Project Reason

Greece

2012-02-10T10:34:55-08:00

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/10/10372649-greek-anger-boils-over-as-country-faces-bankruptcy

Faced with losing jobs, 20% unemployment, with more to come, and a refusal of creditor nations to subsidizing them, this does not seem likely to have a happy ending. Expect Greece to default and then they’ll really be in a world of hurt, and because apparently due to their own nation habit of living off of someone else’s money. Blaming the creditors for their own financial behavior across decades strikes me as displacement. Cannot help but wonder if we’re not doing the same thing, except on a larger scale.

Nuclear Iran?

2012-02-05T15:57:10-08:00

Hi, recently I’ve read an article in New York Times about Israeli - Iranian conflict over Iranian Nuclear program. The issue made me completely paranoid after reading lots of american readers comments, how Israel dragged America to every possible war, how we (Israel) defend ourselves by using American troops, about global Jewish conspiracy, and off-course good old “If Israel has nukes why Iran shouldn’t”. it feels like good old 67 all over again but only much worse now. Anyway just wanted to share.
Peace,
George.

Syria

2012-02-09T08:11:09-08:00

So it appears by reports that the Syrian government of Assad is killing thousands of protestors, with the details vague due to lack of any independent observers. Rather like Libya perhaps, the issue comes up: what should American or western countries do about that? Assume diplomatic measures fail. To what degree, if any, direct or indirect, would you argue that external countries should seek to remove Assad?

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/09/10359773-report-us-may-be-forced-to-militarize-syria-crisis

To me, one issue is the idea that a sovereign country and has not attacked outside its borders nor threatened to do so, is on what basis forced by external military measures to change it’s government?

What Are You Drinking Now?

2010-07-22T18:23:59-08:00

The only purpose of this thread is to declare what alcoholic beverage you are drinking right now. No other comment is allowed. If you attempt to introduce any other subject, I will call down curses and wrath upon your head.

Woodbridge Cabernet Sauvignon.

Forum recommendations

2012-01-05T20:25:52-08:00

I’ve noticed, recently, that for me an increasing percentage of posts here have reflected personal degrading animosities that do not IMO contribute to any sense I have of a civil discourse. If this continues, then I’m out of here. That’s not a threat but a statement of fact. I do suggest that whomever constitutes the administration on this forum, they attend to several issues:

1. Personal insults, repeated
2. Thread hijacking
3. Trolls who post absent any evident inclination to have an discourse on the subject

I’ve been here now more than anyone else, if not as qualified nor meritorious as many others. But if it is the intent of the owners of this forum to promote a civil and rational discourse, then I suggest that they need to get off their asses and apply some editorial courage.

If not, then my respects and appreciation for this forum. I’ve enjoyed it.

Ammunition

2012-02-04T11:44:10-08:00

Obama has made things worse:

...the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office found that the economic stimulus Obama signed into law added—in the 4th quarter of 2009—between 1 million and 2 million employed workers and boosted the GDP between 1.5% to 3.5% higher than it would have been without the stimulus.

In addition, a more recent CBO study—for the second quarter of 2011—found that the stimulus raised real GDP between 0.8% and 2.5% and lowered the unemployment rate between 0.5 and 1.6 percentage points, compared with what would have occurred without it.

And another analysis, by economists Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi, estimated that the stimulus raised 2010 real GDP by 3.4%, held the unemployment rate about 1.5 percentage points lower, and added nearly 2.7 jobs to U.S. payrolls.

Looking solely at quarterly Gross Domestic Product, it’s gone from -6.7% in the first quarter of 2009 and -0.7% in the second quarter of ‘09, to positive territory ever since—including 2.8% the past quarter.

And looking at monthly payroll statistics, the numbers have gone from a loss of 818,000 jobs in Jan. 2009—when Obama took office—to 16-straight months of positive job growth, including a preliminary gain of 243,000 jobs in Jan. 2012.

Is it religion, or just the human species’ inherent traits?

2012-02-05T14:13:02-08:00

This will no doubt upset some here, as I’m challenging or at least questioning one of the mantras of this forum, namely that religion is bad, delusional, promotes ignorance, bigotry, etc. To be clear, if confusing, I remain an atheist (do not share any theistic belief), and am often an anti-theist when someone seeks to push their particular theistic belief and values onto me. That’s in good part because I’m anti-authoritarian and don’t like anyone trying to force me to subscribe to any set of beliefs, theistic or secular, with an associated set of values I’m supposed to adopt without questioning.

