Congressmen say congressmen did nothing wrong
This is a classic example of Washington protecting Washington, from the Washington Post:
The House ethics committee ruled Friday that seven lawmakers who steered hundreds of millions of dollars in largely no-bid contracts to clients of a lobbying firm had not violated any rules or laws by also collecting large campaign donations from those contractors.
In a 305-page report, the ethics committee declared that lawmakers are free to raise campaign money from the very companies they are benefiting so long as the deciding factors in granting those “earmarks” are “criteria independent” of the contributions. The report served as a blunt rejection of ethics watchdogs and a different group of congressional investigators, who have contended that in some instances the connection between donations and earmarks was so close that it had to be inappropriate.
“Simply because a member sponsors an earmark for an entity that also happens to be a campaign contributor does not, on these two facts alone, support a claim that a member’s actions are being influenced by campaign contributions,” the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct said in a unanimous statement.
OWTH! (Off WIth Their Heads!)
It’s that “unanimous” part that really tells you what is going on. Not a single ethics committee member of either party found any of their colleagues guilty of a thing. Somehow, the contributors in this case magically got the impression that if they donated campaign money to these congressmen, they would get earmarks in return, while the congressmen in question do the “who, us?” routine.
The good news is that the FBI and Justice Department are conducting an investigation of their own, and maybe they won’t go so easy on these and other congressmen.
That all said, we have created a political system that drives this kind of behavior. Until and unless the public is willing to support tough campaign finance laws, including perhaps public financing of campaigns, we’re going to see this kind of behavior.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
306 comments Add your comment
Bruno
February 28th, 2010
2:11 pm
Let me try one last time, josef, in explaining why Kamchak’s statement “To inspire terror” ultimately says nothing in response to Joey’s original set of questions.
We can only identify and label someone as being a “terrorist” (noun) after they have already committed a “terrorist” (adjective) action. This identifying action can only be adjectivally labeled “terrorist” if it, in fact, creates/inspires terror. In logic, this is known as a necessary and sufficient condition. As such, ALL terrorists purposefully inspire terror, and stating so does nothing beyond providing a tautological definition. We can presume that the end result of the action, terror, was intentional, and can thus label it as being the “goal” of the action, disregarding any motivations which supercede the immediate action. Again, however, stating this is simply a tautology, and ultimately answers nothing beyond justifying the original label “terrorist”.
Joey’s original query took the form of parallel questions, the only difference being that the two terror groups named were of obviously different political persuasions. As such, his literary intent was to determine if there were significant differences in their “goals”–the word “goal” pertaining to not only the immediate “goal” of creating terror, but to what the greater “goal” might have been to create the terror in the first place. By providing only a tautological statement which pertained to both groups, Kamchak didn’t address his literary intent.
Bruno
February 28th, 2010
2:17 pm
“They’re not always the most creative, true, but when it comes to getting a point across in clear, concise and proper form, their heads and shoulders above my little humanities scholars who roll off on tangents full of wonderful word plays and advanced vocabulary but with logic absent from the creative juices when it comes to putting it down in a form someone other than they would be able to follow…”
^^^^I would say that your 71-word sentence puts you squarely in the second group. josef.
Joey
February 28th, 2010
2:21 pm
Josef;
So your is it your position that in my 11:09 post in response to Kamchak’s “Inspire terror” post: That I should have responded “What purpose do Islamic Terrorist and the Right-wing Wingnut Terrorist serve by inspiring terror?”
Had I done so Finn and Kamchack and others would have answered responsively and we could have had a meaningfull discussion on the purpose of terrorist acts?
O.K. My bad.
TnGelding
February 28th, 2010
2:23 pm
It’s a big world and it has room for all of us. Teach our children to yearn for knowledge and then get out of the way. Our methods often destroy creativity.
TnGelding
February 28th, 2010
2:24 pm
Big Al alive and well:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28gore.html
Bruno
February 28th, 2010
2:26 pm
“Had I done so Finn and Kamchack and others would have answered responsively and we could have had a meaningfull discussion on the purpose of terrorist acts?”
Joey, read my 2:11 and rest assured that your literary intent was clear from the beginning. As to your second question, I think the answer is clear as well.
If you’re looking for intelligent liberal debate around here, look for josef, USinUK, Normal, or TnGelding. I’ll leave it up to you to figure out who to avoid.
josef nix
February 28th, 2010
2:27 pm
Bruno
And, let me try one more time–I was not out to pass judgment on the nyanh-nyanh. This is not tautology. This is the logic of grammar. To properly address the matter, we need to go back to the origin of the word, its radix, terror which is the agent noun of the Latin infinitive terrere, an active verb. All I said was that the definition as given by K’chak in response to the question as posed was a succinct definition. Again, if I give you to a=pi r squared asked you define it you said “the mathematical formula for finding the area of a circle,” and then I said what I really meant was how to use it and for what…would that be logical?
