I might be biting off more than I can chew here......

Why must we fight a cultural war in our schools and courts?

Let me just say that I believe in a God of MY understanding. I'm not religious.

Traditionalist, and progressives have been around long before the left/right battle of today. What we have today, to me it seems like a big waste of time, effort, and money. It isn't about politics, it is about the long standing ideology of traditionalists, and progressives.

I feel that the only role the Federal government has is to protect the rights in the Constitution, and to protect the nation. Yet many freely give their freedoms up to the Government with the promise that they will do what we want. Unfortunately, this is a divided country. There is no way to make everyone happy. So why do we give the Feds the enormous power to dictate our lives???

Here is my point....

Prayer in school and Creationism. Fine, you don't agree, neither do I. But why do we teach any origin theory in public schools? Why the agenda to push diversity and beliefs not held by many of the students. I feel public school should be for math, English, science, civics, and history. Why must evolution be taught. Any one these days can get on line and explore any subject they choose. Discovery and the NG channel are flooded with evolution. What is wrong with public schools teaching what is necessary to make it through life, and leave the origins of man to higher education, media, and family?

Abortion. I agree that it should be legal, from a legal stand point, but I don't think it is a great idea. So if abortion is to be legal, why not forbid any federal money towards that end? Leave payment on the shoulders of those that believe in abortion, and leave those that don't with clean hands?

Homosexuality. I don't have a problem with it, but I don't get it. Why must I be forced to embrace it? Constitutional amendment defining marriage... you've got to be kidding me. It is a divisive issue that only effects 10-15% of the population. Many do not have a problem with civil unions, but that is not good enough to some.


So, my problem is that once you give power to the Feds, they don't give it back. So it is great to get Obama in there and let him sign a bunch of laws, but by doing that, you also give Bush the power to do the same. We will never solve the problem of culture with legislation. Why can't we come together on more pressing problems that are driving this country into the ground? ILLEGAL immigration, appropriate national defense, foreign policy, energy strategies, national infrastructure, federal spending, tax code.....??? When we get all those problems solved, maybe then we will have time to tackle the huge problem of two guys kissing and whether or not they can marry.

So where is the common ground?

I wouldn't say that anything "must" be taught. Man once survived without schools. However, if anything is taught, why not evolution. There is scientific evidence for it and it's not just for determining our origin.

I don't know if evolution is actually a theory of origin. It's more of a continuation than a beginning. The big bang is a theory of origin.

BTW, I've been on the other side of this debate on CGCS and it changed my view.

You could say the same thing about war and a military. If someone is morally opposed to their tax dollars being spent on bombs to kill innocent children in collateral damage, why should they have to pay for them?

Who's forcing you to embrace it?

Civil unions should be good enough. Marriage is just a word.

Legislation influences culture for better or for worse. The cultural problems will only be solved by philosophy. Legislation just buys us time and lets us secure the cultural unity that we've already developed.

No disagreement here. It's mostly the right-wing fundamentalist Christians politicizing culture.

Evolution is OK when talking about micro evolution. Macro opens a can of worms. My point though is that evolution and the big bang have no direct impact on how I get though a day. There is plenty of stuff to teach high schoolers concerning chemistry, physics, and biology. Why must evolution be taught at all. What will it do for you to get you a job and become a productive citizen?



The big bang is not a theory of origin for man. It is a theory of origin for the Universe. Dawin's work involved species, but he didn't think up the idea. Many that do not subscribe to a supreme being, believe we evolved form a protein strand in primordial soup.



Absolutely. I understand that argument well. I feel the difference is that the majority of American's want security for the nation. We may have differing opinions on how to accomplish that, but we all want it. Another thing is that due to our military superiority, we have not been invaded. While a pacifist may not agree with killing, bombs sitting in a silo keeps us safe. He is still getting benefit without any killing. Another option is to move to Switzerland. If one is completely opposed to what the nation wants, I don't see why you would want to live here.



Elementary schools have "Coming out day". While that may be an extreme case, it is not what should be going on in school. Elementary school.... are you kidding! There is an agenda to "force" acceptance of alternative lifestyles in the public.

Look at media. There was much talk about blacks not being equally portrait in Hollywood. The roles they were given were as entertainment. Hispanics are now a big population, they didn't have much greif getting camera time. Now take gays. Half the shows on TV have a token gay. (Not that there is anything wrong with that.) Some are mandatory. Movies too. Yet they only make up about 10-15% of the population. I have several gay friends of both gender. Of the people I know, they are they are not a big percentage. So why the disproportionate representation of gays by media?



