Oz wrote: > Steve B <st...@wayback.org.uk> writes >> regarding a recent item in the news,
>> whom would you most believe?
>> a) scientist
>> b) politician
> prefix with 'honest' or 'untruthful' or 'ignorant' and I will answer!!!
Indeed, but with no prefixes one can predict that the normal scientist is interested in facts, or the truth in so far as he has evidence, and therefore could be considered honest. Politicians on the other hand have shown recently that their norm is likely to be untruth, dishonesty and probably ignorance also.
In regard to the "recent item in the news" I would believe the scientist over almost any politician. :-)
-- Old Codger e-mail use reply to field
What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]
> Oz wrote: > > Steve B <st...@wayback.org.uk> writes > >> regarding a recent item in the news,
> >> whom would you most believe?
> >> a) scientist
> >> b) politician
> > prefix with 'honest' or 'untruthful' or 'ignorant' and I will answer!!!
> Indeed, but with no prefixes one can predict that the normal scientist > is interested in facts, or the truth in so far as he has evidence, and > therefore could be considered honest. Politicians on the other hand > have shown recently that their norm is likely to be untruth, dishonesty > and probably ignorance also.
to be fair, scientists don't have the disadvantage of having to persuade the electorate to keep them in office. OTOH, I don't think it a good thing if politicians have too much say in the appointment of scientists.
> In regard to the "recent item in the news" I would believe the scientist > over almost any politician. :-)
Agreed, but (forgive the assumption) you are an educated man and capable of intelligent thought. Politicians are more practised at representing themselves to the 'common' man than scientists in the general sense. A lot of people don't accept what Darwin said, even after 150 or so years.
>In article <4af4817a$0$2527$da0fe...@news.zen.co.uk>, >oldcod...@anyoldwhere.net says... >> Oz wrote: >> > Steve B <st...@wayback.org.uk> writes >> >> regarding a recent item in the news,
>> >> whom would you most believe?
>> >> a) scientist
>> >> b) politician
>> > prefix with 'honest' or 'untruthful' or 'ignorant' and I will answer!!!
>> Indeed, but with no prefixes one can predict that the normal scientist >> is interested in facts, or the truth in so far as he has evidence, and >> therefore could be considered honest. Politicians on the other hand >> have shown recently that their norm is likely to be untruth, dishonesty >> and probably ignorance also.
>to be fair, scientists don't have the disadvantage of having to persuade the >electorate to keep them in office.
No, but sadly they often need large grants to keep their department in wages. This can cause them to 'exaggerate the value of their research', to put it politely. This is particularly true of anything which has a public exposure. BSE was a glaring example of many.
>OTOH, I don't think it a good thing if >politicians have too much say in the appointment of scientists.
Indeed, nor perhaps clerics although it depends how radicalised religion becomes. There once was a very good reason as islam tends to show rather well right now.
>> In regard to the "recent item in the news" I would believe the scientist >> over almost any politician. :-)
>Agreed, but (forgive the assumption) you are an educated man and capable of >intelligent thought. Politicians are more practised at representing >themselves to the 'common' man than scientists in the general sense. >A lot of people don't accept what Darwin said, even after 150 or so years.
That's true. Mind you one reason is that an awful lot of radial evangelical clerics actually tell lies about darwin and the evidence to support it. Common glaring lies are:
"Nobody ever saw evolution in action".
and
"Nobody had ever seen any missing links"
although that's rather a truism when expressed like that when they really mean
"Nobody has seen intermediate stages in evolution"
> That's true. Mind you one reason is that an awful lot of radial > evangelical clerics actually tell lies about darwin and the evidence to > support it.
The human mind seems to be quite capable of believing two quite exclusive truths.
Most of us model the behavior of the parts of the world we interact with and as long as the model works we accept it. Two different facets can have two models which work over the area of functional need, but contain mutual inconsistencies.
Generally we can live and function quite happily knowing it is wrong in some way but works. In fact it can be life threatening to ignore the flawed model.
