paghat wrote:
In article , Greylock
wrote:

Good science is apolitical.


If one may define economics as political, blah blah blah...
[snip remainder of tedious, WINDY anti-market rant]

So...I just KNEW we'd get a frank admission of your
ardent leftist belief out in the open sooner or later.
You didn't need to write several hundred words in
order to do it, though.

paghat wrote:

In article ,
(George Cleveland) wrote:


On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:08:40 -0800, Robert Sturgeon
wrote:


On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:19:53 GMT,

*snippage*

The corporations have never lost control over the day to day lives of
Americans. Their influence was moderated during the 30s but they regained
their power during the second world war and by 1948 had succeeded in
eviscerating the labor movement. By the 50s they suceeded in eliminating
the most creative elements who were opposed to their rule. No American
president, including FDR, has ever questioned the basic economic
assumptions that guarantees the seat of priviledge that the ruling class
believes it deserves.


That strikes me as a wise assessment, if a sorry one.

It would. It's completely dogmatic, UNSCIENTIFIC
leftist tripe doing a shitty job of masquerading as
analysis.

paghat wrote:
In article , Greylock
wrote:

Good science is apolitical.


If one may define economics as political,

as a physicist I have a hard time defining economics (at least the areas
you go on to describe) as science ...

Maren

Maren Purves wrote:

paghat wrote:

In article , Greylock
wrote:

Good science is apolitical.



If one may define economics as political,


as a physicist I have a hard time defining economics (at least the areas
you go on to describe) as science ...

She isn't describing economics. It's pretty plain she
doesn't know anything about it.

Economists will match and surpass your multiple
regression skills with ease.

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 00:59:35 GMT,
(George Cleveland) wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:08:40 -0800, Robert Sturgeon
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:19:53 GMT,

*snippage*

The corporations have never lost control over the day to day lives of
Americans.

If that was so, the corporations would not have allowed the
imposition of social security taxes, collective bargaining,
the SEC, high income taxes, fair housing laws, OSHA, EPA,
the ADA, minimum wage laws, all the rest of the post-1933
nanny/security state. But all those - and more - WERE
enacted, because the corporations did lose their power.

Their influence was moderated during the 30s but they regained
their power during the second world war and by 1948 had succeeded in
eviscerating the labor movement. By the 50s they suceeded in eliminating
the most creative elements who were opposed to their rule. No American
president, including FDR, has ever questioned the basic economic
assumptions that guarantees the seat of priviledge that the ruling class
believes it deserves.

In the 1930s, and still today, the ruling class consisted of
the bureaucrats, think tank residents, Congress critters,
university presidents and professors, lawyers and the rest
of the operational personnel of the security state. If the
corporations were really in control, there is no way Martha
Stewart and the rest of the accused corporate types would be
in any legal trouble at all. In the glory days of rule by
the industrialists, the tycoons did much more outrageous
things, and generally got away with them.

FDR's "brain trust" was not made up of corporate CEOs.
JFK's "best and brightest" had McNamarra (sp?) from the
corporate world, and he was a dismal failure. Same with LBJ
- professors, lawyers, politicians.

If you mean that not even FDR tried to eliminate the market
system and the right to spend one's own time and money more
or less as one sees fit - so long as you don't interfere
with the governors' view of how public life should be
conducted - you are of course correct. He was a control
freak, not a communist.

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:13:56 -1000, Maren Purves
wrote:

paghat wrote:
In article , Greylock
wrote:

Good science is apolitical.


If one may define economics as political,

as a physicist I have a hard time defining economics (at least the areas
you go on to describe) as science ...

Economics is a subset of psychology - psychology applied to
matters of money, assets, liabilities, production, buying
and selling, that sort of thing. If psychology is a science
(a highly questionable If), then so is economics.

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:46:23 -0800, Robert Sturgeon
wrote:

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 00:59:35 GMT,
(George Cleveland) wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:08:40 -0800, Robert Sturgeon
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:19:53 GMT,

*snippage*

The corporations have never lost control over the day to day lives of
Americans.

If that was so, the corporations would not have allowed the
imposition of social security taxes, collective bargaining,
the SEC, high income taxes, fair housing laws, OSHA, EPA,
the ADA, minimum wage laws, all the rest of the post-1933
nanny/security state. But all those - and more - WERE
enacted, because the corporations did lose their power.