Scout
February 28th, 2010
2:28 pm
Headline: “MARJAH, Afghanistan (AP) — More than 2,000 U.S. Marines and about 1,000 Afghan troops who stormed the Taliban town of Marjah as part of a major NATO offensive against a resurgent Taliban will stay several months to ensure insurgents don’t return, Marine commanders said Sunday.”
Sooooooooooooo ………. what if the Taliban just goes and takes over another town or two the size of Marjah? Then what?
Joey
February 28th, 2010
2:34 pm
Bruno;
I did. Thank you.
josef nix
February 28th, 2010
2:35 pm
Joey–
That’s pretty much my contention. And no “my bad” necessary. We all fall heir to just such.
Do I contend that
“Had I done so Finn and Kamchack and others would have answered responsively and we could have had a meaningfull discussion on the purpose of terrorist acts?”
Not in this life and on this blog! When it comes to wiggly-wiggle and two-stepping about what was actually said…we’ve got some master’s of the dark art…
BRUNO–
My favorite Yankee professor used to say I suffered from the “Southern malady of diarrhea of the pen!”
Bruno
February 28th, 2010
2:36 pm
“All I said was that the definition as given by K’chak in response to the question as posed was a succinct definition.”
And I keep agreeing with you. However, the literary structure of Joey’s inquiry–parallel questions with only the politics of the named groups being different–demanded an answer which contrasted their greater motivations for the terror, not a tautological affirmation of what a terrorist is.
Bruno
February 28th, 2010
2:40 pm
“When it comes to wiggly-wiggle and two-stepping about what was actually said…we’ve got some master’s of the dark art…”
And just what is the meaning of the word “is”?
josef nix
February 28th, 2010
2:42 pm
BRUNO
I never had sex with that woman!
Bruno
February 28th, 2010
2:46 pm
“I never had sex with that woman!”
Somehow, josef, I would believe you if you said that. Bill Clinton? Not so sure……
Southern Comfort
February 28th, 2010
2:49 pm
I always thought the goal of a terrorist was to instill fear, but I’m a mathematically trained hired gun, so what the hell do I know…
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
February 28th, 2010
2:55 pm
I never had sex with that woman!
Well, I never did neither, so don’t go trying to shift the blame on me.
Normal
February 28th, 2010
3:01 pm
What woman are we talkin’ about…I was a sailor, so I might have…
Bruno
February 28th, 2010
3:05 pm
“I always thought the goal of a terrorist was to instill fear, but I’m a mathematically trained hired gun, so what the hell do I know…”
Again, SC, I think that in almost every case, the terrorist act is secondary to a greater political goal. Terror is a tool, not the end goal unto itself. As such, inquiries about the “goal” of terrorism should be interpreted to refer to the larger motivation. The goal “to instill fear” is a given.
“When we charge someone with being a terrorist it is an indictment of the act per se, which is an act to inspire terror with no judgment on the relative causes which led the individual to the ism.”
As such, then I can presume that you vehemently oppose “hate crimes” legislation? Because that is exactly the argument its opponents use (of which I am one).
@@
February 28th, 2010
3:06 pm
I always thought the goal of a terrorist or terrorists was to draw attention to a grievance through acts of intimidation. Thing is, not everyone is so easily intimidated. Therefore, widespread terrorism doesn’t, and can never exist.
How many of YOU were terrified after September 11? I wasn’t terrified…it was shocked, I grieved, I then……?
I was highly pithed!
Dusty
February 28th, 2010
3:06 pm
Lawda mercy! If Joey asks one more question I’m going to fold my tents and go help Chile.
. I compliment those of the large vocabularies .and the verbosity of a snake oil salesman. You are the greatest! I once saw a parrot who could really talk. But he wasn’t as good as those here.
Oh well, I see RedNeck has been here. Poor guy! Haven’t you heard? He forgot to remove the Yard Sale sign while he was gone. His missus sold the trailer for $25. Not a total loss though. He still owns the pink flamingos.
OOps. sorry to interrupt. Carry on!! But hurry! Obama is coming to town Tuesday!! Dedicated Democrats get the day off.
Jenifer
February 28th, 2010
3:07 pm
Sen. Alexander: Using Reconciliation To Pass Health Care Reform Would ‘End The Senate’
When he says ‘protecting the minority’ rights I assume he’s referring to the insurance syndicate.
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/28/alexander-end-senate/
@@
February 28th, 2010
3:12 pm
…make that “I” an “and”
IHB
Southern Comfort
February 28th, 2010
3:12 pm
Bruno,
I think you’re about 95% right about the secondary nature of terrorist acts. However, I believe there are exceptions to the rule. I believe there are some who commit acts purely just to do so with no ulterior motives in mind. Those acts would tend to be labeled mischief or something like that, but the acts could be labeled as terroristic in nature.
For example, kids spraypaint a house or street with racist language. The victim may see it as a terroristic act while the kids were just “goofing off”. I think it all falls back on perceptions. Depending on how you look at incidents, almost anything could be labeled as an act of terrorism.