'Don't go out of the cave at night, the bogey man will get you' is wrong as there are no bogey men, there are tigers.
I don't actually understand why clerics have a problem with the Darwin Model, it really does not clash with the God Model. Other than it might question the updates to the God Model which includes 'Clerics in the hierarchy model.
>The human mind seems to be quite capable of believing two quite exclusive >truths.
Indeed, more for some people than others.
>Most of us model the behavior of the parts of the world we interact with and as >long as the model works we accept it. >Two different facets can have two models which work over the area of functional >need, but contain mutual inconsistencies.
Absolutely. Regrettably not everyone, I have a problem with such systems, they niggle away at me.
>Generally we can live and function quite happily knowing it is wrong in some way >but works. >In fact it can be life threatening to ignore the flawed model.
Indeed, believing a model does not involve understanding anything.
>'Don't go out of the cave at night, the bogey man will get you' is wrong as >there are no bogey men, there are tigers.
Quite. One merely needs to say 'unidentified but real dangers'. Particularly if occasionally bolstered by a dead tribal members body who ignored said advice. Bogeyman not required but humans tend to personalise inanimate objects which are often 'out to get them'!
>I don't actually understand why clerics have a problem with the Darwin Model, >it really does not clash with the God Model.
Well, it does if you believe all of the bible is the word of god. Why anyone does (even jews don't on the whole) is beyond me. Apart from a few things said to be handed down by god (eg 10 commandments and a few others reported by prophets) its the historical tome of a small tribe of arabic nomads. It doesn't even claim to be the word of god at all. This is fortunate because islam has to carry the koran as the immutable actual word of god like a weight shackled to its wrists and feet.
>Other than it might question the updates to the God Model which includes >'Clerics in the hierarchy model.
Clerics not much mentioned as needed (other than priests of the high temple) anywhere in the bible.
Problem is that if god doesn't grant favours or miracles, just some unproven promise of immortal life, maybe she doesn't exist?
Which is why more grown up religions tend towards 'faith' as the big virtue, which works quite well for many.
> Steve B <st...@wayback.org.uk> writes > >In article <4af4817a$0$2527$da0fe...@news.zen.co.uk>, > >oldcod...@anyoldwhere.net says... > >> Oz wrote: > >> > Steve B <st...@wayback.org.uk> writes > >> >> regarding a recent item in the news,
> >> >> whom would you most believe?
> >> >> a) scientist
> >> >> b) politician
> >> > prefix with 'honest' or 'untruthful' or 'ignorant' and I will answer!!!
> >> Indeed, but with no prefixes one can predict that the normal scientist > >> is interested in facts, or the truth in so far as he has evidence, and > >> therefore could be considered honest. Politicians on the other hand > >> have shown recently that their norm is likely to be untruth, dishonesty > >> and probably ignorance also.
> >to be fair, scientists don't have the disadvantage of having to persuade the > >electorate to keep them in office.
> No, but sadly they often need large grants to keep their department in > wages. This can cause them to 'exaggerate the value of their research', > to put it politely. This is particularly true of anything which has a > public exposure. BSE was a glaring example of many.
t'would seem that almost all research nowadays requires significant funding. Indeed, I have the impression that professorships are awarded, not only on academic merit but more so on an individuals ability to generate income for their institution.
> >OTOH, I don't think it a good thing if > >politicians have too much say in the appointment of scientists.
> Indeed, nor perhaps clerics although it depends how radicalised religion > becomes. There once was a very good reason as islam tends to show rather > well right now.
I think theocracies are certainly outmoded nowadays. I am not sure they were ever a good form of government anyway, but don't know enough background to make sensible comment.
> >> In regard to the "recent item in the news" I would believe the scientist > >> over almost any politician. :-)
> >Agreed, but (forgive the assumption) you are an educated man and capable of > >intelligent thought. Politicians are more practised at representing > >themselves to the 'common' man than scientists in the general sense. > >A lot of people don't accept what Darwin said, even after 150 or so years.
