thing has done some outstanding research but it can't be supported like it should with the reduced number of orbiters. We have to turn our attention to building a new breed of space craft and we can't waste future flights just to support the Hubbell.

Is magnified when you consider the reasons given were to save money for the manned mission to Mars as put forth in the Bush vision thing.
How appalling to think that people actually went along with this idiocy.
And to think... the US has just ordered some 32 new tactical fighters (Raptor is the monicker, I believe) at a cost of $10.3 BILLION. Can we drop the order to only 30 jets, and transfer the funds to the Hubble?
How about cutting the subsidies to Farmers, Oil and Energy companies, and phamaceutical interests from their current level of $132 billion down to ONLY $130 billion?
Another $112 billion to support the Iraq war about to be requested? Cut it down to only $110 billion and lets use the Hubble to search for Osama Bin Laden!
Cut the proposed Pentagon budget from $457 billion to $455 billion, and lets keep Hubble for another 20 years instead.
Nicole... I'm with you 100%

No he didn't!  George Bush's grades in college were so appalling that, as of the last presidential election, they weren't even being released to the press!  I was told that his senior history seminar professor couldn't even recall having met Bush, even though there were only four or five students in the class!  That's how lackluster he was!

By the way, I don't think that the recession had anything to do with any presidential administration.  I think it was just the economy going through its natural peaks and valleys without the benefit of assistance or interference.  Admittedly, it was probably helped along somewhat by the continued corporate out-sourcing (relocating jobs overseas), and also by the decline in confidence following 9-11.  Oh yeah, and by the decline in confidence that the country faced after the 2000 election -- when a president took office even though he didn't fu*king win!  

-- Modified on 1/31/2004 1:27:06 PM

Hi Nicole.  You should ask yourself:  does George Bush *really* believe in creationism?  You have to remember that he wanted to be the president and that he was the son of a Republican.  The Republican party is currently financially controlled by evangelical Christian movements (they also kowtow to big business alot, but so do the Democrats).  Any Republican politician who seriously entertains notions of the presidency *has to* profess a strong Christian belief system and should probably speak out against evolution.  It's all politics, really.  

I don't think it really matters what his personal views are.  I'm sure that he believes in God, but I also think that his views on science are somewhat obscured by his allegience to the party that got him elected.  Like any good politician, we may never know what he really thinks about anything!

But thats just it, Aug5... Bush doesn't do ANY thinking. That much is obvious to anyone who really pays attention. When in front of a teleprompter, Bush has some of the best orchestra leaders of all time controlling the situation. And he has been well trained to be a talking head. But on those RARE occasions when Karl Rove is distracted and a spontaneous moment slips by... Dumya has shown himself to be vacuous, shallow, and completely clueless in matters of significance.
George W Bush was never the best qualified man to be President, nor did he win the popular vote. He was annointed by a Supreme Court consisting of several judges placed there by his father, George I. That is what got him into the Oval Office. It was the second Coup D'Etat in American history.

For the record Bush was an average student at Yale, middle of his graduating class in 1968.  Was accepted to Harvard and earned his MBA in 1978.

Bush's senior history teacher was most likely a rabid socialist, like the majority of the professors at Yale, same as most institutions of higher learning.  The opinion of most professors of "Liberal Art's" courses in this country is very seldom more than bovine scatology anyway!  Those of us who have suffered through their classes and graduated soon learned that decenting opinions were rewarded at grade time - so much for "Liberal" thinking!

Also for the record, Al Gore dropped out of two graduate schools.  Never completed any Master's programs.  Might not mean anything, but he did quit!  And like my granddad used to say, once you quit something, the next time it is alot easier.

Finally, maybe Aug5 should go back to (just about any junior high school) and learn about our Constitution!  In the history of the United State of America the President has never been elected by popular vote.  It has ALWAYS been the Electoral College, as were Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.  Most 8th graders learn that at about the age of 12.  Most adults accept it as a fact and don't whine about it, for what is it now, three years!