I find it difficult to argue for the sanctity of marriage when any drunk idiot can get married in Vegas, and the divorce rate is 50%.



And hence the problem. They see this as a attack on their beliefs. Then again, so was rock-n-roll and dancing. My point is that the God debate has never been settled in the entire history of man, and it never will. So why even go down that road. The religious right claim the leftist are pushing their agenda through the courts and legislation, so they push back with the same. In the mean time, the country circles the drain while the extremes in both parties duke it out.

Take global warming. Another cultural battle between left and right. We need to increase efficiencies. We need to get off foreign oil. We need updated infrastructure. So let's just forget about GW and the Earth exploding in ten years if we don't spend 10 trillion dollars this year. Lets start putting aggressive effort into moving in the right direction of what is best for the country. Then we can look at more data to determine the next move and if it will even be effective.

This goes back to what I said earlier, humans survived without schools, so it's difficult to say if anything "must" be taught. This is a question of if schools should be vocational and to what degree. Evolution is just one of many things taught in school that we probably won't use in our everyday lives. But if someone wants to know the science, why not teach it?

Origin of the universe includes the origin of man. Man couldn't have existed without the universe, so it would seem.

The premise here is that there are benefits for having a military and that the majority of us want it. I could say that the benefits of government funded abortions is a society with less unwanted pregnancy, less teenage mothers, less criminals from bad childhoods, less black market babies, less coat hanger abortions, less deaths, etc. I could also say that the majority of society wants this as they voted for a pro-choice president.

The big bang has nothing to do with how intelligent life came to be. It is about the rocks we live on and the laws that govern them.

That's not exactly force. That's just exposure. Are students being forced to celebrate on coming out day?

If I hated gay people, I would have a problem with exposure. But unless they were being gay on my property, then it would only be my problem.

Probably due to the disproportionate representation of gay people producing media. Read Rise of the Creative Class by Richard Florida. Media Capitals attract alternative thinkers. Alternative thinkers often have alternative life-styles.

Chemistry shows evidence of all life coming from elements which they believe were formed from the big bang. Your body is made up of elements that aren't exclusively present in life.

So what ever happened to personal responsibility? I agree abortion should not be illegal, but in this day and age and in this country, there is no excuse for an unwanted pregnancy. There is no excuse for an unwanted child, or an uncared for one. What I don't like about abortion is that it seems like it is used to absolve one of personal responsibility. If you can't afford one a kid, don't have one. If you don't want one, then make sure you don't get pregnant.

Again though, back to my original point. Where do we find common ground so we can move on? Leagalized abortion with out public money sounds like a good start to me.

To what degree? The extreme of personal responsibility would be no need for governing.

Rape is an excuse. Lack of sex education is an excuse. Failed contraceptives is an excuse. Change of financial status leaving someone less capable of taking care of a child is an excuse. Sure there's also adoption, but some can't even bare or afford the pregnancy.

I understand that some people who get an abortion lack responsibility. But some are very responsible and still find themselves in situations of unwanted pregnancy. Whether or not they can afford it is a different subject matter. If you are against government paying for it, you could take it to extreme and be against government paying for anything.

We have. We call it pro-responsibility.

Sure, if you are a libertarian. But then again, what do libertarians think we should be using public money for? Practically nothing.

None of that explains the origin of DNA

It doesn't explain the forming of DNA. It does explain the ingredients.

I realize you do not know me, but come on... do you think I was including rape in personal responsibility???

We have sex ed. We have contraception. Heck there is this product on the market these days that is free. It's called abstinence. You bring up points, but do you think we could cut our abortion rate in half if we just took some personal responsibility??? I do for a number off the top of my head.

I'm tired of our political process hamstrung by extremists. I ask again, where is the common ground. You seem to believe there is none. Great, so lets fight over it for the next 30 years. The last 30 have been a real hoot. What is wrong with the idea that those people, organizations, political groups that favor abortion can pay for it???

I know what a building block is. Tell me what elements free will is made of.

Again, common ground. Why should such a controversial subject be taught in public schools with public money when the public is so divided over it???

What is wrong with a core curriculum? If nothing else, why is evolution taught as a core theory. Why not relegate it to an elective. It can be right next door to creation class. Or we can just skip that stuff and teach kids the basics.