Bruno
February 28th, 2010
3:14 pm
Another politically charged area that the use of a tautology comes into play is in trying to prove the validity of Darwinian Evolution–”the survival of the fittest”. Ultimately this phrase is a tautology insofar as “the fittest” are defined as “those who survive”. Therefore, it can’t be used to prove anything other than A=A.
Darwin’s model–random genetic changes which are either supported or not supported by natural conditions–is the only way to subtract “purpose” from the equations. However, when you actually observe nature, adaptations occur intelligently, in a directed way, and not through any random mechanism. Does this prove a beneficent Creator? Not directly, but it does prove that Darwin is wrong.
@@
February 28th, 2010
3:17 pm
Wait a minute….this whole thing started because of something Kamchak posted?
A humongous waste of time.
josef nix
February 28th, 2010
3:18 pm
Bruno–
I have a problem with the concept of “hate crimes.” I have no problem with the concept of “terroristic threats.” Hate crimes is just way too open a category to define in legal terms. Terroristic threat isn’t.
Bruno
February 28th, 2010
3:19 pm
What is your take on “hate crimes” then, SC? Should the kids be charged with spray-painting graffiti, or does using racist language constitute a crime in itself? If so, I know a lot of rappers who are gonna be in big trouble….
Bruno
February 28th, 2010
3:21 pm
“A humongous waste of time.”
Hang in there, @@, I’ve got the conversation moving away from grammar to Hate crimes and Darwinian Evolution. Quite a segueway, I might add.
RW-(the original)
February 28th, 2010
3:25 pm
josef,
Others may have touched on this while I was away, but I think you’re confusing “means” and “goal.” The means is to inspire terror, but the goal is what they want to accomplish through that terror.
Jenifer
February 28th, 2010
3:28 pm
Glenn Beck’s Eliminationist Attacks On Progressives: How Long Before Someone Acts On This Violent Rhetoric?
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/glenn-becks-eliminationist-attacks-p
There’s nothing wrong with Glenda Beckster that a little enema can’t cure.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2325/2197303927_d091a7043c.jpg
Dusty
February 28th, 2010
3:31 pm
Now, now Bruno,
Darwin was a scientist who worked to discover the cause or facts that underlie a certain occurance. He reported what he found ,not what he wanted to find or even what he expected to find.. That honesty must be the vital direction of a true scientist.
Religionists seek to find what power is great enough to cause such actions or results to happen.
I think one can seek true facts and causes while still having belief in a Greater Power than that of humanity or random occurances.. There is no conflict there for me. For some, there is a conflict.
josef nix
February 28th, 2010
3:32 pm
SoCo–
You make a good point. Depending on the content of the spraypainted missive, it could be vandalism or terroristic threat. That is the role of the court to decide and, it would be hoped, that the motivation of the parties charged would be of consideration both in the trial and in the sentencing.
DUSTY–
Well, well, well…am I now a snake oil salesman?
Bruno–
Would love to go into Darwin with you, but the Russians are coming and I don’t want to start something I can’t finish.
@@
In reference to 9/11…like you and the overwhelming majority of our fellow Americans, as an act to instill terror in us, it failed.
Southern Comfort
February 28th, 2010
3:35 pm
Kids spraypainting racist words — definitely not a “hate crime”.
If I said I wanted to kill every white person on the planet and went out on a shooting spree — not a hate crime. That’s nothing more than capital murder and a pathway to a needle in the arm. However, if after stating something like that, I go out and break into someone’s house and torture them extensively before killing them, then there’s an argument for a “hate crime”.
I think the totality of the circumstances should dictate whether or not an act is labeled as a “hate crime”. The way laws are written, they do not cover all groups equally. I think it’s far easier to convict a white person of committing a hate crime against a black person versus the other way around.
@@
February 28th, 2010
3:39 pm
Bruno:
I was just taking a playful jab at Kamchak.
Hate crimes. I’ll tell you like I used to tell AmVet…..there’s a fine line that exists between love and hate. Kinda like the one that exists between he and I.
Darwinian Evolution? I’m of the opinion that adaptation occurs out of a need to survive. Not sure what intelligence has to do with. Basic instinct.
Bruno
February 28th, 2010
3:39 pm
RW–I can’t speak for the others, but it all came down to the use of the word “goal”. Technically speaking, the immediate goal of a terrorist action is to inspire fear (terror), by definition. As such, it is a valid answer to the question “what is the goal of a terrorist”, although most people would understand the question to refer to the greater goal for the action?
To me, the literary structure of Joey’s inquiry clearly referred to the second meaning of the word “goal”. If I were grading his answer on a History test, he would have received 0 points. On the other hand, josef would have given him full credit. I guess it only proves that grading is subjective.
Sluggo
February 28th, 2010
3:40 pm
So the real culture of corruption was Wahington, not democrat. Makes one wonder how much of the rest of Bookman is pure nonsense too.
josef nix
February 28th, 2010
3:40 pm
RW–
I understand your point, but the end, “goal,” is not the same as the “means” or “motivation.” The goal is to inspire terror, the means is the how of that and the motivation is the why. They fall under a discussion of the -istic and -ism of the concept of terror.