Jeez, I couldn't have made a better case for strict regulation of
corporations. Virtually every one of those "nanny" state regulations has
made the lives of working people tolerable under capitalism. Without them
the existence of capitalism itself would be in doubt. Revolution, *Red
revolution* was on the agenda in the U.S. in the 1930s. Laissez-faire
capitalism had failed. Roosevelt was able to deflect the demands for
radical change by making humane reforms to an inherently inhumane system.

Their influence was moderated during the 30s but they regained
their power during the second world war and by 1948 had succeeded in
eviscerating the labor movement. By the 50s they suceeded in eliminating
the most creative elements who were opposed to their rule. No American
president, including FDR, has ever questioned the basic economic
assumptions that guarantees the seat of priviledge that the ruling class
believes it deserves.

In the 1930s, and still today, the ruling class consisted of
the bureaucrats, think tank residents, Congress critters,
university presidents and professors, lawyers and the rest
of the operational personnel of the security state.

Baloney. Ask yourself, "Whose decisions have a greater effect on my day to
day life, my boss or my congressman?"


If the
corporations were really in control, there is no way Martha
Stewart and the rest of the accused corporate types would be
in any legal trouble at all. In the glory days of rule by
the industrialists, the tycoons did much more outrageous
things, and generally got away with them.

Why would a competitor of Martha Stewart be any thing but pleased that she
was in hot water with the feds?

FDR's "brain trust" was not made up of corporate CEOs.
JFK's "best and brightest" had McNamarra (sp?) from the
corporate world, and he was a dismal failure. Same with LBJ
- professors, lawyers, politicians.

If you mean that not even FDR tried to eliminate the market
system and the right to spend one's own time and money more
or less as one sees fit - so long as you don't interfere
with the governors' view of how public life should be
conducted - you are of course correct. He was a control
freak, not a communist.

The question that hasn't been asked for almost a hundred years in this
country is "Who creates wealth, and who has the right to gain the most from
its creation?"

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:03:56 GMT,
(Babberney) wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 23:57:41 GMT, Strider wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:30:36 -0800, "Rico X. Partay"
wrote:

"Bob Peterson" wrote in message
...

Junk science is junk science.

Saying "it's too political so it must be wrong" is the same as
saying "it's wrong because it's wrong." It's a completely
conclusory, content-free statement you're making.


Adherence to scientific methods do not allow for politics. Insertion
of politics into science will bias the results of any study.

Strider
Do you therefore believe that good scientists are apolitical, or that
only conservative scientists are able to keep from injecting their
politics into their work? Either way, you are not convincing me so
far . . . .

Keith

Good scientists are apolitical in their work. Unfortunately, liberals
cannot help themselves and need to be segregated and marginalized for
the good of the country.

Strider

For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please visit http://www.isa-arbor.com/home.asp.
For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www.treesaregood.com/

OK - so what? That is hardly news.

The media lies to people, but the science - properly done - is not
political.

I know enough science and engineering to winnow through most of it in
technical areas, but I have to work at medical subjects a little
harder to feel comfortable with the answers.

People who WANT the truth can generally get it, people who really
prefer slogans and tabloid science, be it painted up ever so pretty,
generally never bother to try to find out what the real science is.

For the most part, right now, the worst offenders in the tabloid
science racket are the liberals and their bullshit scenarios. When you
trace the bullshit back to its source, it tends to devolve to some
graduate student's computer projection which doesn't do anything else
right, but the part that predicts what the liberals want, is touted as
being the revealed word of God. It gets tiresome having to listen to
the media, who uncritically publish the bullshit and just can't find
the column inches to print the sober rebutttals by competent
scientists.




On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:07:58 -0800,
(paghat) wrote:

In article , Greylock
wrote:

Good science is apolitical.

If one may define economics as political, the political impact on science
is terrible. At the EPA and FDA for examples, careers have come to sudden
ends because someone or another focused on findings that this or that
product had been proven to be unsafe, & anyone who doesn't want their
careers squelched soon learns to self-censor & give "good" spins to things
that may be profitable if the harm is overlooked. The data itself, bought
& paid for by the interested parties, may more often than not be accurate,
but may well have been designed consciously or subconsciously to NOT
assess the bad with the good, but to only assess the good. When receiving
funds from an "interested party" who will renew grants only if "answers"
please them, these answers tend somehow to be found.