I'm not trying to debate the merits of various subjects, I'm trying to say we should stop using public school as ideology battle grounds.

A lot of what you say has merit, Powerman. But I do take issue with your stance regarding of what the teaching of science should consist. Natural selection and its extension, evolution, have been taught in the science curriculum for many, many years. This push toward the teaching of "creationism" is of relatively recent vintage, and isn't science, at all, as far as I understand it, the theme parks dedicated to it nothwithstanding.

It's not culture, it's science. You don't leave that to the family or the media to teach. That's irresponsible.

No.

I was just pointing out exceptions. It's those exceptions that make a policy like no public funding insensitive.

Probably.

The common ground is reduction of unwanted pregnancy. If you reduce that, then you reduce abortions. You can use both positive and negative methods. A law is not going to reduce unwanted pregnancy. Funding programs like Planned Parenthood will.

What's wrong is that some of them can't afford either the abortion or the pregnancy. So they run in to financial hardship which will cost society one way or another. They raise a bad child, that child grows up to cost society more money on aid and law enforcement. The parents can go bad and cost society too.

It was and is the "Right Wing" (ie; Conservatives or "Traditionalists" if you prefer) who first demanded censorship of Science in America (reference the Scopes Monkey Trial). So if there is a "Cultural War" the "Conservatives" started it.

Item One for consideration regarding "Common Ground"; While there are many great and beautiful Traditions, not all traditions are good.

It has been so since time immemorial. Those who have an investment in "Tradition" (staus-quo) in whatever way (and however unjustly) that status-quo was arrived at see all change as potentially threatening. This principle was already well established from the beginning of recorded history. By the time we get to the Renaissance it was about the Church showing Gallello the "instruments of faith" down in the dungeon. In their mind they were "protecting their faith". Just as those in the South saw a threat to their Slave- Culture by the election of Lincoln, they fired first on Fort Sumter.

Item Two for consideration regarding "Common Ground"; Science and scientists don't know everything. We are all learning. Science has a major presumption regarding the origin of life. How do they explain how in-animate sub-atomic particles somehow arraigned themselves by chance into being able to perceive themselves?

If you confront them with this Grand Presumption of Science they will demure or dance like Fred Astaire and come up with rationalizations so outlandish as to make the most devout Toad Idolater blush. That does not mean those who believe the world is 6000 years old should be able to teach such nonsense to our children on our dime. At least (when not confronting the Grand Presumption) Science seeks truth not belief. If Traditionalists want to teach belief? They should pay for it themselves, but if their children cannot then succeed in fields which require a thorough knowledge of the facts (whatever they may believe) they will have only themselves to blame and their children will blame them too.

Traditionalists see Progressives as a threat. That is clear. I am a Liberal and I'm proud of our traditions. Regardless of Party name those who sought Progress were always opposed by the Traditionalists. Progressives fought against "Bad Tradition" and freed the Slaves. Fought "Tradition" for Women's Equality. To end the "Tradition" of Child-Labor. To enact the Civil Rights Laws that ended "Traditional" Jim Crow. Gays refuse to be "Aunt Jemima" in movies and stories, and no matter how much some don't agree with their "life-styles" it's nobody else's damn business when it gets right down to it, is it? Who the hell are "Traditionalists" to tell them they cannot love one another? Or that they cannot call their union "marriage"?

Regarding Abortion. No where in the Bible does God mention abortion. If abortion has been going on since before recorded history and it was a great sin, why did neither God the Father nor His Son Christ ever mention it? IMO what we have here is a deliberate attempt to control women's bodies by men. I don't know when human sentient (soul) life begins and neither does anyone else who cannot see souls. We as a society made a compromise (Roe v Wade). But that is not good enough for some "Traditionalists". I know there are good and sincere people on both sides of that debate, but If God speaks through nature it is entirely feasible one could say by the God of Nature's edict, it is the woman who decides what is carried to term in her body or not.

We Liberals do not seek to force anything on Traditionalists except where those Traditions involve how they treat their fellow citizens. Traditionalists are free to believe and say what they wish. They are free to practice their faith and traditions. They are free to teach their children whatever they believe, but they are not free to impose their beliefs on anyone else.

If Traditionalists consider that reasonable restriction an "Act of War," then so be it.

Just my opinion.

No scientific theory explains consciousness. Maybe Epigenetics may have a theory some day. For now Evolution is not trying to explain consciousness. The only problem that Judeo-Christians have with evolution is the timeline.