Silly hobbyists, politics are for kids

Sorry if this shows up again.  Whay are we arguing about a person who is a politician.  Politicians pander to their base, which is why over 50 million eligible voters do not vote.  Blind republicans and blind democrats are as big a threat to democracy as any outside force.  Blind followers creat the base, as such the message becomes more and more geared towards the devout(blind).  By blind I do not mean stupid, I refer to a comfort zone that inadvertantly builds around the politicians knowing a few key words or phrases near and dear to the base will cause them to over look any other lies, and deceptions spewing out like excrement.  So both parties put millions into expanding their base and hence become beholden to a few ideas and get boxed into a position from which they cannot waver.  
  Case in point the evangelical base on the right and abortion base on the left.  As long as Bush holds a bible in his hands a hardcore group of evangelicals that numbers in the millions within that base would overlook any lie Bush tells(its just an example, I'm not referring specifically to Iraq).  As long as a Democrat, whether he/she believes it or not, says he/she is pro-life and pro gay rights, another group numbering in the millions will forgive the democrat of all else.  This also allows the political debate to have a double-standard justification for all issues at hand.  If he does this he is evil, if our party does the same thing it because blah blah blah blah blah.  The base will take any bait you throw out to them.  
  This is the reason why the country is split and divided.  The entire focus is on appeasing the base, which the politicians know is blind, so the remaining issues don't get very much attention.  Independents look at all issues and are usually divided equally down the middle on the ones that are presented.
Base politics doesn't allow for creative and inspirational thought to enter the political arena.  Hence so many idiotic and mediocre politicians who know all they need to win is say a few key words and phrases.  
  So what the hell is my point??  Discuss ideas without bringing up the names of individual politicians and we will learn a lot more.  I must admit I am guilty of doing this in a few previous posts and it is a complete waste of time.  Honestly, this country is missing a great debate that is worthy of our times yet we all get caught up in the petty and wasteful mantra of Bush is a liar, and Clinton is a immoral degenerate.  The fact is a lot of politicians are liars and degenerates, so who cares.  
 

Actually, yes, the president has always been chosen by the electoral college, but the electoral college is itself chosen by popular vote.  When we vote on election day, we are really voting for electoral representatives who, in turn, elect the president.  

Supposedly, all a candidate needs to do is win a plurality or bare majority of votes in a state, and he will then receive all the electoral votes for that state.  It is very possible for a president to be elected with a minority of popular votes (referred to as "minority presidents", and there have been several throughout US history; although I don't personally recall Clinton being one).  

For the record, you are absolutely correct: Bush was a C- student as an undergrad, whereas Gore was a terrible student who holds no advanced degree.  Furthermore, Bush scored far better on his SATs than Gore did.  Ultimately, Bush attended the two most prestigious schools in the country (and possibly the world), and that speaks volumes (even if his GPA doesn't).
I agree with your opinion about professors being closet socialists, but a professor of American Revolutionary History at Yale University (generally thought of as a fairly conservative campus) might be an exception.  

Oh, by the way, if I had voted at all in 2000, I probably would have voted for Bush.  Personally, I'm ambivalent towards him but I think he's good for my wallet in the long run.

Sorry, I am getting a little tired of the unelected president comments.  I tend to jerk my knee at things like that.

I didn't mean that Clinton didn't receive the popular vote, but that he wasn't elected president until the electoral collge voted.  The whole process was intended to protect states rights and Bush did win the majority of the States.

I'm not all that pleased with Bush's spending, however, government spending is a major key in economic recovery.  Really the only things the President can do is lower taxes, increase spending and attempt to control the fed's interest rates.  Bush has done all of this and it seems to be working.  The next 15 to 18 months will tell us whether our economy is truly inproving or not.

Since I live in Southern California, I am a little pissed about the pseudo amnesty that Bush rolled out.  Although, I have to admit I haven't read the policy.  My attitude is based on what I have heard from pundits, from both sides.