@@
February 28th, 2010
3:46 pm
Oops!….dropped the “it”. …has to do with it.
IRRDHBIBTTIHBMTIACW
Bruno
February 28th, 2010
3:48 pm
“I’m of the opinion that adaptation occurs out of a need to survive. Not sure what intelligence has to do with.”
The question being, how do the genetic changes occur at the cellular level in response to specific environmental pressures? How does “need” translate into specific adaptation (= intelligence)? According to neo-Darwinists, it is all one big happy accident. Genetic changes occur through genetic drift and random mutation, purpose has nothing to do with it. My counterclaim is that the actual evidence suggests purposeful adaptation.
When you take the discussion to the atomic and subatomic level, it gets even stranger. How atoms are able to arrange themselves into larger entities which have meaning on a scale that can’t be recognized at the atomic level is mind-boggling. Scientist today do a lot of hand-waving when presented with this question, referring to “emergent properties” which no one can explain at the level they occur.
Dusty
February 28th, 2010
3:50 pm
Dear Josef,
You are the finest of the fine snake-oil-salesmen only your product is pure and well mixed and a cure for the illiterate. Now that’s not too bad is it?
My attention span boggles when it comes to discussions of terrorism. For me, if you see it, you know it and you’d better move in a hurry..
Gone for a while. Carry on, good saleman!! I hope we do not fiddle while Rome burns.
josef nix
February 28th, 2010
3:50 pm
Oh, how I wish I could stay for this one! My goal is to get off here. My purpose is to be ready for the little Russkaya…
SoCo–
Ooo! You’re an agitator!
RW-(the original)
February 28th, 2010
3:53 pm
josef,
How does your 3:40 ever get to an end goal? Take an abortion clinic bomber. What they want to do is end abortion and the means they use is the bomb which in turn is supposed to terrorize the doctors and or potential patients from coming to the clinics or offering the service. Their goal wasn’t to scare people, their goal was to end abortions and scaring was supposed to the means by which they achieved that goal.
Bruno
February 28th, 2010
3:54 pm
“I think one can seek true facts and causes while still having belief in a Greater Power than that of humanity or random occurances.. There is no conflict there for me. For some, there is a conflict.”
I’m coming strictly from a Scientific point of view, Dusty. I equate religion with mythology. Not that there’s anything wrong with mythology, of course, to steal a line from Jerry Seinfeld.
Bug Zapper
February 28th, 2010
3:57 pm
Hey! These pancakes aren’t done.
Kamchak
February 28th, 2010
4:10 pm
If you’re looking for intelligent liberal debate around here, look for josef, USinUK, Normal, or TnGelding. I’ll leave it up to you to figure out who to avoid.
So now we have another poster keeping lists. I thought we were done with that.
Bruno
February 28th, 2010
4:11 pm
“Their goal wasn’t to scare people, their goal was to end abortions and scaring was supposed to the means by which they achieved that goal.”
From a legal perspective, it’s the difference between “proximate cause” and “but-for cause”. “Proximate cause” represents damages directly caused by an action, such as damage to the building in the case of an abortion clinic bomber. Under the “but-for cause” argument, any creative claim can be made linking a chain of events from the original act (blowing up an abortion clinic) to any outcome linked to it, such as ongoing emotional distress of the employees. Ultimately, this line of reasoning is used to support hate-crimes legislation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximate_cause
Bruno
February 28th, 2010
4:14 pm
Oops–That’s “proximate cause vs. “cause in fact”. ^^^^^^^^
Perplexed
February 28th, 2010
4:15 pm
“When you take the discussion to the atomic and subatomic level, it gets even stranger.”
Exactly WHAT exists between an orbiting electron and it’s proton?
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm!
February 28th, 2010
4:19 pm
The coffee party, hahahahahaha, hot damn, that’s funny.
If liberals weren’t so freaking funny, I wouldn’t have no use for em, just sayin….
Bruno
February 28th, 2010
4:23 pm
“Exactly WHAT exists between an orbiting electron and it’s proton?”
The ether.
Actually, according to QED (quantum electrodynamics), electrons don’t orbit the nucleus of an atom the way that planets orbit the sun. Their specific location at any given time is given only by a probability.
Perplexed
February 28th, 2010
4:33 pm
Thank you.
But there is still some space there.
There is still space between two or more atoms that are joined.
Maybe anti-matter?
Pogo
February 28th, 2010
4:36 pm
The Obama administration extends the Patriot Act for another year(Yes, “that Patriot Act”. The one that all the progressives hate so bad and which they lambasted Bush about). Where is the outcry from my progressive friends about their loss of their civil liberties? It must be lost in that fog bank of hypocrisy and denial they all live in.
Bruno
February 28th, 2010
4:40 pm
“There is still space between two or more atoms that are joined.”