> That's true. Mind you one reason is that an awful lot of radial > evangelical clerics actually tell lies about darwin and the evidence to > support it. Common glaring lies are:
> "Nobody ever saw evolution in action".
> and
> "Nobody had ever seen any missing links"
> although that's rather a truism when expressed like that when they > really mean
> "Nobody has seen intermediate stages in evolution"
> which is totally wrong.
If Darwin had been born in the USA, his ideas might have been more accepted there. There again, he might have been tarred and feathered and never heard of again. In which case, we'd have the same controversy regarding Wallace :)
Steve B wrote: > In article <4af4817a$0$2527$da0fe...@news.zen.co.uk>, > oldcod...@anyoldwhere.net says... >> Oz wrote: >>> Steve B <st...@wayback.org.uk> writes >>>> regarding a recent item in the news,
>>>> whom would you most believe?
>>>> a) scientist
>>>> b) politician
>>> prefix with 'honest' or 'untruthful' or 'ignorant' and I will answer!!!
>> Indeed, but with no prefixes one can predict that the normal scientist >> is interested in facts, or the truth in so far as he has evidence, and >> therefore could be considered honest. Politicians on the other hand >> have shown recently that their norm is likely to be untruth, dishonesty >> and probably ignorance also.
> to be fair, scientists don't have the disadvantage of having to persuade the > electorate to keep them in office.
Agreed, but if politicians really were honourable they would not have to lie so blatantly or so often.
> OTOH, I don't think it a good thing if politicians have too much say in the appointment of scientists.
or the membership of enquiry panels. There is a strong tendency to pick those who will produce the "right" result.
>> In regard to the "recent item in the news" I would believe the scientist >> over almost any politician. :-)
> Agreed, but (forgive the assumption) you are an educated man and capable of > intelligent thought.
Why thank you kind sir.
> Politicians are more practised at representing themselves to the 'common' man than scientists in the general sense.
Politicians assume the common man is stupid, he is not. Most common men, and women, (to keep the sex police happy) are capable of intelligent thought, even if not always as educated as they might be.
> A lot of people don't accept what Darwin said, even after 150 or so years.
If one takes the bible literally I can see the problem. However, the hymn "O God our help in ages past" surely solves that puzzle with the verse: "A thousand ages in Thy sight Are like an evening gone; Short as the watch that ends the night Before the rising sun." allows all of evolution to fit into those seven days and perhaps indicates that God hasn't yet finished creating the world (and the universe).
-- Old Codger e-mail use reply to field
What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]
> Steve B wrote: > > In article <4af4817a$0$2527$da0fe...@news.zen.co.uk>, > > oldcod...@anyoldwhere.net says... > >> Oz wrote: > >>> Steve B <st...@wayback.org.uk> writes > >>>> regarding a recent item in the news,
> >>>> whom would you most believe?
> >>>> a) scientist
> >>>> b) politician
> >>> prefix with 'honest' or 'untruthful' or 'ignorant' and I will answer!!!
> >> Indeed, but with no prefixes one can predict that the normal scientist > >> is interested in facts, or the truth in so far as he has evidence, and > >> therefore could be considered honest. Politicians on the other hand > >> have shown recently that their norm is likely to be untruth, dishonesty > >> and probably ignorance also.
> > to be fair, scientists don't have the disadvantage of having to persuade the > > electorate to keep them in office.
> Agreed, but if politicians really were honourable they would not have to > lie so blatantly or so often.
I don't think I can argue against that one, fair enough to say that standards have gone way down in recent years. Perhaps they should be Ofsted inspected?
> > OTOH, I don't think it a good thing if politicians have too much say in the appointment of scientists.
> or the membership of enquiry panels. There is a strong tendency to pick > those who will produce the "right" result.
> >> In regard to the "recent item in the news" I would believe the scientist > >> over almost any politician. :-)
> > Agreed, but (forgive the assumption) you are an educated man and capable of > > intelligent thought.
> Why thank you kind sir.
> > Politicians are more practised at representing themselves to the 'common' man than scientists in the general sense.