By and large doubleblind studies are apolitical & you can detect, from
most peer reviewed & published data at least, what any bias might have
been, you can tell that though they "proved" such-&-such had a health
benefit they failed to factor in side effects, so some other study would
be required to assess the bad, for which no funding is forthcoming from
the interested parties.

One of my favorite examples was a Davis University study that proved mulch
from recycled tires killed all plantlife within one week because of the
zinc content, but by the time the vendors of rubber mulch got their hands
on the data, it was interpretted as "improves the quality of zinc
deficient soils" & "suppresses weeds." The "spin" amounted to a lie
though narrowly & literally it was true. The Davis research itself was
funded by the rubber industry & was riddled with positive asides, but the
data provided was unambiguous & conclusive: it rapidly killed all the
plants.

Even data presented in peer review publications, and which make it pretty
clear that something very bad is in the making (regarding greenhouse
effect for example), but by speaking statistically rather than in
absolutes, there's always wiggle-room for politicians to claim a finding
is the opposite of what it was. Politicians serving industrial interests
ahead of public health do this as a matter of course -- so while it is
often the case that the actual science was apolitical, by the time the
scientific finding reaches the public in "pop" & "PR" contexts, it is so
thoroughly politicized to "prove" diamatrically opposed conclusions that a
public that rarely goes to MedLine or a Health Science Library for the
original data never know quite what to believe -- & frequently end up
chosing a side on the basis of their own politics instead of the
never-seen complete data.

Occasionally a company like Monsanto generates in-house data that is
completely fabricated or so slanted as to be worthless, but looks real on
the surface. Non peer-review journals & academic vanity presses produce
intentionally fraudulant results that bewilder the public. Even "good"
science tends to be so couched in so many qualifiers or undecipherable
language that it can instantly be turned into "lies, damned lies, &
statistics" by abusers of the findings, even when not by the complete
findings themselves.

The bottomline is that science as it reaches the public is politicized. It
is less so for the extreme minority who rely on peer-reviewed journals,
but for the majority these are awfully hard to track down, & the garbled
versions in magazines or newspapers rarely bare much resemblance to the
original.

-paghat the ratgirl

Facts are gathered, a theory is advanced, and if the theory is found
to explain the facts the theory is accepted until further facts
support or contradict it.

Junk science starts with a theory and then selectively accumulates
facts to support the theory. Inconvenient facts are ignored in the
pursuit of proving the theory.

Good scientists are not necessarily apolitical, but proper adherence
to the science and the facts does not allow for the insertion of
political dogma. If you start with the theory, the dogma is built in.

Most of the junk science being promoted these days is coming from the
far left nutballs and the far right religious nutballs. Most of the
press for the junk science goes to the far left nutballs.

far . . . .

Keith

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 02:23:58 GMT,
(George Cleveland) wrote:

(snips)

If that was so, the corporations would not have allowed the
imposition of social security taxes, collective bargaining,
the SEC, high income taxes, fair housing laws, OSHA, EPA,
the ADA, minimum wage laws, all the rest of the post-1933
nanny/security state. But all those - and more - WERE
enacted, because the corporations did lose their power.

Jeez, I couldn't have made a better case for strict regulation of
corporations. Virtually every one of those "nanny" state regulations has
made the lives of working people tolerable under capitalism. Without them
the existence of capitalism itself would be in doubt. Revolution, *Red
revolution* was on the agenda in the U.S. in the 1930s. Laissez-faire
capitalism had failed. Roosevelt was able to deflect the demands for
radical change by making humane reforms to an inherently inhumane system.

Perhaps you don't realize it, but above you have made my
case that the corporations did lose their power.
"Laissez-faire capitalism had failed." Indeed it had. As
to whether industrial capitalism was more humane that the
mixed economy of the New Deal/Great Society - that's purely
a matter of opinion. I would choose the capitalists over
the New Dealers, but it was in the past, right? The arrow
of time is apparently a one way street.

Their influence was moderated during the 30s but they regained
their power during the second world war and by 1948 had succeeded in
eviscerating the labor movement. By the 50s they suceeded in eliminating
the most creative elements who were opposed to their rule. No American
president, including FDR, has ever questioned the basic economic
assumptions that guarantees the seat of priviledge that the ruling class
believes it deserves.