Prior to Maxwell and Einstein, empty space was referred to as the “ether”, because it was believed that light “waves” required a medium of propagation in the same way that sound waves require air or water molecules to propagate themselves. The biggest problem with this theory, in addition to not be able to physically detect any such ether, came about when Einstein formulated his Theory of Special Relativity. A fixed ether would create an absolute frame of reference by which motion could be measured, which was in contrast to his postulate that there is no “absolute frame of reference” or “universal coordinate system”.
Bruno
February 28th, 2010
4:44 pm
Here’s an ether link for you, Perplexed, pun intended. Not sure how helpful it will be. Trying to conceptualize reality at the atomic level stretches the brain to its limits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether
Perplexed
February 28th, 2010
4:49 pm
Snap.
joan
February 28th, 2010
5:00 pm
With Congress you have the wolves guarding the henhouse. They are all corrupt. About conflict of interest–how about their giving themselves raises, and holding Social Security level. How about their short work weeks, and extended vacations. How about their amazing pensions for very shore tenured jobs. They got a sweet life. All you have to do is get enough money together and you can buy your way into that exclusive club.
Rightwing Troll
February 28th, 2010
5:02 pm
WHY HAS OBAMA NOT EATEN ANY CHILEAN SEA BASS IN THE LAST 24 HOURS??????
Dusty
February 28th, 2010
5:05 pm
Well, Bruno,
I am coming from a scientist’s point of view also. I do not agree that religion is mysticism. It is only mysticism to people that don’t have it. It should in no way influence scientific findings. A real scientist does not let his faith affect the process of finding what is proven true. When I look through a micrscope I report what I see, not what I would like to see.
I also believe in the human spirit which is nurtured in most religions. MOst people around the world of what ever religion cherish their children and try to bring them the best that can be offered. It is an unspoken desire to value the spirit within the children. The human spirit in its finest form, the child. That is religion, not mysticism. It is the finding of a greater love and compassion, not mysticism.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm!
February 28th, 2010
5:07 pm
You’re not supposed to like it. In fact, you’re supposed to dislike being on any form of public assistance so much that you can’t wait to get off. That way the system is temporary, and not something handed down from one generation to another. We made a mistake when we tried to remove the stigma from programs like this, and now we’re compounding that mistake by continually making it easier and more comfortable for people to become a permanent ward of the state.
Duh, just sayin…
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm!
February 28th, 2010
5:10 pm
As one wag commented, Obama turned out to be quite an effective community organizer. But the community he organized was a majority of the American people in opposition to his agenda of big-government liberalism.
And for this, we owe you one, obozo, hahaha, “one” big fat….
Rightwing Troll
February 28th, 2010
5:13 pm
Wow!
Yesterday I was told foreign aid = good,
and
domestic aid = socialism.
Now today we’re dancing in the margins trying to justify terrorism if it fits our political or religious goals…
Really?
All Shook Up
February 28th, 2010
5:20 pm
I cannot even imagine what Chile would look like if it had not constructed buildings and infrastructure to any greater standards that in Haiti.
Norton Fisherman
February 28th, 2010
5:21 pm
Our Chilean Sea Bass is a product of Peru so it is readily available.
Benchwarmer
February 28th, 2010
5:23 pm
Once again an excellent column by Jay, the quintessential AJC liberal OpEd board member. We can debate conservative/Rep this and liberal/Dem that until the cows come home. One thing that is not debatable is the debacle of unchecked powers. The Republicans were guilty of it which got them tossed out, and the Democrats are now guilty of it, which will cost them dearly as well, albeit probably not immediately in 2010.
We are witnessing the current crop of Democrats running Washington attempt to ramrod government health care down America’s throats who overwhelmingly reject it. And when a Canadian politician comes to America to escape government health care to have heart surgery, it’s time to step back and realize what WE have, imperfect as it is.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5h0QC7bditrEb3wYz_6_b-gsGGDxA
Now the money shot of the week from liberal land was the news that they are garnering forces to flood the AM talk radio waves in support of government run/managed health care:
“The fate of health reform has been a focus of debate in living rooms and offices, on TV and online — and on talk radio. And since millions of folks turn to talk radio as a trusted source of news and opinions, we need to make sure OFA supporters are calling in with a pro-reform message.”
Well what a shame the liberals couldn’t manage and make a success out of Air America. The market dictates the success, and liberals on talk radio FAILED. So now they are going to attempt to bombard Boortz, Hannity, Rush, and others with some sort of scripted cluster bomb of propaganda – as if that’s going to change the minds of the MAJORITY of Americans who vehemently disagree with PelosiObamaCare. Oh, and I will be nice and not bring up the latest polls about Obama and Democrats in Congress.
Bruno
February 28th, 2010
5:51 pm
“I am coming from a scientist’s point of view also. I do not agree that religion is mysticism. It is only mysticism to people that don’t have it. It should in no way influence scientific findings. A real scientist does not let his faith affect the process of finding what is proven true. When I look through a microscope I report what I see, not what I would like to see.”