I am very pleased that we have had a president in place that decided to do something about terrorism.  Bush's leadership after 9/11 was outstanding.  His speech at Ground Zero will be a lifelong memory to me.  More importantly, those that did attack the WTC, did indeed hear from us - within 60 days - loud and clear!  Even the Russians admitted that Bush did in weeks what they were unable to accomplish in 10 years!  

Look, I'm a Libertarian atheist who thinks ALL religions are the last remaining human mythologies and utterly absurd in this day and age (hate me if you must, but that's the view from where I'm standing).  So you can imagine where I stand on the subject of the Religious Right (not to be confused with legitimate conservatives).

BUT, I'm really tired of this pracitce of viewing the entire world through the "Bush is the source of all evil" prism.  It's simplistic, it's wrong, and it doesn't get to the real problems- and there are enough real problems we can assign to Bush that we don't need to create imaginary ones.  

The Hubble is coming to the end of its useful life, and as you stated, is already being replaced by a more advanced instrument.  I was surprised to hear this a few years ago, because it hasn't been around that long.  But space is an extremely hostile environment.  It would be nice if they could squeeze a few more years of useful operation out of the old girl, but the point of diminshing returns could soon be reached.  Plus, the Shuttle fleet is getting stretched pretty thin.  

As you stated, the most valuable work to scientists isn't in the visible light range, but in the other portions of the electro-magnetic spectrum.  Pretty pictures make nice press releases, but X-ray and gamma ray pictures make better science.

If you want to attack the Creationist Luddites then go for it- I couldn't agree with you more.  And there certainly are enough REAL targets from which to choose, but this isn't one of them.  I offer, for example, the school superindentent in Southern Georgia (in yesterday's LA Times) that wants to delete all references to evolution because it's just a "buzzword" that creates a lot of confusion.  He also wants to delete sections from the curriculum on the fossil record and single cell organisms.  Now that really IS outrageous, coming from an educator.

But to suggest that the Hubble is being shut down because it cofirms the age of the universe to be older than the Bible thumping morons want it to be is just ridiculous.  The Hubble may have fine-tuned the age of the universe a little closer, but it didn't change the number that much.   People that want to ignore science were ignoring it before the Hubble, and will continue to ignore it long after the Hubble has been reitred.   The only way they can live in their mass-delusion is to simply ignore all evidence that doesn't suport their "beliefs."   And the only way they can do that is to close ranks and stick together, thereby reinforcing their "faith" (I've got two family members at the opposite end of the spectrum from me, so I'm well versed on the subject).

Even from my perspective, the Bible is a great book- it's just not a very good source of information on cosmology or the origins of life when interpreted literally.    

Sorry Nicole, I can't back you on this one.

-- Modified on 1/31/2004 6:23:33 PM

You've summed it up most excellently.

-- Modified on 2/1/2004 9:28:02 AM

I have been a republican for as long as I can remember.  This will be the first election that I will NOT be voting for a republican president.  Despite the fact that I believe he lied to us about the reasons for going to war in Iraq, he had the audacity to get up in the state of the union address and make anabolic steroids an important national issue.  With all the problems going on inside and outside of the US, anabolics shouldn't even make radar on the 2am news or a tiny news station in the remote areas of Alaska.

It tells me more clearly than ever that he's completely out of touch with the US constituancy, let alone the real issues facing americans and America today.

*getting off soapbox and returning you to your regularly scheduled programs*

if only more long-standing Republicans had your courage and conviction

Too bad you use an alias...I would love to pick your brain sometime.  

Now if I could only lock you in a room with Bribite for a few hours and let the feathers fly...

i usually laugh at Creationists and the Republicans who staff these school boards (there's no talking sense to them) but when i think of all the children in Georgia who will be made victims of institutionalized ignorance of this scope and magnitude i just get sad

no wonder the South is so ... well, let's just say ... "the way that it is" and leave it at that

That was one of his best lines in the concert of his that I saw:  "Think of the children!"