> Politicians assume the common man is stupid, he is not. Most common > men, and women, (to keep the sex police happy) are capable of > intelligent thought, even if not always as educated as they might be.
hmm. I think it probable that most people don't entirely trust politicians, but tolerate them as a necessary evil, being phlegmatic as such. Also, intelligence and education are not necessarily proof against being caught out by a con man (or woman).
> > A lot of people don't accept what Darwin said, even after 150 or so years.
> If one takes the bible literally I can see the problem. However, the > hymn "O God our help in ages past" surely solves that puzzle with the > verse: "A thousand ages in Thy sight Are like an evening gone; Short > as the watch that ends the night Before the rising sun." allows all of > evolution to fit into those seven days and perhaps indicates that God > hasn't yet finished creating the world (and the universe).
I seem to recall that the Vatican has come around to accepting evolution fairly recently.
>t'would seem that almost all research nowadays requires significant funding. >Indeed, I have the impression that professorships are awarded, not only on >academic merit but more so on an individuals ability to generate income for >their institution.
That's pretty close to the truth.
>I think theocracies are certainly outmoded nowadays.
Er, iran, al quaeda, pakistan under zia, parts of saudi, etc etc.
>I am not sure they were >ever a good form of government anyway,
They are positively dreadful. The very worst type of dictatorship with rights to do absolutely anything 'in the name of god'.
>but don't know enough background to make >sensible comment.
Not been following the news these last 30 years then?
>If Darwin had been born in the USA, his ideas might have been more accepted >there. There again, he might have been tarred and feathered and never heard of >again.
Considering he left it for several decades (apart from a few in the know) in the UK for fear of retribution I imagine he wouldn't have lasted long in the US.
>In which case, we'd have the same controversy regarding Wallace :)
>In article <4af727bc$0$2532$da0fe...@news.zen.co.uk>, >oldcod...@anyoldwhere.net says... >> Agreed, but if politicians really were honourable they would not have to >> lie so blatantly or so often.
>I don't think I can argue against that one, fair enough to say that standards >have gone way down in recent years. Perhaps they should be Ofsted inspected?
Its gone from an unpaid job you did for public service to a career job offering increasingly lucrative status and income. This is not good.
>> Politicians assume the common man is stupid, he is not. Most common >> men, and women, (to keep the sex police happy) are capable of >> intelligent thought, even if not always as educated as they might be.
>hmm. I think it probable that most people don't entirely trust politicians, >but tolerate them as a necessary evil, being phlegmatic as such. >Also, intelligence and education are not necessarily proof against being >caught out by a con man (or woman).
Even less being a con man of course.
A few jail sentences would have been salutary IMHO.
>I seem to recall that the Vatican has come around to accepting evolution >fairly recently.
You do take a long view. The concept was instigated and sorted a little after gallileo. They set up a branch to study science and report back, the jesuits (amazing or what!). As a consequence they had the theology pretty well worked out even before darwin. After all either science is right or its not. Science says the material world is predictable and knowable without the hand of a deity, so remove the hand of the deity for all times since the creation event (the big bang will do nicely).
One can then argue about minutia like the odd miracle or the life of jesus without too much bothering with science.
A very simple solution really, which works brilliantly (if you are religious), but sadly seems to have passed by much of the bible belt. Of course it has to as they consider the bible as the immutable word of god, which is verging on blasphemy really.
In article <MPG.256165b95ce137fb989...@news.freedom2surf.net>, Steve B
<URL:mailto:st...@wayback.org.uk> wrote: > In article <4af727bc$0$2532$da0fe...@news.zen.co.uk>, > oldcod...@anyoldwhere.net says... > > Politicians assume the common man is stupid, he is not. Most common > > men, and women, (to keep the sex police happy) are capable of > > intelligent thought, even if not always as educated as they might be.
> hmm. I think it probable that most people don't entirely trust politicians, > but tolerate them as a necessary evil, being phlegmatic as such. > Also, intelligence and education are not necessarily proof against being > caught out by a con man (or woman).
I don't think it's politicians per se that are the problem, it's career politicians.
