Comments on: A new day http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/11/08/a-new-day/ I am an astronomer, writer, and skeptic. I likes reality the way it is, and I aims to keep it that way. My real name is Phil Plait, and I run the Bad Astronomy blog. Sun, 05 Jul 2009 07:29:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: Damien Evans http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/11/08/a-new-day/#comment-23431 Damien Evans Tue, 14 Nov 2006 00:10:04 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/11/08/a-new-day/#comment-23431 online poker got banned... How am i supposed to make my millions now? online poker got banned…

How am i supposed to make my millions now?

]]> By: Irishman http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/11/08/a-new-day/#comment-23430 Irishman Mon, 13 Nov 2006 23:26:44 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/11/08/a-new-day/#comment-23430 The Bad Astronomer said: >So, DSkinner or GeoTiller, which sock puppet are you going to stick with? anomalous4 said: >What does it say about this person, when he/she can’t think of something at least a little bit different for each sock puppet to say? Now, now, to be fair, DSkinner/GeoTiller was probably hit by the same posting bug that the rest of us are experiencing. Ergo, he/she probably hit post, got the error message, so re-entered the text manually and posted a second time. Why he/she changed usernames I don't know, but if the person isn't a regular and the first try doesn't go through, would we care about the name we saw? Maybe he/she thought the email account used was part of the problem and switched from a geocities to a yahoo account (or whatever). Evolving Squid said: >That problem is that political parties that happen to be fiscally conservative also tend to be religious and socially hyperconservative. >So if you’re an atheist with a slight conservative bent and strong fiscal conservative tendencies, do you vote liberal and have your taxes jacked and possibly some social changes forced on you that you don’t believe your country is ready for… or do you vote for fiscal conservatism and risk some religious yahoo will start infringing on common sense and reality. I know a few atheist engineers who are Republicans because they are fiscally conservative, and Republicans are the party of the dollar sign rather than the Democratic party of the Godless. (To throw out two pointless stereotypes aimed in different directions.) Our 2 party system is nonsensical, casting 1 dividing line across a spectrum of issues and assuming that one label effectively sorts all issues fairly. Tony said: >While people voted out the republicans to express their anger at Bush, when Wednesday came, Bush was still the President. Nothing done on Tuesday was going to change that. Will he be able to pursue any policy or agenda he wishes? Of course not, but don’t forget, he didn’t get everything he wanted even when his party did have the majority. But, he is still the President, with all the power that goes with it. You are correct that he's still President, and still has a lot of power. However, a lot of his power came from having a Congress that was politically stanted to back his position. And while he may not have gotten everything he wished, it will be a lot harder for him to get his wishes against an oppositional party lead Congress. This is still something that will affect his ability to push his agenda, and conceivably some efforts can be put into addressing prior actions of his that got support at the time through partisanship. You are correct that ultimately the real change is 2008. If only the Democrats can find somebody to run that has enthusiasm and leadership while not coming off like an idiot. >I know for a fact at least one recently elected democrat who shares many of the same opinions as republicans; Bob Casey Jr., Senator Elect from Pennsylvania. Casey, like his father, is a strong conservative democrat. About the only way Casey could have looked as the liberal choice was running against Rick Santorum, whom he defeated. >I do not know, nor do I think, he supports Intelligent Design, but I do know he is Pro-Life, Pro-Death Penalty, and Pro-NRA, which puts him on the opposite side of the fence with many democrats. This is an important point. Many of the winners were conservative, just not as conservative as the Republicans they replaced. That's one reason I have reservations about how the Democrats will turn out. How much improvement did we really get? It remains to be seen. The Bad Astronomer said:
>So, DSkinner or GeoTiller, which sock puppet are you going to stick with?

anomalous4 said:
>What does it say about this person, when he/she can’t think of something at least a little bit different for each sock puppet to say?

Now, now, to be fair, DSkinner/GeoTiller was probably hit by the same posting bug that the rest of us are experiencing. Ergo, he/she probably hit post, got the error message, so re-entered the text manually and posted a second time. Why he/she changed usernames I don’t know, but if the person isn’t a regular and the first try doesn’t go through, would we care about the name we saw? Maybe he/she thought the email account used was part of the problem and switched from a geocities to a yahoo account (or whatever).

