Blogcritics: Comments on Bush Technically Ignorant?

Comment by Ms. Tek

Sat, 6 Mar 2004 10:35:58 EST

I am sorry that it got off topic as well. I didn't address any of it because as I said before, I don't respect Al Barger and instead of asking questions, he chose to slam. And as far as I am concerned, if you want to slam, I have a bigger door and quicker reaction time. Best you keep your fingers out of the door! Bush has never been known to put science and technology at the forefront of his agenda. The first we heard of it was a dry run just before the State of the Union address and after China's achievements. This is why Bush was heckled for it. Suddenly the "family values" president wants to go to space? It was out of left field. Also, note that the piece I posted mentions withdrawing money for alternative fuel research. Another specter of the Bush Administration. Why are they so dead set against alternative fuels and research? Why would they rather foul the Arctic than think of a way to create fuel in a way that other countries would be running to spend the money to do it as well. Think of countries with the populaces of India and China... for them to find a renewable and clean fuel source would totally raise the quality of life there. Think of the money the US would make if it were he first to do this cheaply and effectively. But no... we are worried about steroid use??!!?? Japan has better mobile and cellular networks. Europe has better public transportation. Meanwhile we have a country that is bigger than any country in Europe or Japan and Amtrak runs like shit. Boeing is losing out to Airbus and Embraer (a BRAZILIAN COMPANY). These are all things that the US should be excelling and surpassing at yet we are lagging behind. I can sit on the Thalys express train from Amsterdam to Paris. Get there in 4 hours. In the meantime, I have a nice comfortable seat. Its super fast. Its quiet. I can watch TV or jack in my laptop to the internet. All of these things could happen HERE if people would open their minds and eyes. Still that is not going to happen until we have a leader who is a visionary and a dreamer. One who embraces technology.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Sat, 6 Mar 2004 10:12:54 EST

"I did say what my basic beef was at the start, but rather than respond with more specificity, Ms Pitts came back with childish moral posturing." I saw your initial comment

"Yeah, yeah. You've re-iterated a half-dozen broad insults with no actual statements of fact or logical arguments to back them up. BUSH OIL WAR COWBOY BAD STUPID"

and wouldn't characterize it the way you do now. It mis-characterized her post (that's often a neocon, whatever-they-are, rather than a libertarian approach) and seemed to me more looking for trouble than information. Which is certainly and perfectly all right, but the issues she raises are important, and I didn't expect to read the "nyah, nyah" comments her entry generated. You say she "then just went off on a scattershot rant about oil and cowboys" but I guess I have my scattershot rant detector set at a higher threshold than you have yours. She did call him a "Yippee I-O KiYaeeee" cowboy, " a "man fed from the teat of the oil goddess" and that "expecting this out of Bush is like expecting a paramecium to solving interstellar flight" but that's not much considering the length of her entry. Personally, I found the issue she raised much more compelling than her mild slams at Bush. I'm not doing this as an attack on you, but I do think that the issue she raised is one of many that are very important now and one of many that seem to get buried in partisan bickering. It's too important for that, no matter what one's politics may be.

Comment by Al Barger

Sat, 6 Mar 2004 00:54:00 EST

Hal, I did say what my basic beef was at the start, but rather than respond with more specificity, Ms Pitts came back with childish moral posturing. No, I'm not a Republican. I invoked the political parties because this screed seems to be merely a partisan political thing, just the usual whining left wing tantrum rather than any serious argument about public policy. Notice how she had a couple sentences about R&D spending, then just went off on a scattershot rant about oil and cowboys. Bush and the Republican congress have thrown more money at every damned thing than any Democrat administration ever has, so I doubt there have been many budget cuts in R&D any more than there have been in, say, farm subsidies or the Department of Education. However, I have no basis of beginning to judge what scientific funding the Bush administration has or hasn't made based on this poorly conceived post. I am a Libertarian, and have run for office as a Libertarian several times, most recently as a candidate for county tax assessor. As a libertarian, I'm pretty much opposed to taxes and government spending unless I think it is absolutely necessary. I become less stringently ideological with age and try to consider things on a case by case basis, but anything presented as a "public/private partnership" strikes my BS button instantly. Private companies want to make a buck, they can fund their own research. On the other hand, stuff like the CDC does more serve to legitimately "promote the general welfare" in relatively small but critical ways that would be difficult or impossible for the private sector to address. I'm open to considering such things, if specific projects and reasons are presented to justify them. However, it's going to take MUCH better arguments than that Bush is a doo-doo head and you're a bigot so THERE.

Comment by mike

Fri, 5 Mar 2004 22:30:55 EST

Argentina and Japan are excellent models for the United States. Both were prosperous countries taken over in the 80s by political elites who played fast and loose with their nations' finances. Both are still paying the price. And we will, too.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Fri, 5 Mar 2004 22:13:51 EST

I have to say that this last post of yours, Al, is much more interesting than your first one and actually addresses the original. I think if you had posted these concerns originally, you might have had some answers by now, or at least some useful discussion. Your comments on the national labs bring up two questions: 1. Are you telling us you're a Republican, or are you distancing yourself from them? If the latter, how come? I guess I'm asking because it struck me as strange that you mentioned a political party at all in the context of this post. 2. Are your comments in your second paragraph applicable to, say, the National Institutes of Health or DARPA? Personally, I think supporting efforts like the NIH is in the national interest, particularly since we have the worst health of any of the developed nations (based on the commonly-accepted measures of infant mortality and life expectancy). Similarly, national support for technical R & D has in the past given us the technological edge that made the U. S. an economic powerhouse (think the Internet, for example). I think these efforts are even more important today, now that the European Union is the largest economic entity in the world and China is in third place and gaining rapidly.