Because it's based on real science, and public schools teach science. Public schools do not dispute the bible. It's Judeo-Christians that dispute facts supporting the theory of evolution. Until they disprove those facts, their disputes are futile.

Because there is no alternate theory with scientific evidence that supports it.

So any theory that Judeo-Christians object to should be thrown out despite scientific evidence supporting it?

I think it is a linquistic error to frame the issue as Traditionalist vs Progressive. I think the
useful distinction we're looking for is: Traditionalist vs Empirical Method (collection of data
on which to base a theory or derive a conclussion in Science). Our problem is not essentially different from those folk in the Middle East and in Affrica...just a little more nuanced...

The subjective is just as important to a human being as the objective rla. Slavery was based on both at the time. Negroes were supposed to be sub-human and it was supported by the "science" of the time (skull-measurements and "educated" opinions about African Culture). Some things are just wrong and when the head can't see it the heart can.

And it has been battled over for many many years.

I don't believe in Creationism. I find intelligent design laughable. That isn't the point. The "science" is something that a large part of the population does not believe in. There is plenty of biology to teach without going in to the evolution of man. There is plenty of physics, math and chemistry to teach. For those that do not go on to higher education, is learning over? No, it isn't. I have learned much about the world around me and the tax payer didn't pat a penny.

You don't teach kids the world by 12th grade. You teach them how to explore it. Teach scientific method, critical thinking, deductive reasoning. Tools of the trade. There are so many paths to evolution these days that the tax payer does not need to fund it.

Just like there are so many paths to Jesus, we don't need school prayer at tax payer's expense.

Well, I guess I was wrong. There is no common ground. We will continue to rip this country in half until the others side acknowledge how backwards they are and admit your enlightenment. Thanks for indulging my silly little idea.

I simply am tired of the country I love divided in two. I would like to see how we can agree to disagree, and move on to more pressing needs and run this country. Yet since both sides are right, and will not back down until the other capitulates, we seem to be at an impasse.

I hold to this quaint concept that science is science, to my mind common sense solves the problem regarding evolution. How about taking the radical approach of teaching instead of dumbing it down, leave out any philosophical/religious conclusions and teach what's known and what parts are assumed but presently inexplicable?

Just because someone doesn't believe something doesn't make it untrue. And the reverse is also true. If you say you support teaching "critical thinking" wouldn't that be a part of it? A child who has been taught his or her faith by their parents should be able to be taught how to think and how to evaluate what Science presents as having compelling evidence for, as well as what it doesn't have. Science has been wrong many times and corrects itself in stages. A wise teacher would tell all the children this as part of the curriculum. In a time of the height of scientific arrogance a thinking child like Einstein turned the world of science up-side down with a childhood thought. "What would it look like if I rode on a beam of light?" Yet he remained a devout believer in God throughout his life despite being taught Darwin's Theory.

I see no threat to true faith by teaching what we "think we know" and separating that as best we can from what we believe. That does not mean what we believe is untrue since absolute truth is bigger than the universe. It would have to be wouldn't it, because even purely physically speaking you can't get something from nothing. Maybe what the Traditionalist needs to do is examine their own faith as science continually examines itself. Maybe then faith would become stronger not act out of weakness by defending itself from what has to be a part of God; His Creation.

Just some thoughts.

The head and heart are centered in two sub-system--along with three others which must
kept integrated for the human Organism to respond as a whole. In the USA, in the 21st century,
things are Multivariate--a multi-dimensional, many splendored thing...

The Three Ways of Knowing how to do Personing is" Experiential, Existential and Experimental.

There's plenty of common ground. We are after all, all humans. We arose on this planet together and the history of mankind is a common heritage. All people at one time or another have been persecuted or enslaved by an accident of birth or for their beliefs.

We have even more in common since the establishment of this country under this Constitution. If we seek a foe why not those who seek to destroy that hallmark of man's progress on this earth we share? Those who wish to rule over us out of some self-proclaimed privilege of wealth or birth? There is plenty to fight for without trying to impose our own particular beliefs on others. No one is forced to get an abortion or marry a Gay. But there are those who wish to enrich themselves at all our expense and seek to impose corporate rule over all our lives Liberal or Conservative.

You say you are tired of a divided country. Then stop looking for sham battles and join the real ones.

Just my opinion.

I'm tired too and would like to see both sides agree to disagree.