Do you have something to confess, Singey? :P

More morally bankrupt, intellectually dishonest commentary from the pathological Bush haters.
I love it when Libs, who defended Clinton (the Great Prevaricator), a liar.
I love it when Libs, who attack the space program in favor of Socialist welfare spending that accomplishes nothing, criticize conservative proposals for investments in space.
I love it when Libs, who never met a history they couldn't rewrite, complain about the Administration's failure to protect the antiquities museum, which was looted well before the American liberation of Iraq.  And by the way, which was more important to the future economic well-being of Iraqis, oil, or antiquities?
I love it when Libs simply make it up about conservatives, since Bush has never commented at all about "creationism."  Certainly no such comments are cited here ... merely his Christianity.  Nice anti-Christian bigotry.
I love it when Libs, who nominated someone too stupid to win his own state, call Bush "stupid."
I love it when Libs, who ignore Joe Kennedy's Nazi ties, make up stories about the Bush families Nazi ties, as though GWB was a member of the SS, or was even alive during WWII.  Since when do we visit the sins of the fathers on their sons?  Oh, wait, that's affirmative action.  Never mind.
I love it when Libs, who have no provable GOP credentials or beliefs (boards like this and C-SPAN are notoriously anonymous), claim that they're Republicans who will never vote for another one.
I love it when Libs, who never once criticized the Great Prevaricator's refusal to release his medical records, critize Bush for refusing to release his grades (as though, with the grade inflation rampant in the Ivy League, they mean anything).
I love it when Libs, who demonstration lockstep loyalty to the guy first elected with 43% of the vote, claim that Bush didn't win.
I love it when Libs like MasterZed, who point to the popular vote, suggest that Bush didn't win.  Such aforesaid Libs (like most Libs) demonstrate their painful ignorance of the Constitution that they lack the courage to attempt to amend (see abortion, affirmative action, etc.)
Cogito Ergo DATY makes some cogent points ... some of the few in this thread.

The bottom line is this: Most Left-wing criticism of Bush, Ashcroft, etc., are based in their fear and loathing of anyone who believes in a power higher than the Liberal welfare state.  Such beliefs are a threat to those who believe in the supremacy of Big Government --- run by themselves, naturally --- above all else.  And when power is your one and only goal, any inconsistency is justified, and any belief in a higher power is a threat.

Re:Silly hobbyists, politics are for kids

I have been watching this thread with interest.  I wish to add some points to this discussion.

First of all, the electors in a state's electoral college may or may not be chosen by the popular vote.  That is completely at the discretion of the state legislature.  If, for example, a state legislature voted to appoint electors that they knew would vote for Bush and leave it at that, it would be their prerogative.  In reference to Presidential elections, constitutionally speaking, universal suffrage is not a right.  Furthermore, rules concerning the electoral college differ from state to state.  In some states electors must vote for who they say they will vote for.  In other states they can vote their conscience, whatever the voting public does.  In some states (notably Maine and Nebraska) electors vote by district and not as a state.  For example, say that one of the electors from Bush's group in Virginia changes their mind and votes for the Democratic candidate, even though Virginians voted for Bush.  He/she would be well within their rights to do so (even though they can count out any future with the Republican party).  I should further point out that at no point in time was Bush behind in the counts in Florida.  The guy won.  I don't like it, but that's the way it is.  The popular vote is completely meaningless when it comes to Presidential elections.  I don't agree with the Supreme Court decision that ultimately delivered it, as I think it was a state matter, but I still believe that he is the rightful winner of the election.

Second, as per the mess in Iraq, I do not believe in the idea that Bush lied.  Gephardt and Lieberman, two Dems I have a ton of respect for, both made convincing cases for the intel that was out there at the time the decision was made.  Every country on the UN Security Council, with the exception of Syria, believed that Iraq had those weapons.  Former Clinton officials believed he had the weapons.  In fact, when Madeleine Albright, former Sec. of State under Clinton was asked whether she was surprised that no weapons had been found, responded that she was shocked.  Saddam Hussein had stated publicly several times that he would use WMD's against Americans at any oppurtunity.  The intel that came out of Germany as per his potential capabilities was even scarier than what we had.  What does all this mean?  First of all that at some point the ball was dropped in a serious way.  There are still WMD's that are unaccounted for.  Were they destroyed?  Given to someone else?  Still hidden somewhere in Iraq?  Nobody knows right now, but the last option seems highly unlikely, which leaves us with the task of discovering what the fate of those weapons was, and how our intel AND the intel of most of the world community slipped up so bad.  I am not pleased that inspectors were not given more time and that there seems to be no mea culpa from the White House, but I do not think that the American people and the world community were intentionally deceived by the current administration.  