In the 1930s, and still today, the ruling class consisted of
the bureaucrats, think tank residents, Congress critters,
university presidents and professors, lawyers and the rest
of the operational personnel of the security state.

Baloney. Ask yourself, "Whose decisions have a greater effect on my day to
day life, my boss or my congressman?"

That's easy - my Congressman. I don't have a boss. On the
other hand, my Congressman (I assume you mean - my
Representative) is a Democrat and probably has less
influence than my neighbor's dog.

If the
corporations were really in control, there is no way Martha
Stewart and the rest of the accused corporate types would be
in any legal trouble at all. In the glory days of rule by
the industrialists, the tycoons did much more outrageous
things, and generally got away with them.

Why would a competitor of Martha Stewart be any thing but pleased that she
was in hot water with the feds?

Because that means they have good reason to fear for their
own safety.

FDR's "brain trust" was not made up of corporate CEOs.
JFK's "best and brightest" had McNamarra (sp?) from the
corporate world, and he was a dismal failure. Same with LBJ
- professors, lawyers, politicians.

If you mean that not even FDR tried to eliminate the market
system and the right to spend one's own time and money more
or less as one sees fit - so long as you don't interfere
with the governors' view of how public life should be
conducted - you are of course correct. He was a control
freak, not a communist.

The question that hasn't been asked for almost a hundred years in this
country is "Who creates wealth, and who has the right to gain the most from
its creation?"

Oh, it's been debated lots. Surely you're not an advocate
of the labor theory of value??? Really - don't bother to
open that one. It's ridiculous and I will not respond.
Been there - a waste of time and electrons.

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.

"Strider" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ...
Ah, but they would describe the sky as a darkened haze on a clear
afternoon. They would, in spite of evidence to the contrary, go on to
blame Bush for the darkened sky. They would repeat this lie
continually and people like you would come to believe it.

Strider
So you like demolishing self-built strawmen?
Volker

"Jonathan Ball" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ink.net...
Volker Hetzer wrote:
"Jonathan Ball" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ink.net...

I looked it up, you know? Have a look at
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...5666?v=glance.

Thanks for posting that. It helps to confirm that the
author, Frances Lappe, is a leftwing extremist.

So what exactly makes him that?

It's a she. 'Frances' is a feminine name; 'Francis' is
the masculine spelling.

It's her raging anti-market beliefs.


Can you imagine Kim Il Sung not eating meat
or what exactly makes someone leftwing and
extremist in your eyes?

Not all leftists are "vegan", but all "vegans" are
leftists. Get it, now?

"veganism", which is a highly poltically motivated form
of vegetarianism, is FUNDAMENTALLY an expression of
collectivist/leftist thinking. As I said earlier to
someone else, if someone tells me he's "vegan", I know
EVERYTHING about his politics; you give me a list of 20
or 30 political issues that generally break down on a
left/right political spectrum, and I'll correctly tell
you the "vegan's" beliefs on well over 80% of them.
You may think I'm kidding, but I have conducted some
informal empirical research in usenet newsgroups before
on this very claim, and I was absolutely right.

Btw, having lived 18 years in east germany I can
happily assure you that vegetarianism didn't play any
role in that system. Nor in Chechoslovakia, Russia
and Poland. I've never visited the other countries.

As I said, leftists aren't always "vegan", but "vegans"
are always leftists.
As I said before in this thread, I have enough counter
examples around myself, to express this clearly, conservative
vegans.
Whatever you state about veganism being political, it's
wrong, because from a statistics point of view those
two issues are simply unrelated.
Volker

"Mike Warren" schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:8O2Eb.744054$9l5.242439@pd7tw2no...
"Volker Hetzer" writes:

(Before you start to argue: I happily eat meat but I'm willing to
reduce that if someone convince me that it really helps. Right now
it just means that the meat price goes down and someone else in my
city eats more meat.)

From a carbon-emission standpoint, eating less meat is good. For
example, the Canadian government claims not eating meat every other
day saves around a quarter ton of carbon-emissions annually; not sure
if that counts methane with its carbon-equivalence or not...
I agree. I also try to eat "different" meat which doesn't produce as
much CO2, like lobster but I still haven't gotten my government to
subsidise this properly.