Comment by Al Barger

Fri, 5 Mar 2004 19:53:59 EST

Hal, I have no strong opinion about budgets for "national labs." For starters, there's nothing here to give me any idea what kind of labs we're supposedly talking about, what department they are under, or what they actually do. All there is here is some meaningless bureaucratese about "public/private partnerships." Generally, when a Republican DOES support stuff like this, it is (quite rightly) viewed extremely skeptically as "corporate welfare" or pork barrel spending. Experience suggests to me that such assumptions are reasonable until shown otherwise. This column gives me NO useful information in helping to form an intelligent opinion on any of these matters, though- which is my original complaint. Ms. Pitt merely says that she thinks Bush is a doo-doo head, without feeling any need to make a specific charge with an actual rational argument or facts.

Comment by Jim Carruthers

Fri, 5 Mar 2004 19:28:48 EST

Y'know what I find interesting? Well, I'm going to tell you anyways. Argentina took almost 40 years to drive their country from a developed, prosperous democracy to a third world basket case, and the USA seems to want to break the record and do it in about ten years. I'm trying everything I can to prevent Canada from being dragged down the sewer with you.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Fri, 5 Mar 2004 18:59:37 EST

I've seen no useful content from Al or Tom so far, so I'd like to ask them if they'd care to address this from the post:

"In addition to R&D cuts, the Bush administration's proposed budget ignores needed upgrades to our national labs and dismisses worthwhile efforts at the DOE to seek viable alternative-energy sources."

Do agree with the administration that we should notupgrade our national labs, and stop efforts at seeking alternative energy sources?

Comment by Ms.

Fri, 5 Mar 2004 18:49:59 EST

I like when "progressives" object to something people on the right say, they call us bigots or racists or something. Dude, you really do have a problem with reading comprehension, don't you? #1 I never called myself a "progressive". #2 Anyone who is going to link to a racist to attempt to prove a point, I have a problem with. Most logical, sane people, gentlemen and gentlewomen, people who have a drop of culture and intelligence would find people like this abhorrent. But Tom, I wouldn't expect you to understand this as that from your previous posts and website, we know that you will just jump a bandwagon and parrot what the status quo says without any real depth of understanding or orginality. At least I have a bit more respect for Bux. He has, as of yet, not brought in unsavory elements to attempt to prove a point. The best he can do is link Michal Moore for "miserable failure" for his social cause. What a novel idea. Barger and Bux... Too funny!

Comment by Shark

Fri, 5 Mar 2004 18:35:31 EST

Tom: "I like when "progressives" object to something people on the right say, they call us bigots or racists..." You like it? Man, have you found your little slice of heaven!

Comment by Al Barger

Fri, 5 Mar 2004 18:33:55 EST

Ah, so the mask is off, Tom. You're defending someone who said hello to someone who has issues with black people. You too are therefore obviously a stupid, evil bigot whom no decent person need take seriously. You probably killed Kenny, too. You bastard.

Comment by Tom

Fri, 5 Mar 2004 18:24:49 EST

I like when "progressives" object to something people on the right say, they call us bigots or racists or something.

Comment by Ms. Tek

Fri, 5 Mar 2004 16:47:09 EST

Al Barger: "...I'm evil and stupid." Finally, we can agree on something. Maybe there is hope in this world afterall... Al Barger: "But hey, I've said hello to someone who has a low opinion of black folk..." We know that you are quite proud of the fact that you spend your spare time coddling the David Dukes of the world. You just don't seem to understand that is actually a reprehensible thing to do. Question is: Are you really that stupid or really that naive? Al Barger: "...I'm evil and stupid." Oh, right... I forgot about that in the first place... Please disregard the if I didn't know if you were stupid comment. Al Barger "Don't mind me." No worries. I don't. You aren't worth it. Now be a good troll and run off to play in traffic with your nazi friends.

Comment by Al Barger

Fri, 5 Mar 2004 16:34:13 EST

Yes, Victoria, you have a brilliant strategy going there. Your cheap faux moralism proves your superiority. Beats having to develop a rational argument. This column makes as good an example of pure bigotry as one could ask. From Dictionary.com, a "bigot" is "A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion." This column shows perfect bigotry. You aren't really even pretending to make a logical argument or present evidence, but merely to have a little Two-Minute Hate against Bush. Pure pinko bigotry. But hey, I've said hello to someone who has a low opinion of black folk and then refused to wish suffering and death on him, so I'm evil and stupid. Don't mind me.

Comment by Ms. Tek

Fri, 5 Mar 2004 16:11:23 EST

I'll care what you have to say about my opinions when you stop hanging around with bigots. Anything you have to say dropped to a negative value after you last pathetic stunt. Frankly, I don't respect you or what you have to say anymore. I will retain my manners and that is about it.

Comment by Al Barger

Fri, 5 Mar 2004 16:01:39 EST

Yeah, yeah. You've re-iterated a half-dozen broad insults with no actual statements of fact or logical arguments to back them up. BUSH OIL WAR COWBOY BAD STUPID You have a blind hatred for Bush, got it. Come back when you actually have something to say.