As for the creation/evolution mess, I find it interesting that two groups that are so vehement in their supposed dedication to "truth" are so incapable of allowing other viewpoints to be heard and considered.  It's like if you are a creationist, to even mention evolution is heresy and vice versa.  The possiblity for both being true is out there.  Perhaps evolution is how the deity chose to act.  Perhaps there is no deity.  Perhaps there is and he/she/it created the world in 7 days.  Ultimately, we are finite human beings with an INCREDIBLY limited viewpoint on the world.  To claim that evolution is the single truth and slam the door on other possibilities is not very scientific and not very enlightened.  Likewise, to staunchly hold onto a religious dogma and not allow other ideas to be heard is to deny people the free will they need to truly choose what you are offering and follow it wholeheartedly.

First, the electorial college.  Second, the requirement we vote for only one person.  

The electorial college has been discussed to death.

The correct way to have elections is to allow people to vote for every candidate they would be comfortable with as president.  That would mean if you thought both Mr Bush and the Democratic Candidate could do the job, you could vote for both.    If you are running, your score goes up by one vote for every vote you get.

Meople would be more satisfied with the outcome of any election conducted this way.  The result would be more centrest winners.  IMHO, we could use a little centrism, ...  Harry

James 86,
 
I love the fact you think opposition to Bush defacto means the oppsing members are morally bankrupt pathological liars.
I love the fact you think conservatives and republicans never spew out excrement out of pathalogical spite and hate.
I love the fact you use elementary and unthoughtful terms such as liberal welfare state, and Big Govt supremacy.  

   The fact is this is exactly the tone and level of rhetoric coming out of the left and right and truly the reason this great democracy of ours is in such a sorry state.  Immediately, when you start out a sentence with you Libs, or when Libs start out with you Cons, liars, Nazis the rest of the argument no matter how logical, principled, or persuasive becomes diluted.  As I said before there are legitimate concerns that need to be addressed, and a dialogue worthy of a free and educated society is desperately needed in this country.  You are not talking to your enemy, the Libs, you are talking to your fellow Americans.  If you truly are trying to bring about change use words of inspiration, logic unrefutable, a tone respectful conveying a powerful conviction, ideas lofty and bold, and appeal to a peoples sense of purpose and duty.  Everytime you speak as a citizen of this nation, you owe it not to your party, rather to your fellow Americans a chance to understand you without feeling insulted and belittled.
  Most people would be willing to listen to a argument, and even understand the perils of Big Government and over taxation.  When the person listening has to feel stupid and defensive from the start, the message loses all appeal.  The other side does exactly the same to the conservatives.  At the end who wins??  The politicians.  Politicians have introduced language into the debate arena long ago that appeals to a weaker nature where impulse and emotion rule, rather than reason and sense of unity.
Who needs terrorists, when in times of peace we can't exchange ideas in a civil manner.  Hell we are going to be our own undoing, we don't need outside forces.  I know why the ignorant and uneducated taliban living in caves follow their leaders blindly, anyone care to tell me what our excuse is??

Have convictions, if only our criminal justice system weren't so corrupted by money

Most of the criticism of the Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft regime is from people who recognize the corruption of organized religion, and the degree to which the Republican Party has completely sold itself out to the religious right.  Personally, I'm a Libertarian, who is naturally predisposed to the laissez-faire economic policy of the Republican Party, but the social liberalism of the Democratic Party.  

The fact is, the Bush administration and the Republican congress panders obsessively to this Religious right-wing constituency.  

