In article
, Sean
Golden wrote:

Hello Sean,

Actually I agree with some of your post. But we have a different view,
it seems. You appear to be an educated decent guy who is trying to see
the best in people. And you are taking the middle ground about whether
the Left or the Right is correct. Truth doesn¹t care if its Left or
Right or in the Middle. It just is. You are correct that this
newsgroup is a place for telescopes, not politics. But, often,
straight lines or different paths intersect. When Politics start
determining what is taught, and enforced, it is no longer just
Politics. I doubt if Isaac Newton, whom you mention, living today,
would believe in Creationism, but you never know. And I¹ve read
Tolkien's LOTR 3 times and love it. It is fantasy, of course, and I
appreciate his work, but differently than I do the work of Carl Sagan
or Arthur C. Clarke. But, I would not support LOTR to be taught as
actual History. We are all individuals and as such, each of us can be
smart in one thing and a fool in another. So it's hard to judge any
individual accurately. So I try to judge by actions. The posts
(regarding President Bush) in this newsgroup made for several days
before I jumped in, made me feel compelled to input something. In my
original post I made some value judgments but all of my facts, I
believe, were correct, which no one yet has disputed.

You labeled my post demagoguery. Demagoguery: Making use of popular
prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power. I do
not believe I was demagogic. Forceful, yes; arrogant, probably;
opinionated, yes; my conclusions, always debatable, of course. But
incorrect, I don't believe so. But if I was, which of my facts were
incorrect.

Let me put it simply. If people's religious beliefs were practiced
benignly and kept personal, I would respect that, and many do just that
and it is and should be their right. However, respecting a person's
beliefs is not what this is about. Not at all! A powerful,
shortsighted, Right Wing / Conservative movement has, for a good while
now, been very actively attempting to move our government into the
early stages of a Theocracy, using religious demagoguery to manipulate
a malleable public. Whether that is overstatement, only time will
tell. But ³actively² is the key word here. The RW is constantly trying
to change the US Constitution, changing my world and limiting my
Freedom, and tolerance is not their underlying trait.

I think that the best thing about America is its Constitution and its
natural resources, but unfortunately I now feel that the greatest
danger to Freedom are the people themselves. In a Democracy (Republic)
the citizens should be taught to be smart and educated. Taught to be
curious, somewhat skeptical, and objective. Teaching fantasy in place
of Science does not keep people smart. Teaching fantasy to control
people is a bad thing. Religion is not and never was benign. It seems
benign here today, in America, but it seems so only because it has
been, through much suffering, politically defanged. The Right Wing is
trying to give Religion fangs again. Do I believe that President Bush
and the part of the Right Wing that is supporting him in this cause are
demagogic? Definitely, and malignantly so. Do I think that President
Bush is dumb? Less than I used to. I think you are confusing
education (Yale) with wisdom. Will all this have an effect on
sci.astro.amateur.? Probably not, but who knows.

In my post, I stressed the 5,000 year old universe as the main tenet of
current Creationism. Being a physicist, by nature and/or by
profession, do you, Sean, believe that the universe is only 5,000 years
old? Do you think it would be a good thing to teach students in
schools that the universe is only 5,000 years old? Do you feel that
Newton would believe so if he lived today and know what we know? If
you knew decent loving people who believed sincerely in Astrology, or a
Flat Earth, or other pseudo-science, would you support them if they
wanted their beliefs taught as fact in science classes? Would you
support teaching about divining rods in Geology and petroleum
engineering classes? Would you like to give Jerry Falwell or Pat
Robertson more influence on your life and beliefs? Galileo, too, was a
scientist and look what state-enforced religion did to him. He was
forced to deny what he saw through his telescope. Look at the Mid-East
world today, ruled by rigid interpretations of ancient religions,
written by superstitious peoples who believed that demons might be
behind every rock. This Right Wing (not all * mostly the ones I am
speaking about) has no foresight, no understanding of history and
cannot even see that that could happen anywhere. Why shouldn¹t I be
forceful against such bunk. The other side has not been shy. The
Liberals are not clean either, of course, and it burns my ass when
they, too, are sloppy about their facts. Tribalism is the norm on both
sides and Objectivity is the crazy uncle in the closet. You are
correct about that. I believe it would be great if the best ideas from
the Right and from the Left were brought together and applied, without
the blind Group Loyalty on both sides, and I do not confess to that
here. But right now, the Right has been taken over and the moderate
Republicans, like many Democrats, are afraid to be outspoken. They are
afraid of the common man. They helped train us too well to be reactive
rather than reflective.