Like I said, I was on the wrong side of this debate before as TROU and rla remember. I even put forth the notion that science may be forming it's own religion. Now I know, we just need to treat science like science and religion like religion.

My preference is for peacfull co-existence between those who are more inclined toward a
traditional orientation and an Empirical one--just as we expect Church and State to co-exist in the same Social System. Those strongly committed to the empirical method, do not generally deny
that the Spiritual Domain of Human Existence is any less valued than other domains that could be considered...

That makes a lot of sense to me, Tom...

Experience doesn't always jibe with Experimental evidence. Nor can Existence be fully explained by science. So by your own definition pure Empiricism falls short. This political struggle between Traditionalists and Progressives is as old as mankind. It is just that for the past number of decades Ideologues have tried to gain power by whipping up fear and they have been supported by those who gain by a country divided. This is a well know strategy written to the Italian Princes by Machiavelli. Personing is a many splendored thing and that includes beliefs. It is just that we need to separate the two. Objective and subjective and properly evaluate both, and both are part of human existence and each has their own reality.

Truth should be the ultimate goal for everyone, and as I've said even by the most stringent "logic," truth has to be bigger than the whole universe.

Just some thoughts.

So the real battle is the wealthy and Corporate America??? I think that is your battle.

I find it funny how much evolution is so prominent to any reasonable thinker, yet then we try to legislate away evolution. We are social beings of this world. Every species has a pecking order. There are wolves and there are sheep. But some how we are going to battle the forces of nature with our legislation to make every being truly equal. Good luck with that.

The real battle has always been between the "average" decent person and those who lust after power over others and ill-begotten wealth. This country was founded based on that battle and has fought battles involving that same peter principle. False notions of "Liberty" and "Freedom" put forth by those who seek to divide merely mean the "Liberty" or "Freedom" to rape and pillage everyone else so they can get what they want. We are all sovereign beings who are free to swing our arms until it comes in contact with another's nose. Therefore we voluntarily given up some of our absolute sovereignty to co-operate as a nation of citizens. We have majority rule but that doesn't give us the right to vote on another person's rights.

You say there are wolves and sheep. Which do you see yourself as? If you see yourself as a wolf I would say beware the herd of sheep with knives.

I don't disagree with what you are saying.The interface between the Person and the Environment
is multi-level, multi-domain from multiple time-space perspectives...

A cultural battle?

No one has predicted the Earth exploding in 10 years that I am aware. I think you may be exaggerating.

Its a corporate battle not a cultural battle. You have the corporations who want to deny its existence because if they admit that their activities add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere which impact on global warming they will have to absorb the cost of doing something about it. So, corporations are pitted against scientists who believe that there is a definite impact of man-made greenhouse gases...

Now, you can call this a cultural battle if you want -- but I think you may miss the point -- because if the scientists are right and the corporations wrong then we have a small window to act to change things...

My feeling is that global warming is not the issue -- the issue is dependence on foreign oil which fuels terrorism and makes Russia stronger...

We need to become independent of foreign fuels. This will have the impact of reducing the cost of oil and marginalizing nations like Russia, Iran, etc.

By doing this not only will we become a better economy -- but even if there is no global warming we will have cleaner air -- a cleaner environment and fossil fuel independence -- so there is a benefit...

But if we delay -- and global warming is real - then it may be too late -- and the problem could become irreversible -- and the result of that could be calamitous....


Globe Editorial

Ho-hum civil union rights
Email|Print|Single Page| Text size – + January 3, 2008
WHEN VERMONT legislators legalized civil unions for gay couples in 2000, there was a bitter backlash against the reform. But on New Year's Day, New Hampshire joined Vermont, Connecticut, and New Jersey in extending civil union rights to gay and lesbian couples, and the event was met with a collective yawn. There are several reasons for this change, but the most important is that residents of New Hampshire have had a chance to observe Vermont and Connecticut's civil unions and Massachusetts' same-sex marriage, and realized that extending rights to a minority is no threat to the majority - or to the institution of marriage.

more stories like thisNot too many years ago, the fiery conservatism of the Manchester Union-Leader newspaper and the state's former governor, Meldrim Thomson, made New Hampshire an unlikely candidate for quiet acceptance of expanded rights for gays. But as resistant as its citizens have been to broad-based taxes or expanded government, there has always been a live-and-let-live streak in the state that has made it infertile ground for politicians telling other people how to live. Recently, the state's high-tech industries have brought in highly trained newcomers with broad views on social issues. Polling for the presidential primary shows that gay marriage is of minor concern to the state's voters.