Lots of Greetings!
Volker

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:23:06 +0100, "Volker Hetzer"
wrote:


"Strider" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ...
Ah, but they would describe the sky as a darkened haze on a clear
afternoon. They would, in spite of evidence to the contrary, go on to
blame Bush for the darkened sky. They would repeat this lie
continually and people like you would come to believe it.

Strider
So you like demolishing self-built strawmen?
Volker

I don't build them. I burn them.

What color is the sky, Liberal?

Strider

Xref: kermit rec.gardens.edible:65640 rec.gardens:259463 misc.survivalism:501562 misc.rural:115611 rec.backcountry:172445

Robert Sturgeon wrote:

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 02:23:58 GMT,
(George Cleveland) wrote:

(snips)


If that was so, the corporations would not have allowed the
imposition of social security taxes, collective bargaining,
the SEC, high income taxes, fair housing laws, OSHA, EPA,
the ADA, minimum wage laws, all the rest of the post-1933
nanny/security state. But all those - and more - WERE
enacted, because the corporations did lose their power.

Jeez, I couldn't have made a better case for strict regulation of
corporations. Virtually every one of those "nanny" state regulations has
made the lives of working people tolerable under capitalism. Without them
the existence of capitalism itself would be in doubt. Revolution, *Red
revolution* was on the agenda in the U.S. in the 1930s. Laissez-faire
capitalism had failed. Roosevelt was able to deflect the demands for
radical change by making humane reforms to an inherently inhumane system.


Perhaps you don't realize it, but above you have made my
case that the corporations did lose their power.
"Laissez-faire capitalism had failed." Indeed it had.

Except that it hadn't. First of all, there never was a
period of "laissez-faire" capitalism. That's a myth
perpetuated by leftwing teachers' unions in high school
"history" classes for over 60 years. Secondly, the
depression was NOT brought on by any "failure" in the
market. The depression occurred because the Federal
Reserve cut the money supply by some 30%. I don't mean
they cut the growth rate of the money supply; they cut
the absolute amount of money in circulation by 30%,
leading to a massive and uncontrollable deflation.
Milton Friedman basically won his Nobel prize in
economics for showing this.

As to whether industrial capitalism was more humane that the
mixed economy of the New Deal/Great Society - that's purely
a matter of opinion. I would choose the capitalists over
the New Dealers, but it was in the past, right? The arrow
of time is apparently a one way street.


Their influence was moderated during the 30s but they regained
their power during the second world war and by 1948 had succeeded in
eviscerating the labor movement. By the 50s they suceeded in eliminating
the most creative elements who were opposed to their rule. No American
president, including FDR, has ever questioned the basic economic
assumptions that guarantees the seat of priviledge that the ruling class
believes it deserves.

In the 1930s, and still today, the ruling class consisted of
the bureaucrats, think tank residents, Congress critters,
university presidents and professors, lawyers and the rest
of the operational personnel of the security state.

Baloney. Ask yourself, "Whose decisions have a greater effect on my day to
day life, my boss or my congressman?"


That's easy - my Congressman. I don't have a boss. On the
other hand, my Congressman (I assume you mean - my
Representative) is a Democrat and probably has less
influence than my neighbor's dog.


If the

corporations were really in control, there is no way Martha
Stewart and the rest of the accused corporate types would be
in any legal trouble at all. In the glory days of rule by
the industrialists, the tycoons did much more outrageous
things, and generally got away with them.

Why would a competitor of Martha Stewart be any thing but pleased that she
was in hot water with the feds?


Because that means they have good reason to fear for their
own safety.


FDR's "brain trust" was not made up of corporate CEOs.
JFK's "best and brightest" had McNamarra (sp?) from the
corporate world, and he was a dismal failure. Same with LBJ
- professors, lawyers, politicians.

If you mean that not even FDR tried to eliminate the market
system and the right to spend one's own time and money more
or less as one sees fit - so long as you don't interfere
with the governors' view of how public life should be
conducted - you are of course correct. He was a control
freak, not a communist.

The question that hasn't been asked for almost a hundred years in this
country is "Who creates wealth, and who has the right to gain the most from
its creation?"


Oh, it's been debated lots. Surely you're not an advocate
of the labor theory of value??? Really - don't bother to
open that one. It's ridiculous and I will not respond.
Been there - a waste of time and electrons.

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.