Evolving Squid said:
>That problem is that political parties that happen to be fiscally conservative also tend to be religious and socially hyperconservative.

>So if you’re an atheist with a slight conservative bent and strong fiscal conservative tendencies, do you vote liberal and have your taxes jacked and possibly some social changes forced on you that you don’t believe your country is ready for… or do you vote for fiscal conservatism and risk some religious yahoo will start infringing on common sense and reality.

I know a few atheist engineers who are Republicans because they are fiscally conservative, and Republicans are the party of the dollar sign rather than the Democratic party of the Godless. (To throw out two pointless stereotypes aimed in different directions.)

Our 2 party system is nonsensical, casting 1 dividing line across a spectrum of issues and assuming that one label effectively sorts all issues fairly.

Tony said:
>While people voted out the republicans to express their anger at Bush, when Wednesday came, Bush was still the President. Nothing done on Tuesday was going to change that. Will he be able to pursue any policy or agenda he wishes? Of course not, but don’t forget, he didn’t get everything he wanted even when his party did have the majority. But, he is still the President, with all the power that goes with it.

You are correct that he’s still President, and still has a lot of power. However, a lot of his power came from having a Congress that was politically stanted to back his position. And while he may not have gotten everything he wished, it will be a lot harder for him to get his wishes against an oppositional party lead Congress. This is still something that will affect his ability to push his agenda, and conceivably some efforts can be put into addressing prior actions of his that got support at the time through partisanship. You are correct that ultimately the real change is 2008. If only the Democrats can find somebody to run that has enthusiasm and leadership while not coming off like an idiot.

>I know for a fact at least one recently elected democrat who shares many of the same opinions as republicans; Bob Casey Jr., Senator Elect from Pennsylvania. Casey, like his father, is a strong conservative democrat. About the only way Casey could have looked as the liberal choice was running against Rick Santorum, whom he defeated.

>I do not know, nor do I think, he supports Intelligent Design, but I do know he is Pro-Life, Pro-Death Penalty, and Pro-NRA, which puts him on the opposite side of the fence with many democrats.

This is an important point. Many of the winners were conservative, just not as conservative as the Republicans they replaced. That’s one reason I have reservations about how the Democrats will turn out. How much improvement did we really get? It remains to be seen.

]]> By: Adam http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/11/08/a-new-day/#comment-23429 Adam Sun, 12 Nov 2006 15:44:49 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/11/08/a-new-day/#comment-23429 Online poker got banned. Thats why the republicans lost. LOL Online poker got banned. Thats why the republicans lost. LOL

]]> By: Creationism Sucks » Blog Archive » The Implications of The Election http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/11/08/a-new-day/#comment-23428 Creationism Sucks » Blog Archive » The Implications of The Election Sun, 12 Nov 2006 14:12:13 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/11/08/a-new-day/#comment-23428 [...] One of our favoirite astronomers summed it up short and sweet. whatever your thoughts are on what happened Tuesday here in the States, a lot of anti-science people are gone. Phil Plait, Bad Astronomer [...] […] One of our favoirite astronomers summed it up short and sweet. whatever your thoughts are on what happened Tuesday here in the States, a lot of anti-science people are gone. Phil Plait, Bad Astronomer […]

]]> By: skeptigirl http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/11/08/a-new-day/#comment-23427 skeptigirl Sun, 12 Nov 2006 02:26:43 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/11/08/a-new-day/#comment-23427 No, Tony, I'm saying if the membership doesn't speak up when the leaders are speaking but not representing the views of the membership, if the members put those leaders into those leadership positions, then those members shouldn't be surprised when the criticism is directed to the whole group. As a Progressive Democrat, a large number of us have been speaking out loudly we want the Party to go in a different direction. Whether or not we effect that change, our position has been declared in the public forum. Is there an equivalent group in the Republican Party that speaks out against the Evangelical base? Because if there is I haven't heard them. No, Tony, I’m saying if the membership doesn’t speak up when the leaders are speaking but not representing the views of the membership, if the members put those leaders into those leadership positions, then those members shouldn’t be surprised when the criticism is directed to the whole group.