And I think that there can be little doubt about the skewing of values that this causes when an individual lie about a consensual blow-job in the White House is deemed to be a more serious offense against the American public than is an orgainized campaign to lie about the rationale for getting our nation into a war which happens to be vehemently unpopular with the rest of the world, and which, in addition to getting many hundreds of Americans killed and thousands wounded, will damage our nation's international standing for decades to come.

One more thing.  Bush is NOT a legitimately elected President, and it ain't because he lost the POPULAR vote, which, of course, he did.  It's because he won the rigged/stolen ELECTORAL vote in the state of Florida, where the Governor (Brother Jeb, who un-recused himself when the going got close) and the Secretary of State Katherine Harris (a.k.a the Wicked Witch of the South) made not even the slightest pretense of impartiality in dealing with voting irregularities and incomplete vote counts.  It was only after the Supreme Court split along party lines that Bush was declared the winner, in a decision which Antonin Scalia went so far as to say had NOTHING to do with judicial precedent and shouldn't ever be used as such.  Bush is in fact the most illegitimate President since Rutherford B Hayes, and all your Republican crowing about it can't change this embarrassing blight on American History, which, along with the unilateral application of American force on a global basis causes us to have become the most dispised Nation on earth, where just 3 years ago, we were the most admired Nation on earth.  Yes, we who are NOT Republicans are angry.  But it will only be for 10 more months, and then it will be corrected by the electorate

-- Modified on 2/2/2004 12:31:19 PM

Actually, I don't think that Bush is a creationist. He is a Methodist. Hardly a fundamentalist sect. Ashcroft is a Creationist,
(Assemblies of God--his dad was a minister) but their beliefs aren't necessarily against science or even to the teaching of the THEORY of evolution. Assemblies of God are Pentacostals and believe that creation wasn't an accident but part of a devine plan. They don't necessarily believe the "World was created in 6 days" version of creationism, and usually stay out of the school controversies.

Please go find out what recession means before your tell people to get their facts straight. The only recession happened in the last 10 years was in 2001-2002, after George Bush took office.


http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/daychart.exe/form

They did not JUST state that there were WMDs in Iraq.  Had that been all that was said, you could make the case that they were misled by by the intelligence.  

Where they incontrovertibly LIED was that they stated that they had specific intelligence that NOT ONLY were there WMDs present in Iraq, but that Saddam had a program to deliver these WMDs such that they represented an IMMINENT THREAT to the U.S.  And that this was not just a chemical program, which most of the world thought he had, but also a NUCLEAR program which was being brought near to fruition.  These false claims were being made even as the intelligence community was directly stating that this WAS NOT the case, both internally and publicly.  It was because Joseph Wilson went public with this information in a NY Times Op Ed piece specifically contradicting administration claims that Saddam was purchasing fissionable material for his nuclear program (a.k.a. "Yellowcake") that someone as yet unidentified (only because Robert Novak is not revealing his source within the administration) decided to OUT Wilson's wife from her deep cover position as a CIA operative.  An act which, frankly, is not just dispicable, it is treasonous.  It's VERY possible, even logical to assume, that this person was acting under direct orders from someone as high as Cheney, Ashcroft, or Rumsfeld.  So it's within reason to believe that someone at that level in the Bush administration committed TREASON for the purpose of punishing a political opponent who embarrassed them by establishing that they lied about WMDs.  This is a BIG DEAL.  A much bigger deal than Clinton lying about getting a BJ from an intern in the oval office.

And BTW, Cheney is STILL, to this day, continuing to lie about the existence and immenence of the threat posed by Saddam's purported programs for WMD.  So much so that David Kay has felt the need to go public with his findings that such programs, to the extent that they DID exist, had clearly been disbanded rather than taken to the level where they represented an imminent threat to us in the U.S.

-- Modified on 2/2/2004 3:25:49 PM

What why they call themself "Great Old Pissed"

and so did Germany, France, Russia, England and even China believe they had those weapons. Even the UN knew they hap those weapons! - Iraq USED WMD's - just look at your history books.