This page finds civil unions to be an inadequate substitute for true marriage equality. Still, there likely would have been more opposition had New Hampshire legalized gay marriage and not just civil unions, which are seen as a compromise measure. Also, the fact that New Hampshire's elected legislators initiated the change, as opposed to an "unelected" court, as was the case in both Vermont and Massachusetts, may have made the reform more acceptable to voters.

But the strongest factor making civil unions such a non-issue in New Hampshire has to be the opportunity the state has had to look elsewhere in New England, where experience shows that legal recognition of same sex couples has stabilized and strengthened those relationships without doing anything to weaken heterosexual marriage. Like other civil union laws, New Hampshire's grants gays property rights, shared wills, and hospital visitation privileges. Several other states have created varying levels of rights in domestic partnership laws.

As beneficial as these protections are, they still confer a separate status, as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court made clear in 2003 when it ruled that the state's constitution prohibited the Commonwealth from denying full marriage rights to gays. So far, no other state has joined Massachusetts, but it is still gratifying to see that in New England, the region with the most experience in granting rights to same-sex couples, another state has recognized the profound unfairness in withholding those rights.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editoria...l_union_rights/

Many of us are which is why I support Obama's approach to unify the nation...

Can he succeed?

I do not know, but I think someone needs to try.

We will never agree on everything, but the beauty of the US of A is that we agree on more things than we disagree on -- and we should take some small amount of solace in that fact.

Think about it...

What do we learn in school as kids that there is disagreement about? Very little I would submit.

Well, we learn an awful lot in school so there is a lot that we agree on.

We agree on the desireability of our form of government. It is not perfect, but we prefer it to any form anywhere else in the world.

Most of us agree on the importance of education, a good paying job, hard work, the desire to protect and help one's family to prosper.

We believe that the United States is the most powerful nation in the world. The leader of the free world. Most of us believe the US has a positive role to play in helping the world.

I think if you look closely you will see we all have much more in common than we do differences.

The problem that I see is that the left focuses on similarities and the right focuses on differences...I think its more prudent to focus on common ground than to try and find differences and exploit those...but it is an effective technique that the right has employes well in the past...

Predation is a fact and part of life. It will never be legislated away. There will always be those that are willing to kill those that are not.

I think I'm both. I accept how nature works. I also understand the benefits of society.

If you are indeed that sheep with a knife. Don't bring it to a gun fight.

I think so much mis-information has been used relatively to the Liberal-Conservative Dimension
of Political Philosophy, that a larger context is required. At the mid-point of the left to right Liberal-
Conservative axis, place a north-south axis, Traditional-Empirical...The diagonal of this Matrix is what divided the Country. The fault line lies from the bottom-left, Liberal-Empirical quadrant to the
upper-right Traditional Conservative quadrant...

There is plenty of biology to teach. Basically cellular structures and reproduction of species. I understand your point, but the origins of man can be for another class. What is wrong with leaving controversial subjects as elective. A whole semester of evolutionary theory. Don't like it, don't take it.




Depends on what type of security. Security from violence sometimes requires violence. Not always. No I'm not talking about terrorism. Job security is one thing. National security is another.

I understand diversity. And on that subject... the schools are not "teaching" gay. I don't agree with home schooling. Kids need to be exposed. I'm not advocating anyone staying in the closet.




OK, this is where you really loose me. You talk of "cooperations" as if they are some free willed evil entity that we are all at the mercy of. If that is the case, why do you continue to feed it? Unplug and go live in some self sufficient commune. I assume you use oil. I know you use electricity. I'm sure you have a car. I'm sure you use cleaning products. I'm sure you add to green house emissions.

You are the consumer. They die with out you. "They" are not destroying the environment... YOU are destroying this planet. You and the other 6 billion people on this planet. As an American, your foot print is 10 times larger than 2/3 of them. How convenient it must be to foist this problem on to some undefinable entity.

Dependence from oil is a huge hurdle. Dependence from the 25% of our oil we get from OPEC nations is a different story.

And cooperations are not going to be the ones "absorbing the cost to do something about it" You will be absorbing it.

Whether or not our economy will be "better" for it is the only thing holding things back. Cooperation don't care what the cost is. People have already stated what they are willing to pay for fuel. And expensive transportation costs are a drag on the economy.

