WHAT ROUGH BEAST? America sits of the edge

Wishing I could add here, but I have to go to the airport. Wow, and I thought there were mountains in Denver. Can't see them at all. If they're out there, you could fool me. But I have to hurry to the airport. Hoping to get back to this very interesting discussion by this evening.

"Do you know of an alternate explanation of the origin of the universe and our consciousness that is "observationally and logically compelling"? Apart from the assertion that we don't know for sure, I don't think there is one."

But surely you must see that, by your definition, you're only setting one belief system against what you see as another belief system, one which (you admit) is psychologically compelling (though I'd add, for some, but not all). Science just happens to be a "belief system" in which a) proof is offered at each point and b) proof is required. Faith is, well, faith.

The shared elements of different religions reminds me of an old friend who researched and wrote a book on the remarkable similarity among children's games and forms of play, even in the most remote parts of the world. Everyone who heard or read this was quite surprised, as though something magical had happened! How had these children communicated with each other?! But in fact all it shows is that news travels! We humans continue to incorporate the ideas and notions of others often believing that our thoughts are original! See it here!

Lola -- The thing I found weirdest about Denver was that the mountains are on only one side! I remember driving down 25 towards home with high, high mountains on the right and flat, flat plain on the left. Imagine the pioneers and traders trudging across that huge flat plain and then encountering those mountains -- so sudden and high that they look like illusions. Thus knowledge: observations and fact vs. faith and illusion.

Could you please tell me what this means?

While science does indeed require and, in some cases, offer proof, it is, as physicists readily admit, incomplete. It does not undertake an explanation of the existence (as opposed to evolution) of the universe: that question is left open. It is beyond science.

The mountains quickly become a handy navigational tool (i.e.: WEST). I was quite easily lost my first couple of months in Karlsruhe!

Hobit -- Last month I stood on Point of Rocks in western Kansas, just footsteps from the Colorado border. In fact, I took a wide angle photo, the place was so evocative, and use it now as a screen saver. This was the point of upland, in an otherwise completely flat plain, which became a meeting point for pioneers and traders (one of which was my favorite, Josiah Gregg. Point of Rocks overlooks the Cimarron River and you can see the green strip of the river receding into the distance browns and yellows as it moves west. The west is a flat horizon golden horizon.

Thing is, if you are at all familiar (as I am, a little) with the landscape to the west and know how far the mountains are (not that far) it's peculiar to look and imagine the mountains beyond the curve of the earth, and to wonder about the first explorers who stood at that point and who didn't know they weren't going to continue along an endless great plain...

Even in Aurora, the eastern suburb of Denver, one cannot see the mountains very well. They are also not easily visible from DIA.

I'd come into Denver from Bailey (west) and so knew the mountains were there! But what was oddest was between Denver and C. Springs when everything is pretty flat and the mountains rise like a wall on the right. I grew up in and around the Appalachians, older mountains which give you warning -- with foothills -- that mountains are nearby. Coming into Colorado from the south, on 285, is a real treat because the approach is gradual, seductive.

Laughing

Perc,

Please, by all means, join the harem. I'd love to include you among my many husbands. Got a light?

Blatham
What an excellent response----you are correct that I tried unsuccessfully with you to demonize liberalism into socialism but I would suggest to you that many of the liberals on this forum embrace many elements of socialism especially regarding providing a wide range of social programs. I myself believe that every American should be guaranteed access to affordable health care but to go with that all health services should provided on a non-profit basis and all recipients should pay on a cost sharing basis according to their income. The really poor should pay nothing, the middle class a small percentage and the wealthy should pay a very high percentage or 100% if they make more than $200,000 per year. The real "kicker" here is how do you pay for it----the fairest and most logical is tax on gasoline like the rest of the world. I believe 50 cents per gallon would not break the economy if implemented during a strong economy if all commercial vehicles were excluded( America is such a large country and so much commerce is carried out on the roads imposing a tax on commercial vehicles would severely strain the economy even in good times) Then there is the impulse for the politicians to see the gigantic source of untapped wealth and to quickly fund every half baked scheme with money from gas tax-----as has happened in the UK, Europe and Canada.

