Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (20994)	6/14/2006 4:22:21 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541250

Karen doesn't think he did mean that exaggerating the facts was ok. Karen thinks he meant that a lot of attention should be put on expressing the facts in the strongest way possible. If that is all he meant than it isn't problematic, but I don't think that is what he meant. If he did mean exaggerate the known facts to get people moving than it is indeed arrogant (I know so much better than these people, and they are so stupid that they can't be moved by the real facts even if they are bad, but I can scare and manipulate them with horror scenarios...) and would if generally applied lessen the quality of political decision making. If people make decisions based on lies, manipulations, and unsubstantiated fears than you will get worse decisions.

To: JohnM who wrote (20994)	6/14/2006 5:41:08 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541250

Every year we have hundreds of warnings during the hurricane season. We have known for several decades what the risks were. We have had several near misses and Katrina was following a similar pattern as those. We also have hundreds of warnings of earth quakes, volcanos, tornados, plague, pestilance, drought, economic collapse, invasions, astroids, etc. All have validity The primary hope in preparation and dealing with material crisis is scientific innovation and resolution to current and future challenges. However, politicalization of scientific resolve threatens scientific endeavor. Under such conditions we should proceed with great caution lest the boisterous politicians, bolstered by graft and a lust for power, corrupt the course. The current granting and funding of research and development has already been politicized, making all commentary with the possible exception of the elder retired scientists, suspect. If we are to accomplish anything of value under these circumstances, cautious wisdom is essential. Science has often been politicized into a popular politic, immune to caution or criticism, resulting in devastation. What are some common factors? 1) Critics are dismissed or harshly dealt with. 2) The basis in fact or science is unsettled. 3) Groups with other agendas are bandwagoning the movement because it appears high-minded and provides a springboard for other issues. 4) Claims of superiority are used to justify extreme actions. 5) The abstract cause is said to be greater than any human consequences. 6) Vague terms with no agreed upon definition are employed in the service of the new crisis. Remember 'Eugenics'? Very popular a few years ago especially in Nazi Germany but it had the attention and support of prominent politicians world wide. Supporters like Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Winston Churchill, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis Brandeis, Alexander Graham Bell, Margaret Sanger; Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, H. G. Wells; George Bernard Shaw; and many others. The outcome was devastating. Remember 'Vernalization'? The result was famines that killed millions, and purges that sent hundreds of dissenting Soviet scientists to the gulags or the firing squads. "when the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power." (Alston Chase) Regards, gem