We used to have a majority of politicians who had already lived a slice of real life before attaining office; now there are too many who studied politics in university (some in school even), took first jobs as political aides or researchers and so on until, with time duly served to the party machine, they were allowed to become first no-chance candidates and eventually safe-seat candidates thus entering office with a detailed knowledge of (party) politics - and nothing else.
> > > A lot of people don't accept what Darwin said, even after 150 or so years.
> > If one takes the bible literally I can see the problem. However, the > > hymn "O God our help in ages past" surely solves that puzzle with the > > verse: "A thousand ages in Thy sight Are like an evening gone; Short > > as the watch that ends the night Before the rising sun." allows all of > > evolution to fit into those seven days and perhaps indicates that God > > hasn't yet finished creating the world (and the universe).
> I seem to recall that the Vatican has come around to accepting evolution > fairly recently.
There has never been any problem with evolution. The classic anti-Darwinist cleverly shifts the discussion to evolution and so bogs the argument in the wrong area. It's trivial to demonstrate evolution to any theologician by asking them which branch of which religion they espouse and then tracing it out from the original roots - eg. start with Abraham and work forward to Whirling Dervishes or whichever sect applies.
Darwin's theory had nothing to do with the process of evolution which he took as a given. His theory relates to the mechanism driving evolution, his is the theory of Evolution by NATURAL SELECTION (my caps) - hence the 'Does God play dice' discussion path.
Darwin's revelation was that, as his studies in geology demonstrated, the earth is -old-: old enough for minute differences in gene survival to have a dramatic effect. The 'survival of the fittest' line (not Darwin's actual words) really should be taken as the survival of the -bloodline- of the -fittest-to-breed-; so a marathon runner might not have as many offspring as an attractive couch potato. His finch examples and many others merely demonstrated the evolution of small differences which he then extrapolated through deep time finding there was enough to account for, um, I can't remember his example so here's mine, time enough for cherry trees and gerbils to evolve from a common, very distant, ancestor.
What worries the religious orthodox is that humans no longer have a place as the peak of creation in the like of (deity of choice) but instead have equal evolutionary status with periwinkles, ribwort plantains and Escherichia coli.
If a zealot of one of the Old Testament faiths quibbles the time since creation just ask: 'How long is one of God's days?' God hadn't even a day-length measure until after creating the sun and the earth and there's no reason to assume (s)he felt constrained to conform to the period of a minor fragment of that creation...
Steve B wrote: > In article <4af727bc$0$2532$da0fe...@news.zen.co.uk>, > oldcod...@anyoldwhere.net says... >> Steve B wrote: >>> In article <4af4817a$0$2527$da0fe...@news.zen.co.uk>, >>> oldcod...@anyoldwhere.net says... >>>> Oz wrote: >>>>> Steve B <st...@wayback.org.uk> writes >>>>>> regarding a recent item in the news,
>>>>>> whom would you most believe?
>>>>>> a) scientist
>>>>>> b) politician
>>>>> prefix with 'honest' or 'untruthful' or 'ignorant' and I will answer!!!
>>>> Indeed, but with no prefixes one can predict that the normal scientist >>>> is interested in facts, or the truth in so far as he has evidence, and >>>> therefore could be considered honest. Politicians on the other hand >>>> have shown recently that their norm is likely to be untruth, dishonesty >>>> and probably ignorance also. >>> to be fair, scientists don't have the disadvantage of having to persuade the >>> electorate to keep them in office. >> Agreed, but if politicians really were honourable they would not have to >> lie so blatantly or so often.
> I don't think I can argue against that one, fair enough to say that standards > have gone way down in recent years. Perhaps they should be Ofsted inspected?
Oh dear, the requirements resulting would push up costs even more, and think of the associated expenses.
>>> OTOH, I don't think it a good thing if politicians have too much say in the appointment of scientists. >> or the membership of enquiry panels. There is a strong tendency to pick >> those who will produce the "right" result.