As a Progressive Democrat, a large number of us have been speaking out loudly we want the Party to go in a different direction. Whether or not we effect that change, our position has been declared in the public forum. Is there an equivalent group in the Republican Party that speaks out against the Evangelical base? Because if there is I haven’t heard them.

]]> By: Gary Ansorge http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/11/08/a-new-day/#comment-23426 Gary Ansorge Sat, 11 Nov 2006 19:24:24 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/11/08/a-new-day/#comment-23426 Perhaps someday we can have someone run for office on an evidence based, science oriented platform. I, for one, like guns. They're great fun for blowing up boulders,,,actually did that at a hippy concert (with a 44 magnum)in the desert near BArstow, Calif., back in 1994 but using them to kill people really goes against my grain. I am very pro-evidence oriented, but a less political critter you'll likely never meet. Neither am I oriented toward the acquisition of gobs of wealth. Too bad but that's one reason we have so few hard science oriented politicians. We're much more interested in persuing knowledge for its own sake than in the persuit of power. Perhaps we should consider drafting our leaders, as we did with Tom Jefferson. He had to be practically dragged into the presidency. Something to consider,,, Gary 7 Perhaps someday we can have someone run for office on an evidence based, science oriented platform. I, for one, like guns. They’re great fun for blowing up boulders,,,actually did that at a hippy concert (with a 44 magnum)in the desert near BArstow, Calif., back in 1994 but using them to kill people really goes against my grain.
I am very pro-evidence oriented, but a less political critter you’ll likely never meet. Neither am I oriented toward the acquisition of gobs of wealth. Too bad but that’s one reason we have so few hard science oriented politicians. We’re much more interested in persuing knowledge for its own sake than in the persuit of power. Perhaps we should consider drafting our leaders, as we did with Tom Jefferson. He had to be practically dragged into the presidency. Something to consider,,,

Gary 7

]]> By: Tony http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/11/08/a-new-day/#comment-23425 Tony Sat, 11 Nov 2006 16:58:19 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/11/08/a-new-day/#comment-23425 So, you are saying that if the leader of a group says something, the whole group is at fault? Sorry, don't think so. The political system is too complex to follow that rule. There are too many issues, and I seriously doubt that any person in this country is represented by someone at any level of government who agrees with everything single opinion on each issue. So, as a result, people are elected who are the best fit, which means when each one of us votes for a candidate, I can 99.999% guarantee the voter does not agree with the candidate on everything. So, as voters, we compromise, and if we do not like the result, we have the chance to change it during the next election. Skeptigirl, you may want to check your facts before absolving all of the democrats from your list of sins. I know for a fact at least one recently elected democrat who shares many of the same opinions as republicans; Bob Casey Jr., Senator Elect from Pennsylvania. Casey, like his father, is a strong conservative democrat. About the only way Casey could have looked as the liberal choice was running against Rick Santorum, whom he defeated. I do not know, nor do I think, he supports Intelligent Design, but I do know he is Pro-Life, Pro-Death Penalty, and Pro-NRA, which puts him on the opposite side of the fence with many democrats. In other words, just like saying all republicans are anti-science is wrong, so is saying all democrats are pro-science. So, you are saying that if the leader of a group says something, the whole group is at fault? Sorry, don’t think so. The political system is too complex to follow that rule. There are too many issues, and I seriously doubt that any person in this country is represented by someone at any level of government who agrees with everything single opinion on each issue. So, as a result, people are elected who are the best fit, which means when each one of us votes for a candidate, I can 99.999% guarantee the voter does not agree with the candidate on everything. So, as voters, we compromise, and if we do not like the result, we have the chance to change it during the next election.

Skeptigirl, you may want to check your facts before absolving all of the democrats from your list of sins. I know for a fact at least one recently elected democrat who shares many of the same opinions as republicans; Bob Casey Jr., Senator Elect from Pennsylvania. Casey, like his father, is a strong conservative democrat. About the only way Casey could have looked as the liberal choice was running against Rick Santorum, whom he defeated.

I do not know, nor do I think, he supports Intelligent Design, but I do know he is Pro-Life, Pro-Death Penalty, and Pro-NRA, which puts him on the opposite side of the fence with many democrats. In other words, just like saying all republicans are anti-science is wrong, so is saying all democrats are pro-science.

]]>