Back to the issue----I noticed you had to select the 4th dictionary response on Google to find a definition of "ideology" that would suit your purpose of lumping religion into the ideology category----- funny--I've never considered religion to be an ideology but I'm certain that socialists would consider it to be an ideology that must be stamped out at all costs.


Even though you have denied and "back-pedaled" in softening your former strident allegation that fundamentalist Christianity posed such a dire threat to Democracy, I find it very interesting that you would ever make such an absolute statement. While I too find evangelism, missionary work in foreign countries, and the constant preaching of End times to be intolerable
(this is what drove me away from the the church at a very early age) I certainly do not consider it evil as liberals tend to. While I can easily see your point that it is undesireable for the President to present suggestions that he makes decisions based on some mystic religious principle I tend to be empathetic and to place myself in his position and I come up with this perhaps simplistic conclusion and just say:Sometimes it is best to brush aside the complexities and "Just do the right thing". I am just enough of an old fashioned reductionist that it is sometimes the "right thing to do" to reduce tough problems down to two fairly equal alternatives and then to pick the one that is the most morally correct for the majority of Americans. You can argue that I should pick the one with the least undesirable global consequences in every case but since the consequences are not known for certain, I would argue that the most morally correct decision is the best course of action. This is what I believe Bush does but his critics jump to conclusions and immediately accuse him of being simplistic, stupid and that he believes God talks to him. Perhaps I am still mired in naive realism---what do you think. Yes I'm back to the moral imperative so take that.......

And lastly your statement that you do not consider yourself to be a socialist but you widen the context to allow all but state ownership of the means of production.------interesting. When do you "drop the other shoe" and nationalize the means of production?

All right--I admit that I can't resist the legs and the intellect-----I've got a light if you've got a good cigar

Just curiously Tart---does the above translate into this: I consider myself a socialist but " I don't think the state ought to control the economy.

Well, it wasn't addressed to you Perc, but do YOU believe the gov (people) should have the power to limit corporate power?

I don't know exactly what you mean by "corporate power"-----Power to do what?

We can, should and have legislated controls over retirement funds(much more needs to be done here)--
in some cases its a matter of not enforcing what is on the books.

The greed of corporate execs needs to be seriously addressed, etc.

Define your meaning of "corporate power". You also didn't answer my question.

I didn't answer your question because I want to see an answer to my question first, Perc!

Just briefly: the larger the business, the greater the political and economic power. Whereas I'm willing to allow self-regulation when it comes to economic power (unless they break existing laws), I'm unwilling to allow corporations more political power than individual voters have. I'm hoping (and have been for some time) to see a discussion about the manner and extent of limiting corporate political power.

This is certainly a worthwhile topic for discussion but this is a quickie because I will be out of town until late tomorrow. While I am certainly in favor of making corporate execs accountable to everyone for their actions most of all greed and unethical behavior I can't say that I favor "limiting" their power for political expression or operating freedom. Just off the top of my head it seems you are advocating limiting some freedoms as long as it isn't your freedom. Sort of like the ACLU----under the cover of protecting some freedoms they want to limit the freedoms of others.

Looking for a reason to post this link in A2K, I'd like to suggest that the Sudan is suffering much worst terrorism than we are, to wit:

Last month mass hysteria apparently swept the capital city, Khartoum, after reports that foreigners were shaking hands with Sudanese men and causing their penises to disappear. One victim, a fabric merchant, told his story to the London Arabic newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi. A man from West Africa came into the shop and "shook the store owner's hand powerfully until the owner felt his penis melt into his body."

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn26.html

I read this last month on the MEMRI site.

Blatham, Lola and George

Where art thou? I've just written some pertinent stuff( I think) and Tart keeps ingoring it as is her usual mode regarding anything she doesn't agree with.

I'm trying to keep this great thread alive but maybe it's time to bury it-----I hope not.