And if we act quickly, to implement an ill conceived money pit, that does nothing, where is our economy then? Some GW scientist have already said it is too late. So now, instead of throwing trillions of dollars at something we can't change, we need to save that money to deal with the fallout.

I do believe cutting our use 25% and getting off OPEC oil is a step in the right direction. That needs to happen soon.

I have no problem with making it an elective if someone doesn't need to know it. I do have a problem with making it an elective because someone doesn't like it. It's just a theory that can be either proven or disproved with scientific experiments, unlike dogma. And there's no alternate "scientific" theories to explain evolution. Teaching theory is not the same as teaching dogma.

On second thought, tomhye, this assertion opens X number of bags of Y types of worms and is
not getting us any closer to the Goal Post? Our commom ground is that Science is Science and
Evolution is Evolution and that we could ultimately agree on what each is and what each does
if we set out to do so--with a referee.

I actually speak of corporations...not cooperations...I do not know if that makes it easier for you to understand or not...

I do not speak to them as free willed entities -- I speak of them as entities that are driven by a different dynamic than we as human beings are...

Human beings are driven by a need for personal security -- making a better life...we do this through education, employment, building interpersonal relationships...improving our environment...

Corporations exist to maximize profit for their shareholders. In order to maximize profits they engage in a risk/benefit assessment all the time...which is why it is often the case that they would rather suffer a rare products liability lawsuit than engage in providing adequate safeguards for products. Everything is a cost/benefit analysis with them...

Is this wrong?

I say it is when the corporations are not being civic-minded as many seem to be with regard to global warming - particulalry the oil industry.

Corporations are not evil. They just have different priorities...they want to sell products at the least amount of cost possible -- this is the reality of the global marjetplace...

If acknowledging the reality of global warming and the attendant necessity to do something about it to reduce the companies emission of man-made greenhouse gases is going to reduce their profits by 5-40% -- the corporation is probably going to do eveything it can to deny the science...

Its like smoking - how the tobacco companies knew for years the harmful effect of cigarette smoking but denied it to Congress and others even producing reports rebutting the harmful effects...the global warming question in my opinion is a similar gimmick...with the corporations denying the reality because of the costs associated with addressing the issue if they admit its reality...

What they fail to understand is that while there might be costs associated -- the best response would be to seek government assistance to address the issue...and reduce the emission of greenhouse gases -- but they are not at that point yet...the benefit of doing this would be to move US investment capital and research and development toward solving the greenhouse gas problem...and creating new technologies that we could market globally...to foster a green worldwide economic boom...



Does a corporation have any obligation to be civic-minded?

What do corporate ethics require?

Where do you get the idea that my carbon footprint is 10 times larger than 2/3 of them...I assume you are talking about the corporations...

My carbon footprint is actually quite small...I have always driven a car that gets better than 30 miles to the gallon on the highway...my electric bill is reduced by energy saving green technology lights...which are on only when absolutely necessary...and I receycle and contribute annually to planting hundreds of trees...



Let me tell you -- we are not going to reduce our oil consumption in the Middle East unless we reduce it everywhere...



The idea is to reduce the costs by providing government asssistance to corporations to encourage them to go green --- develop alternative green energy sources -- etc. so that the costs are not that onerous...



Yes they have -- they are not willing to pay more than $4.00 a gallon...that was the point that consumption started really declining...however since then consumption has leveled off despite fuel prices dropping by 50%...which tells you that Americans are still skeptical -- and may have actually learned something...about the need to economize...



Well, as I note above -- the idea is to create a green economy so that the result is an economic boom -- and not a drag on the economy...



As I noted it is basically impossible to just reduce oil consumption from OPEC -- it needs to be across the board...because if we do not get countries like China and India on board with new more efficient green technologies - the level of industrial growth in those countries is going to continue to pollute the air and more than offset our reduction in oil consumption...

Excellent point billfmsd...

Corporations are separate entities with rights and agenda, freeing any one person from full responsibility for the misdeeds of the name. So in effect they do have free will in the same way that an artificially intelligent algorithm has free will. A corporation, as an organization, will make decisions that no one member of that corporation would make if that member were being held fully responsible for that decision.

We are not totally at the mercy of corporations. But the bigger and more powerful they get, the more difficult to control and irresponsible they become.