Here’s my understanding of the relationship between Science and Religion, Dusty:
As part of being human, we seek understanding of the world, and we share such understanding with one another through speech and writing. There is no limit on the topics we ponder, from questions such as “Why is the sky blue?” to “What happens to our soul after we die?”. Some of these questions, such as the color of the sky, can be answered using the Scientific Method, which depends on collecting verifiable data and constructing a model which explains both the current observations and matches up with predicted experimental results. There never can be a “final book” in the world of Science, since theories are tweaked or even discarded outright as new data rolls in.
Due to its repeatability and verifiability, the Scientific Method is often held up the gold standard for acquiring knowledge. At the same time, the SM is limited in its use, since many questions simply lie outside the realm of Science, such as questions as to what happens after death. The bottom line is that many things in life are simply unknowable, and to answer these questions we use mythological/supernatural explanations = Religion. The source of information in the world of Religion frequently comes via Divine revelation, such that works like the Bible are not subject to modification later on.
In my mind, there is a place for both Religion and Science, but not necessarily the same place. I do my best to maintain consistency in my views both religiously and scientifically, but lean toward Science when there is an obvious conflict.
josef nix
February 28th, 2010
6:20 pm
Okay, I’m back. Interesting we have turned to religion and science. Russkaya’s lesson today was the Middle Ages and the role of the clergy in the feudal system.
I stay amused and, yes perplexed, that this conflict still seems to be here, Maimonides now 800 years gone! There is the sphere of the explained and explainable using the scientific method and there is the sphere of the unexplained and, perhaps, unexplainable by the scientific. On that we seem to agree here, but there are approaches to the latter that do not require a descent into medieval mysticism and the cabbalistic. Like Maimonides, I am not opposed to the mystic approach, but it does lend itself to a separation from the earthly concerns and attributes to the spiritual realm far too many things that are better dealt with in the terms of the secular.
Going back to the discussion earlier. The “you know what I meant” is not scientific. It is mystic. It’s great for a cabbala roundtable, but unless we are clear on what the terms are we are using, then their meaning in open to any number of hare-brained “interpretations.”
Bruno
February 28th, 2010
6:28 pm
“Going back to the discussion earlier. The “you know what I meant” is not scientific. It is mystic. It’s great for a cabbala roundtable, but unless we are clear on what the terms are we are using, then their meaning in open to any number of hare-brained “interpretations.”
Agreed, josef, which is why I always do my best to choose terms and phrases which avoid logical forks in the road. Your solution to the earlier quandary was to create separate categories for goals, methods, and motives. There was some overlap in the use of the word “goal” in the original query to include both goal and motive of the action, which allowed Kamchak to technically fulfill the “letter” of the inquiry, while blatantly ignoring the “spirit” of the inquiry.
josef nix
February 28th, 2010
6:36 pm
Bruno
I couldn’t agree more with what you say. The “letter” versus the “spirit” is where I was headed with that, and, I did have an ulterior motive. This was the conundrum Maimonides tried to rationalize and the reason he was taken on by the rabbis the way he was. Wedded unwavering to the “letter,” they were “spiritually” vapid. He held those wedded to the “spirit” in equally low regard as afraid of rationalism.
As Graddaddy said after his first lecture on Ole Moe the Second, “Rambam moved around a lot.”
josef nix
February 28th, 2010
6:38 pm
Oh, Bruno, I didn’t create the terminolgies, or the overlap. The English language created the former. Engrish created the latter….
Bruno
February 28th, 2010
6:41 pm
“Wedded unwavering to the “letter,” they were “spiritually” vapid. He held those wedded to the “spirit” in equally low regard as afraid of rationalism.”
Which, to me, is the intended purpose of the Christ, to deliver that message.
Interestingly enough, there is a famous math theorem called Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem which states the same thing, only in terms of mathematics and symbolic logic. Essentially he proved that no set of rules can be either consistent or complete. As such, we ultimately have to make appeals to the “spirit” of something, given our inability to nail it down via rules.
Bruno
February 28th, 2010
6:48 pm
It may be simply the lament of an infidel, but I feel that Islam is in sore need of a second Messiah to get the message out about the spirit of the law vs. the letter of the law.
Since my goal is to convert you to Christianity tonight, josef, would you prefer Baptist or Episcopalian? My motives will remain secret.
josef nix
February 28th, 2010
6:59 pm
Bruno–
@ 6:48
Heh! Heh! No conversion necessary! Once when Mama was trying to get a shtettlite from Up Nawth to understand our social position down here in Dixieland, she said, “well, we’re Episcopalian Jews!”
You mention the need of a “second Messiah.” One of my friends who is a Muslim says that the religion is 1300 years on and it’s time for the Reformation.
As for rules, Maimonides would argue that there are “rules,” it is just that our understanding of those rules is a process of growth and to accept them as “unchangeable” is the antithesis of the raison d’etre of the human being’s gift of the Alm-ghty, curioisity. He was not quite so open-minded on the matters of the Torah, however, yet he made clear that this was applicable only to the Chosen!