>>>> In regard to the "recent item in the news" I would believe the scientist >>>> over almost any politician. :-)
>>> Agreed, but (forgive the assumption) you are an educated man and capable of >>> intelligent thought. >> Why thank you kind sir.
>>> Politicians are more practised at representing themselves to the 'common' man than scientists in the general sense. >> Politicians assume the common man is stupid, he is not. Most common >> men, and women, (to keep the sex police happy) are capable of >> intelligent thought, even if not always as educated as they might be.
> hmm. I think it probable that most people don't entirely trust politicians, > but tolerate them as a necessary evil, being phlegmatic as such. > Also, intelligence and education are not necessarily proof against being > caught out by a con man (or woman).
Indeed, young Tone managed to fool most of the people most of the time and at least some of them must have been both educated and intelligent.
>>> A lot of people don't accept what Darwin said, even after 150 or so years. >> If one takes the bible literally I can see the problem. However, the >> hymn "O God our help in ages past" surely solves that puzzle with the >> verse: "A thousand ages in Thy sight Are like an evening gone; Short >> as the watch that ends the night Before the rising sun." allows all of >> evolution to fit into those seven days and perhaps indicates that God >> hasn't yet finished creating the world (and the universe).
> I seem to recall that the Vatican has come around to accepting evolution > fairly recently.
Define 'fairly recently'
I think it was quite a long time ago.
-- Old Codger e-mail use reply to field
What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]
Derek Moody wrote: > In article <MPG.256165b95ce137fb989...@news.freedom2surf.net>, Steve B > <URL:mailto:st...@wayback.org.uk> wrote: >> In article <4af727bc$0$2532$da0fe...@news.zen.co.uk>, >> oldcod...@anyoldwhere.net says...
>>> Politicians assume the common man is stupid, he is not. Most common >>> men, and women, (to keep the sex police happy) are capable of >>> intelligent thought, even if not always as educated as they might be.
>> hmm. I think it probable that most people don't entirely trust politicians, >> but tolerate them as a necessary evil, being phlegmatic as such. >> Also, intelligence and education are not necessarily proof against being >> caught out by a con man (or woman).
> I don't think it's politicians per se that are the problem, it's career > politicians.
> We used to have a majority of politicians who had already lived a slice of > real life before attaining office; now there are too many who studied politics > in university (some in school even), took first jobs as political aides or > researchers and so on until, with time duly served to the party machine, they > were allowed to become first no-chance candidates and eventually safe-seat > candidates thus entering office with a detailed knowledge of (party) > politics - and nothing else.
And quickly become party leader and potentially our next Prime Minister. That is the main reason I am more depressed than I ever was in the 60s and 70s. The light at the end of the tunnel these days is just about extinguished.
A prime requirement for every parliamentary candidate should be to have already carved out a career in the outside world, even if only as a ship's steward.
My thoughts on the current expenses/pay scandal is:
Tie MPs salary to an appropriate forces rank whose current salary is at, or below, £65K and do similar for ministers and the PM but make that figure the total of their their remuneration, i.e. the new salary includes their MPs salary.
Change their pension to defined contribution, with the taxpayer contributing no more than the member and with a sensible top limit to the taxpayer's contribution.
Redundancy pay set at the statutory levels.
Expenses should be replaced with fixed allowances set at a level that would allow someone on near the minimum wage to be an MP. They could then employ who they liked and would probably be de-selected if they did not do a satisfactory job. I would set up a committee of business men, chaired by someone like Arnold Weinstock, to investigate the reasonable needs of MPs, secretarial, research, etc., and travel and accommodation. There should be no commuting allowance and an equivalent sum should be deducted from the travel and accommodation allowance for those living too far away to commute.
The committee would be instructed to set the various allowances at the lowest level they would consider appropriate for their junior management. These allowances would be linked to CPI with a ten year review to see if the indexing has kept them aligned with actual costs and appropriate adjustments made, up or down.
Of course, if enough suitable MPs could not be attracted we might have to increase salaries but I don't see any sign of a shortage of potential MPs.