My thesis here is that religion or theism is something that the majority by far of the human race have in one way or another expressed throughout history, although in mostly western parts of the world, it may be declining and/or just becoming largely irrelevant. Most of human history is replete with instances of wars, genocide, slavery, systematic bigotry and abuse of others; and indifference to the sometimes preventable plight of others. Since religion is something that the great majority of people endorse, in one way or another, it is inevitable that religion becomes associated with those instances. But there’ve been massive wars and injury visited on each other that have little if anything to do with religion. Communist Russia comes to mind, but there are many other non-religious instances of group violence as well.

I propose that it is not religion that is a primary influence, even though it has been oft touted by the conflicting tribes, but more basic human traits to covet someone else’s resources, goods, services, women or sexual access or land, and to seek to secure those by force. Throw in as well the common human disposition to view those perceptively different in terms of skin color, body type, etc., as “different” and as “not like us,” and the “we/they” dichotomy arises. Given in that dichotomy plus wealth differences, and conflict is likely to arise.

Eradicating theism in order to improve the general welfare of the human race is to me like proposing to improve WBCC by changing the flags that fly over a capital, without addressing the more basic causative influences of access to resources, political power, and social control. Of course religion plays role, as perhaps one of the teeth on the wheel that drives people, but only one of many and not necessary nor sufficient. Little kids in a play ground exhibit the same conflict behavior with each other with no religious issues involve at all. “I want that toy,” “this is my sandbox,” “he isn’t like me,” “do as I say,” all with no theism involved at all.

I think I’m saying that religion is or may be epiphenomenal to much more basic traits of the human psyche. This is not a defense of religion or theism, it is to suggest that maybe our energy could be more usefully directed at measures that constrain the traits I listed as an example.
Now I could and have, a little, lambasted Answerer for his (to me) muddled thinking; or BM for his pathetic attempts to somehow validate himself as a person whose thoughts are worth considering; or Sara, whose captivating and sometimes endearing vacillations and decision-making avoidance often drive me nuts; or ..well, who cares?

People do, and have done for thousands of years, what they do. A truly scientific view recognizes that and does not denigrate those behaviors, but acknowledges them and then seeks to identify the antecedent referents that associate with the resulting behavior. Sorry if that last sentence isn’t sexy or dramatic. This forum should be, IMO, for thinking, not emoting. I violate that too many times, as do others here.

On Visions and Resurrections

2012-02-02T23:00:13-08:00

On Visions and Resurrections

Interesting read.

Idle thought

2012-01-19T06:40:41-08:00

I’m watching Newtie on the TeeVee this morning and am thinking that a Gingrich/Obama match-up would be more representative of the political and social divide we have than a Romney/Obama match-up…and so may be better for the country:
-If it’s Romney vs Obama and Romney loses, the teabaggers will blame him for being too moderate, and simply regroup for next time, vowing not to make the same mistakes(divide the field) and redouble their efforts to nominate one of their own.
-If he wins (doubtful at this point), the teabaggers will claim credit, submit a list of demands and we’ll lurch futher to the right as Romney immediately starts running for re-election and playing to his base.
-But Gingrich represents the extremists. He’s their man (especially now that Perry’s out). If he gets the nomination and loses against Obama, which he will, the Republicans will have to accept that the country has spoken on their extremism and doesn’t like it.
Sort of like what happened to the Dems in ‘68 & ‘72.
Maybe…

The world’s biggest problem? Too many people

2011-07-26T15:33:00-08:00

Well worth the read and it is just a 1 pager.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-harte-population-20110721,0,715317.story

What to do? Stop the denial. Perpetual growth is the creed of a cancer cell, not a sustainable human society.

Promote and support family planning education at the family and community levels as a cheap way to reduce poverty and severe climate change. Support organizations that are trying to get contraceptives to the 200 million women in the world who lack and want them, and help them obtain equal rights, education and job opportunities. Access to contraceptives and reproductive freedom are rights, not luxuries, that ultimately benefit all of humanity. Vote for leaders who vigorously promote those humane solutions. And demand that media start educating the public every day on the role played by the unsustainable human numbers behind environmental degradation and human calamities — and start covering the solutions. The public needs a constant message: “It’s time to stop growing and become sustainable.”

We can do many things to solve environmental, economic and social problems, but each is a lost cause if we cannot bring our populations down to sustainable levels.

Okay, will someone please tell me how a person with any intellectual capability what-so-ever would ever consider the republicans while they are fighting family planning?

Overpopulation is the number one threat to long-term human survival. The republicans will gladly sacrifice long-term human survival for current electioneering.