Bruno
February 28th, 2010
7:00 pm
From WIki re: Maimokides:
“Maimonides held to a strictly apophatic theology in which only negative statements toward a description of God may be considered correct. Thus, one does not say “God is One”, but rather, “God is not multiple”.
I follow that line of thinking completely, insofar as it acknowledges that human ability is not great enough to say what G*d is, in the same tradition that we can’t say a name for G*d out loud, since G*d can’t be encapsulated by any simple word.
Bruno
February 28th, 2010
7:04 pm
^^^^Which is why I remain eternally suspicious of those who claim to speak for G*d, or attempt to use the Bible in some legalistic way to guarantee a pleasant afterlife for themselves. Comes across as being arrogant to me.
@@
February 28th, 2010
7:05 pm
Enter your comments here
josef nix
February 28th, 2010
7:09 pm
Bruno
And I’m out to convert you to Judaism…seriosly, though, one of the reasons I treasure a discussion with you is that we tend to come at things from a similar perspective, though our conclusion may differ in extremis, you still look at things from the rational and draw a distinction between what we know for a fact, science, and how we interpret that, philosophy/theology. We do not “know” what G-d is, but only what H- is not. The same may be applied to science…it is an exploration of what a given is not, not what it is. That’s where I come to “en garde” with the know-it-alls. You’d make a good Jew.
Bruno
February 28th, 2010
7:09 pm
josef–Have to run for a while, but wanted to leave a nice musical selection for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCgQuj8v2gg&feature=related
josef nix
February 28th, 2010
7:19 pm
Bruno–
Thanks for the music! I try to be. In case I’m not here when you get back, tonight’s (Barney) Miller time and I could use a dose of Dietrich…will have you in mind!
@@
February 28th, 2010
7:34 pm
WASHINGTON — Billionaire investor George Soros, who helped U.S. President Barack Obama raise money for his presidential campaign in 2008, said Sunday he wasn’t happy with Mr. Obama’s handling of the financial crisis.
Mr. Soros said the government should have taken over U.S. banks instead of bailing them out, a move he suggested would have been more popular with Americans
In what he suggested was an encouraging step in the U.S. , Mr. Soros said Mr. Obama appeared to be taking a tougher political stance on issues, especially health care, after the Democrats lost a key Senate seat in January.
Mr. Obama unveiled a $950 billion health-care overhaul plan earlier this month, laying the groundwork for his party to try to push legislation through Congress without Republican support
“I think he got the message in Massachusetts,” Mr. Soros said.
And what exactly, does Mr. Soros think that message was? That the American people wanted this health care monstrosity? Think again, Mr. Soros.
“When I see a bubble, I buy that bubble, because that’s how I make money,” he said.
So the government’s economic policies create the bubbles…then he profits off of them?
Do any of those “from the other side” ever question this man’s motives? Holding China up as a model?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703411304575093782547532088.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection
Dave R.
February 28th, 2010
7:57 pm
I want to thank Jenifer for going back to her “one line and a link” posting style.
It allows me to scroll past her nonsense so much faster than I used to have to do when NJ or Chadly posted their nonsense.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm!
February 28th, 2010
8:45 pm
Jenifer probably is Mad Harris, just sayin…..
ew
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm!
February 28th, 2010
8:58 pm
A 1988 study in the Journal of New England Medicine found that the states with the most stringent rate-setting had mortality rates 6% to 10% higher than those that didn’t.-WSJ
No death panels, eh?
Dusty
February 28th, 2010
9:36 pm
Well, iI guess the discussions of science and religions is over. Good! I do not even try to mix the two into one.
Science is perpetuated by facts and careful observation and strict complianace to standards. Religion requires faith. In my faith as a Christian, we are blessed by deliverance from sin by Christ. By his grace, we are delivered from eternal punishment to eternal life. We study the life of Christ to enrich our own. We do it with thankfulness for his great gift. We reach out to others so that they make share that gift.
I don’t mean to preach. But Josef and Bruno get somewhat beyond me. I just put it like to put it a little more simply..
As to the Bible, some of the greatest literature in the world. Read the Psalms for poetry, Paul’s letters for great letter writing, Joseph’s great biography, Isiah’s predictions, Proverbs for homey advice, Solomon for the exotic, and the sermon on the mount for inspiration. That and much more. You can read what you want. Nobody is going to make you. But you miss a treat and an inspiration from great literature.
OK..no more.. I will keep quiet..It is getting late.
TnGelding
February 28th, 2010
10:44 pm
Bruno
February 28th, 2010
2:26 pm
Thanks, but I understand I don’t belong in that group.
Dusty
February 28th, 2010
9:36 pm
Great comment. Even if there is no afterlife, the Christian life is a rewarding one here on Earth. May we all bask in the glory of God and have compassion for all mankind.
TnGelding
February 28th, 2010
10:46 pm
@@
February 28th, 2010
7:34 pm
Does this mean you’re now an Obama supporter?
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm!