You state below ³...this is the last place (sci.astro.amateur) I know
of that suffers from a lack of science Perspective . . .² I am not
sure that I agree completely with that. Just as the Shuttle, as
opposed to Hubble, is the cowboy whiz-bang aspect of astronomy, so too,
are telescopes another cowboy aspect. I have always loved telescopes
but recognize this is so, and have no problem with that. Telescopes
are technology, not science, though they are a means to learn science.
Though some I have read here seem brilliant to me, it is not a given
that most here have a good feel for science itself.

My end goal is not to insult, though some people will be insulted. Is
it ³Politically Incorrect² to criticize Bush and his religious
demagoguery and his followers, or does political correctness only apply
to Liberals? I am not accusing you of inferring that, but the question
is relevant.

I will try to keep to Astro subjects after this thread dies. (Unless
the devil makes me do it.)

Linwood


In article , wrote:

Hi,

I haven¹t posted to sci.astro.amateur for a while. But I have been a
"lurker" and have enjoyed much of the information about telescopes, and
the little bit about Astronomy.

snipped all the political demogoguery

Linwood Albarado

Linwood. (Actually this is being posted to all those future Linwoods
out there in hopes it will deter them from similar postings.) Why would
you interrupt some perfectly good lurking with this sort of post? I
think the general consensus is that it is not relevent to the newsgroup.
It is also supremely rude and insulting to people you don't even know
and would probably have a good time observing with at a star party.

You think Bush (and Reagan) are/were great threats to the sanctity of
the US. Some conservatives think Clinton and Carter are/were great
threats to the sanctity of the US. You think you are right and are
dismissive of those who disagree. Some conservatives take a similar
perspective about your beliefs. In kindergarten they have a shorthand
way of arguing these points, it goes like this... "Nyah nyah nyaaahh..."

I have a degree in physics and greatly enjoy stargazing. I am firmly
agnostic in most things. I am as appreciative of science as anyone, and
as concerned as anyone about threats to science education. But this is
the last place I know of that suffers from a lack of science
perspective, and so has the least need for this sort of "protection."
More to the point, I am getting damned sick and tired of people dragging
their politics into this newsgroup as if they have something new, clever
or pertinent to say. Truth is, none of it is any of that, quite the
opposite, it is old, trite and off-topic. Not to mention insulting to
many people I consider to be decent and interesting folk on both sides
of the issues.

I personally find myself in agreement with you when it comes to Creation
"science" but I don't care to insult those who believe it. As far as
the intellectual credentials of those who believe fervently in the
Christian religion, read CS Lewis or Isaac Newton (not to mention JRR
Tolkien). Not bad company, and hardly dunces. I personally learned a
lot from each of them (and others on the "other" side).

I truly don't see the point in belittling the intelligence of a
President who has received a bachelor's degree from Yale and MBA degree
from Harvard. Do you feel Yale and Harvard sell those degrees to
people? If so, who are you really attacking, Bush or Yale and Harvard?
If you feel these two paragons of US intelligentsia are not providing
degrees for a fee, then you must admit that G.W. Bush is not a complete
moron. And if you feel he somehow bought or was given those degrees,
what does that say about others who have similar degrees? I know
fighter pilots and they have a lot of respect for G.W. Bush, and quite
frankly I haven't met a stupid fighter jet pilot yet. I grew up in the
air force and I will admit that many pilots are arrogant and downright
nuts, but not stupid.

I am no great fan of Bush, but I was no fan of Clinton either.
Personally I feel the choices we have had for President in my lifetime
demonstrate the absurdity of general elections in a country where
education is less important than entertainment. If you truly look at
the single most qualifying attribute of a male politician when compared
to the general public it is clear the answer is "a full head of hair."
What really just puzzles me to no end is how people can truly believe
that it is any better on the left than it is on the right, or vice
versa...

The truth is that Clinton was neither as smart as his supporters believe
nor as evil as his attackers believe. Bush is neither as stupid as his
detractors believe nor as pure as his supporters believe. Both played
to their supporters and received the vilification of their attackers.
But both have nice coiffures. The general reaction of the right and left
to these two Presidents says a whole lot more about the polarization of
the electorate in this country than it says about either man, imho. And
that worries me immensely. The violent way that each side disagrees
with the other is far more dangerous to this country than what either
man has done in office.