I think the greatest divide that separates one group of USAians from its other half is that Diagonal
that separates the Lower Left Quatrant from the Upper Right Quatrant of the Matrix of Liberal-Empirical X Conservative-Traditional...that is the, "us" coming from left field at, "Them," coming from
the Rightous Right...

Cheap Labor Conservatives, along with Religous Fundamentalists, the Extreme Militarists,
Nationalists and Arms Industry and other right-wing groups constitute the Them of Conservative
Traditionalists that we Liberal-Empiricists have to watch out for.

I just had to stop at this statement for a moment.

I actually had to smile.

Did you grow up on the statement, "America, love it or leave it"?

Well, I figured I would look into that a long time ago, because I'm just like that when it comes to looking things up . Guess what? You will find this hard to believe, because I did, but they don't tell you this when they yell that slogan, so I will. They won't take you there. They have laws against that. The EU doesn't employ Americans unless they can absolutely prove they can't find someone else. That's the way it is for most other locations on earth as well. If you don't have money to open up a business, or bring to their economy, it's not really an option for most people. By the time you have the skill set needed to qualify, you are probably heavily invested in life in America.

If we could change that, then I might agree with you.....We could just pick the country that matches our beliefs and vote with our feet right? But, it's not really a viable option, so we have to work within the system that we have.

Also, why shouldn't people work to make progress, as they define it, where they are instead of moving? That strikes me as the American way of doing things.

No, I am not a love it or leave it type person. I believe in working within the system to change. My comment was aimed at true pacifists. They are a very small minority in this country. This country's history both past and present don't jive with that line of thinking. Since if I am a pacifist, my tax dollars go to the military industrial complex. Why would I want to fund a country with views so totally against mine? Does not bother me if they live here or not. They still pay taxes.

Smiling is not the same as rolling your eyes.

I must say, I'm a little shocked at this line of thinking. Why the victim mentality???

Corporation exist for the consumer. If nobody consumes the products, there will be no corporation.

Human beings are destroying this planet, not corporations. This is what I find funny. We as Americans have inherited one of the highest standards of living on this planet. We got here off the blood of many, and all those evil corporations raping the planet. Yet we want to sit on our high perch, with no real consequence to our words, and condemn our way of life.

It is real simple, stop engaging in the very things that you don't believe in. Grow a garden, ride a bike, put a wind turbine in your back yard, and get off the net. We consume more energy, and products than any other country. Every single little thing we consume in a day is acquired, processed, transported, stored, and consumed by everyone here. Oh ya, that's right, it's all good if we plant a tree.

I really don't know where to begin. Corporations only exist because you buy from them. Companies will try to corner an emerging market. If people want green power, they will pay for it.

My utility had a green program. They started installing wind power. Those that wanted agreed to pay what it cost. So they payed a little more. Great program. Then the citizens voted for a measure to require 20% of our power to come from renewable. We were already at 15%, but the bill stipulated existing generation didn't count. So we will meet the bill, but we won't do anything on our own, because we have no idea what future legislation will screw us. A fine example of government interfering in the market place. The movement already started. But now the government is going to throw tons of money at people to meet a criteria.

You talk about corporate ethics, what about government ethics? They suck. They waste a bunch of money, to offer a inferior product, that does not address the problem. They foster laziness, incompetence, and dependence. But it all good, they all get rich of tax payer money and their little sweet heart kick back deals.

The Government is not the solution to all our problems. The government has caused most of them. You think Big Oil just came to be. They were in bed with the government, and the government is in bed with corporate America. No... not just Republicans, all of them. The dems just signed a huge check to every pet project they could think of. How is that fair? How does industry compete against an unleveled playing field. And as far as in bed with each other... who do you think builds all the Wind turbines. Thats right... GE/Westinghouse. Evil corporations and their subsidiaries.

Not one penny of this great endeavor to cool the planet will come out of a companies pocket. It will come out of yours in taxes and higher rates. You will be footing the bill for it. They don't care what it cost, as long as you are willing to pay for it. All they care about is the profit. Companies do not strive for the cheapest costs. They strive for profit. If nobody is willing to pay the price, they go out of business. They don't sell at a loss.

You being an American makes your footprint bigger than 2/3 of the rest of the worlds. Planting a tree makes you feel better, while the planet is deforested. Do you know what percentage of the global population does not drive a car at all? Do you know that much of the world does not even generate trash that needs to be recycled because they are too poor to even have trash? But ya, keep posting on the net about your small foot print.

Creating a green economy... that's rich. Good luck with that one.