I acknowledged that we, and most others had legitimate reason to believe that Saddam had WMD in the guise of Chemical Weapons.  But those Chemical Weapons, even if they still existed, were a threat only to Saddam's own people and his neighbors in the region, or any attacking force on Iraqui soil, simply for lack of a delivery mechanism that could get them outside of the region.  Where the BIG LIE comes in is the claim that Saddam had a NUCLEAR program that was an IMMINENT THREAT TO US.  And THAT is what Bush and Cheney used to sell the Iraq war.  And THAT is the thing that our intelligence was specifically telling them was NOT the case, even before they went to the American populace with it, to justify the invasion even in the face of nearly unanimous foreign opposition.

NOSC,
Apparently, you missed the points.  You dismiss my comments as "hatred spewed vitriolism," and "mudslinging" without troubling yourself to dispute or challenge my assertions.
Perhaps it's because you can't.
As for the most pertinent point (and most of this wasn't directed at you in particular, but this is), so far as I am aware, Bush has never spoken on creationism, so the premise of your initial vent was faulty.

emeraldvokda,
    Most of your conclusions are faulty.  Two of your comments are your assumptions about what I "think."  "Morally bankrupt pathological liars."  Save for the Clintons, no.  Generally, not even necessarily.  Hypocrites?  Absolutely.
    The third comment criticizes my usage of terminology, which you dismiss as "elementary and unthoughtful."
    Not nearly as "unthoughtful" as "our great democracy."  Assuming you are an American, you are simply wrong, as we live in a republic, not a democracy, which the Founders feared.
    And I don't respect hypocrites, so don't expect me to use respectful language.  I can't imagine why they would worry about feeling "insulted and belittled."  After eight years of the Great Prevaricator, most have made it clear that they are as utterly shameless as he.

sdstud,
    The problem with your post is its premises.  The impeachment of Clinton was not about "a consensual blow-job in the White House," it was about perjury and obstruction of justice, federal crimes.  Your premise is false.
    Equally false is your premise of "an orgainized campaign to lie about the rationale for getting our nation into a war."  There was a worldwide consensus that Saddam had WMDs (addressed elsewhere) in violation of his ceasefire agreement in 1991 and UN mandate.  Even the UN, France, and Germany agreed that it did.  In fact, Saddam has used them in the past, against the Kurds, and against the Iranians.  "Organized campaign to lie"?  The only "organized campaign to lie" is the one originating in the Democrat National Committee about this historical record.
    As for what is "vehemently unpopular with the rest of the world," I don't give a shit.  So was Reagan's policy against the late, unlamented Soviet Union.  And it worked, just as Bush's is working (see Saddam captured; Libya opening up and ridding itself of WMDs), belying your assertion that it "will damage our nation's international standing for decades to come."  I don't give a shit whether the French or the Germans like us.
    As for your rant concerning Bush not being legitimately elected, you've now changed your story and rehashed another lie.  The simple fact that the pathological Bush Haters like you cannot admit is that Bush won every single count of the ballots, even those conducted by liberal media outlets after the Supreme Court (by a 7-2 vote) stopped the sham counting being conducted by local Democrat party hacks.  You poor Lefties simply wanted to keep counting (with Dems doing the counting) until you got the result you wanted.  Your parroting of this far Left lie reveals you as historically and factually challenged, just as your false premises do.

The recession started in 2000, under Clinton.  There's one fact you didn't get straight.  And Bush's budget didn't even go into effect until 1 October 2001.  How that makes him responsible for a recession that began in 2000 is beyond the understanding of most.

To paraphrase you, obviously, you didn't read --- or didn't comprehend --- what the Administration actually said.  No one, not a single official in the Administration, ever described Iraq's WMDs as an "imminent threat."  "Gathering," I believe?  Yes.  "Imminent"?  Never.
Furthermore, it is clear that Saddam had a nuclear program.  Remember Israel's bombing of the French-built Osirik nuclear facility in the early 80s?  I do.  At least one expatriot Iraqi scientist published a book on the more recent iterations of the program entitled "Baghdad Sun."
The only "Big Lies" of which I am aware are the ones that you're parroting here about the Administation.