March 1st, 2010
5:39 am
WASHINGTON — The White House called for a “simple up-or-down” vote on health care legislation Sunday as Speaker Nancy Pelosi appealed to House Democrats to get behind President Barack Obama’s chief domestic priority even it if threatens their political careers. -Urinal
Our little suicide bombers, just sayin…
josef nix
March 1st, 2010
6:47 am
TnGelding–
“Thanks, but I understand I don’t belong in that group.”
I don’t know what the criteria are for belonging, but I’d be honored to be considered your peer.
Y’all play nice and try to stay out of trouble….
Doggone/GA
March 1st, 2010
6:48 am
“Our little suicide bombers”
Ahhhh…been reading redstate.org I see. “Health Care Suicide Bombers: Instead of 72 Virgins, They Get Ambassadorships ” Erick Erickson
Normal
March 1st, 2010
7:15 am
Been out of touch this weekend, but I just read where Linder (R) is calling it quits. He says there is no reason other than he thinks “it’s a good time”. For a man who had no opposition, I find that courious, especially since the odds are that the Repubs are going to win back at least one house. With all of these retirements, both democrat and Republican, I wonder if somebody has pictures…
…and with that, happy Monday, y’all…
Southern Comfort
March 1st, 2010
7:22 am
Normal
We don’t do pictures anymore. In the day of youtube, it’s all video now.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm!
March 1st, 2010
7:27 am
The Workshop reports that $2.1 billion in stimulus grants have been given to wind, solar and geothermal companies to make good on Obama’s objective but almost 80% of those went to foreign companies. A bankrupt Australian company nabbed the largest grant so far-$178 million. With that, Babcock & Brown built “a Texas wind farm using turbines made by a Japanese company.” -AmSpec
“Outsourcing” jobs, blah, blah, blah.
Is there anything the liberals whine about other people doing that they won’t do themselves, usually full tilt?
@@
March 1st, 2010
7:32 am
TnG:
Does this mean you’re now an Obama supporter?
No.
Why would I support a man that has no regard for the people who did and did not vote for him?
USinUK
March 1st, 2010
7:34 am
Normal – 7:15 … is he going to “spend more time with his family”???
stands for decibels
March 1st, 2010
7:36 am
Ok, I guess the cyber-bluenose didn’t like a word in the url, so I’ll just copy/paste the quote from this morning’s eschatonblog.com:
It kind of fascinates me that people who have never followed politics, never taken a class in public policy, hell sometimes never even voted, all of a sudden think they know how to run a diverse country of 300 million. Not only do they have all the answers, but anyone who disagrees with them are vermin who need to be eliminated. Since they really have nothing substantial to add to the conversation, I’d like to ignore these people, but the media just won’t let me.
Normal
March 1st, 2010
7:43 am
USinUK,
No, he didn’t mention family, but the following is from Wingfields blog…
“One Republican strategist this morning noted the importance of the timing of Linder’s announcement. The end of March marks the end of the first quarter federal disclosure period for campaign contributions”.
USinUK
March 1st, 2010
7:46 am
oh … and for the Welsh amongst us … happy St. David’s day!
USinUK
March 1st, 2010
7:50 am
Normal – the fact is, the 7th district couldn’t be more Republican (Gwinett, Barrow and Walton) … John deciding not to run really won’t make a difference – his DOG could run in his place and would be elected …
stands for decibels
March 1st, 2010
8:01 am
the fact is, the 7th district couldn’t be more Republican
Well, there’s been a lot of demographic change there, and he probably couldn’t hold the seat forever, but it was certainly safe for the time being.
I think Linder just figured it was a good time to cash in the chips; that said, it’s not like he was actually “working” in the sense that a person typically “works” at a “job.”I thought this passage in a recent AJC news piece was telling:
Asked in a recent interview what he was working on in Congress, Linder shook his head and said nothing.
He quickly shifted to discussing his Fair Tax ideas, saying he was hoping to meet with members of the Tea Party, the fiscally conservative limited-government activist group, about his proposals.
A guy who literally is doing nothing as a congressman, who continues to enjoy support from his constituents. And people wonder why I call the Fair Tax a cult.
Normal
March 1st, 2010
8:05 am
USinUK,
I agree about the 7th, but my question is why a man, who would be sure to win, would quit? Are incumbents fearful of being replaced this coming election? The joker about this election, to me at least, is the more vocal drive to oust incumbants. It doesn’t matter if another member of the same party wins that seat, but what will matter is if that new congressman can read the writing on the wall. I believe that most of us want a more moderate government. One that works together and
gets things done.
New blood, that’s the ticket.
USinUK
March 1st, 2010
8:06 am
Db – “And people wonder why I call the Fair Tax a cult.”
Boortzians … oy.
“Asked in a recent interview what he was working on in Congress, Linder shook his head and said nothing”
now, that’s odd – even if it’s just to say “we’re fighting to make sure that any health care that’s passed isn’t punitive to businesses, blahblahblah, reduce the tax burden, blahblahblah, personal responsibility, blahblahblah” … you know, the usual GOP talking points …
that he didn’t say ANYthing sounds like the man done lost his mojo …