-- Old Codger e-mail use reply to field
What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]
> Steve B <st...@wayback.org.uk> writes > >In article <4af727bc$0$2532$da0fe...@news.zen.co.uk>, > >oldcod...@anyoldwhere.net says...
> >> Agreed, but if politicians really were honourable they would not have to > >> lie so blatantly or so often.
> >I don't think I can argue against that one, fair enough to say that standards > >have gone way down in recent years. Perhaps they should be Ofsted inspected?
> Its gone from an unpaid job you did for public service to a career job > offering increasingly lucrative status and income. This is not good.
> >> Politicians assume the common man is stupid, he is not. Most common > >> men, and women, (to keep the sex police happy) are capable of > >> intelligent thought, even if not always as educated as they might be.
> >hmm. I think it probable that most people don't entirely trust politicians, > >but tolerate them as a necessary evil, being phlegmatic as such. > >Also, intelligence and education are not necessarily proof against being > >caught out by a con man (or woman).
> Even less being a con man of course.
> A few jail sentences would have been salutary IMHO.
well deserved in some cases.
> >I seem to recall that the Vatican has come around to accepting evolution > >fairly recently.
> You do take a long view. The concept was instigated and sorted a little > after gallileo. They set up a branch to study science and report back, > the jesuits (amazing or what!). > As a consequence they had the theology > pretty well worked out even before darwin. After all either science is > right or its not. Science says the material world is predictable and > knowable without the hand of a deity, so remove the hand of the deity > for all times since the creation event (the big bang will do nicely).
ok, scientists do hardware and theologians software?
> One can then argue about minutia like the odd miracle or the life of > jesus without too much bothering with science.
> A very simple solution really, which works brilliantly (if you are > religious), but sadly seems to have passed by much of the bible belt. Of > course it has to as they consider the bible as the immutable word of > god, which is verging on blasphemy really.
hm, have to think about this, but not being able to see the wood for the trees comes to mind re the Bible belt.
>In article <WvE6j6Asa89KF...@OzHome.com>, O...@mailcatch.com says... >> A very simple solution really, which works brilliantly (if you are >> religious), but sadly seems to have passed by much of the bible belt. Of >> course it has to as they consider the bible as the immutable word of >> god, which is verging on blasphemy really.
>hm, have to think about this, but not being able to see the wood for the >trees comes to mind re the Bible belt.
A total lack of theological input and a lack of brain cells helps too.
In article <4af88b6c$0$2533$da0fe...@news.zen.co.uk>, Old Codger
<URL:mailto:oldcod...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote: > Derek Moody wrote: > > candidates thus entering office with a detailed knowledge of (party) > > politics - and nothing else.
> And quickly become party leader and potentially our next Prime Minister.
Well DC -did- squeeze in a few years in media... Hmmm.
> That is the main reason I am more depressed than I ever was in the 60s > and 70s. The light at the end of the tunnel these days is just about > extinguished.
> A prime requirement for every parliamentary candidate should be to have > already carved out a career in the outside world, even if only as a > ship's steward.
Slightly tricky. Whilst I agree in priciple, there is a danger that no young people will ever be represented. How about: Every parliamentary candidate should have spent at least half of their working life (before election) outside politics?
Its a defined period contract. If it has reached a natural end redundancy does not apply.
I think every candidate should present his remuneration demand as part of the election campaign. This should include all salary, expenses etc.
This number should be divided by the number of voters in the constituency. This then would be charged to each voter after tax and benefits so that each 'feels' it.
The voter can then compare cost and policies and make a value for money judgment.
There should be an option to change constituencies, so 'better' MPs could have more voters to spread the cost.
> Indeed, young Tone managed to fool most of the people most of the time and > at least some of them must have been both educated and intelligent.
Presentation seems to be key feature of the political and civil service. I notice in yesterdays paper than and IT director of a department dealing with the London Olympics caught sexually harassing staff was quietly asked to leave his £100000 a year job then went to work for the Bob I. The paper's description of his cv would suggest he was not worth a quarter of that, but had the right connections and very arrogant.
|