For those of us who believe that life, politics and religion are more
complicated than can be presented in a Usenet post, the whole thing is
perplexing. Why is the need to attack and insult others so incredibly
powerful that otherwise intelligent and reasonable people feel a need to
expose their prejudices publicly?

I know, because this is Usenet....

Please try to keep this sort of thing out of s.a.a. in the future.

Now of course I'll get flamed from both sides...

-sdg




In article , wrote:

Hi,

I haven¹t posted to sci.astro.amateur for a while. But I have been a
"lurker" and have enjoyed much of the information about telescopes, and
the little bit about Astronomy.

snipped all the political demogoguery

Linwood Albarado

Linwood. (Actually this is being posted to all those future Linwoods
out there in hopes it will deter them from similar postings.) Why would
you interrupt some perfectly good lurking with this sort of post? I
think the general consensus is that it is not relevent to the newsgroup.
It is also supremely rude and insulting to people you don't even know
and would probably have a good time observing with at a star party.

You think Bush (and Reagan) are/were great threats to the sanctity of
the US. Some conservatives think Clinton and Carter are/were great
threats to the sanctity of the US. You think you are right and are
dismissive of those who disagree. Some conservatives take a similar
perspective about your beliefs. In kindergarten they have a shorthand
way of arguing these points, it goes like this... "Nyah nyah nyaaahh..."

I have a degree in physics and greatly enjoy stargazing. I am firmly
agnostic in most things. I am as appreciative of science as anyone, and
as concerned as anyone about threats to science education. But this is
the last place I know of that suffers from a lack of science
perspective, and so has the least need for this sort of "protection."
More to the point, I am getting damned sick and tired of people dragging
their politics into this newsgroup as if they have something new, clever
or pertinent to say. Truth is, none of it is any of that, quite the
opposite, it is old, trite and off-topic. Not to mention insulting to
many people I consider to be decent and interesting folk on both sides
of the issues.

I personally find myself in agreement with you when it comes to Creation
"science" but I don't care to insult those who believe it. As far as
the intellectual credentials of those who believe fervently in the
Christian religion, read CS Lewis or Isaac Newton (not to mention JRR
Tolkien). Not bad company, and hardly dunces. I personally learned a
lot from each of them (and others on the "other" side).

I truly don't see the point in belittling the intelligence of a
President who has received a bachelor's degree from Yale and MBA degree
from Harvard. Do you feel Yale and Harvard sell those degrees to
people? If so, who are you really attacking, Bush or Yale and Harvard?
If you feel these two paragons of US intelligentsia are not providing
degrees for a fee, then you must admit that G.W. Bush is not a complete
moron. And if you feel he somehow bought or was given those degrees,
what does that say about others who have similar degrees? I know
fighter pilots and they have a lot of respect for G.W. Bush, and quite
frankly I haven't met a stupid fighter jet pilot yet. I grew up in the
air force and I will admit that many pilots are arrogant and downright
nuts, but not stupid.

I am no great fan of Bush, but I was no fan of Clinton either.
Personally I feel the choices we have had for President in my lifetime
demonstrate the absurdity of general elections in a country where
education is less important than entertainment. If you truly look at
the single most qualifying attribute of a male politician when compared
to the general public it is clear the answer is "a full head of hair."
What really just puzzles me to no end is how people can truly believe
that it is any better on the left than it is on the right, or vice
versa...

The truth is that Clinton was neither as smart as his supporters believe
nor as evil as his attackers believe. Bush is neither as stupid as his
detractors believe nor as pure as his supporters believe. Both played
to their supporters and received the vilification of their attackers.
But both have nice coiffures. The general reaction of the right and left
to these two Presidents says a whole lot more about the polarization of
the electorate in this country than it says about either man, imho. And
that worries me immensely. The violent way that each side disagrees
with the other is far more dangerous to this country than what either
man has done in office.

For those of us who believe that life, politics and religion are more
complicated than can be presented in a Usenet post, the whole thing is
perplexing. Why is the need to attack and insult others so incredibly
powerful that otherwise intelligent and reasonable people feel a need to
expose their prejudices publicly?

I know, because this is Usenet....

Please try to keep this sort of thing out of s.a.a. in the future.

Now of course I'll get flamed from both sides...

-sdg