Science and Democracy

Religion is a model of an authoritarian process.

Science is a model of a democratic process .

An excellent model of democracy is found in the procedures of scientific investigation and discovery of solutions to problems (social or physical). Science contains the methods of problem solving which are also applicable to socio-political problems. Those methods are research in the history, or background of the problem, stating the hypothesis (proposition or resolution), choosing the method of investigation (critical, empirical, experimental), running the tests and collecting the data, and reporting the conclusions (verifying the significance and validity of the proposition by accepting or rejecting the statement of the problem).

In other words: state the problem; define the problem; suggest solutions; list the advantages and disadvantages of each suggested solution; select the best solution; test the solution in operation; repeat the process.

The better debaters of political issues have probably undergone methods of study pretty close to those of the scientist.

Citizens who listen to candidates speak will hear the presence or absence of the evidence of systematic approaches to our political problems, local, regional, national or international. Citizens should demand, insist on and crave those abilities in their candidates as a defense against electing mere demagogues who have found the “art” (artifice) of saying what the people want to hear, not what they ought to hear.

Not to say anything against any of the others, but I do hear those qualities in Barack Obama, a historical grounding, a deliberative approach, a substantive aim at future policy.

Why Do People Continue to Vote for the Eventual Loser?

The reporters continue to ask that question. Not a good question. Shows a lack of deliberation. Then their fellows give the “blank” answers the question deserves.

Why choose to vote for the candidate that most know will lose?

Answer: functional autonomy.

The reporters must think about the individual voting, not the view they have of the voting masses numbered anonymously in the polls. People vote as individuals with a backgound of habits, which are responses without awareness and with overriding forces. They are motivated to vote in indivdual ways their affiliations, loyalties, and a number of personal habits. In circumstances changed from the original basis of their motivations, they function as if the old circumstances still exist. Their habits have autonomy. If the opponent has persuasive ways, especially if he or she has the same party affiliation, there may be a possibility of changing that loyalty with the proper appeal.

The Filly Hillary—Placing 2nd in the Derby

Put out to pasture? Hitched to a tourist carriage? Another “Three Belles”? Or, La Fille du Regiment Démocratique? Or, a movie, La Fille sur le pont (It’s night on a Paris bridge. A girl leans over the Seine River with tears in her eyes and a violent yearning to drown her sorrows.)

She must be honored.

The Nominees Debate, Propositions and Framework

For the nominee debates, the two parties must collaborate to frame the propositions.

(Please add some well phrased propositions for the debates between the nominees.)

Why am I doing this? Simple: I, and I am sure millions more, DEMAND that this procedure be used in this manner NOT to waste our time with what has passed for debate in the primary season. I (WE?) WANT QUALITY DIRECT CLASH ON THE ISSUES!!!

POLICY DEBATES

These debates will be limited to issues in public policy, health care, preservation or development of wilderness areas and other public lands, economy, Iraq War, global warming, energy, education, immigration, infrastructure, judicial appointments, NAFTA, United Nations issues, etc.

EXAMPLES

#1 - RESOLVED, that the U.S. Congressional health-care system (or, alternatively, the Medicare health-care program for the elderly) be extended to everyone living in the U.S who has paid a portion of their income into Social Security.

#2 - RESOLVED, that the 80% of U. S. military forces in Iraq be withdrawn from Iraq within six months after January 20th, 2009.

CONSTRUCTIVE ROUND OF ARGUMENTS

FOR: The constructive arguments of the first nominee must define the terms of the proposition, show the problems with the status quo and set up a case with the advantages and evidence in favor of the new plan stated in the proposition:

1. the health-care system of Congress
2. extended
3. everyone living in the U.S.
4. who has paid into the Social Security system

AGAINST: The constructive arguments by the second nominee must define the terms of the proposition and set up a case of disadvantages and evidence against the plan proposed and offer an alternative plan or support the status quo with some minor changes.

REBUTTAL ROUND OF ARGUMENTS

The nominees must clash directly on the points made in the constructive round. New arguments are generally not permitted in this phase of the debate. The debaters must stick to the arguments already on the table.

The first nominee rebuts the second.
The second nominee rebuts the first.

ADDITIONAL PROPOSITIONS (Your submissions?)

VALUES DEBATES

Resolved, that diplomatic talks with the “enemy” (state or beings) is better than not having discussions with such antagonists.

Resolved, that marriage between two gay people is a human right.

Resolved, that human rights begins at birth.

Besides public policy issues, there might be some programs debating value issues, gay marriage, the beginning of human life and the choice of abortion, separation of church and state, gun control, faith-based initiatives, religious displays on public lands, death penalty, and others. Values issues must be kept separate from public policy problems because the intermixing of the value and policy issues causes the strong, more personal involvement and emotional content of values argumentation to carry over into discussions of the more technical and intellectual content of problems of policy. The solution of health-care problems affects nearly everyone. The problems of gay marriage do not have that general consequence of health care.

It is very important to have a debate, which is a series of speeches. It is extremely important to have speeches of a certain length IN ORDER TO AVOID RUDE INTERRUPTIONS BY FAST-TALKING OBFUSCATORS OF THE ISSUE. ALL TALK SHOWS THRIVE ON THE LATTER CONFUSORS, BECLOUDORS WHOSE SOUND-BYTE TALK GOES FAST INTO BICKER-BICKER. Those who “moderate” such gibble-gabble must somehow think that that mess of talk without respectful listening is drama demanded by the medium of TV. Case in point: The Mclaughlin Group, worst offenders. They allow a reporter to string together only two or three sentences before the over-talking begins. The deliberative mind does not benefit. We are given “conversation”, which goes a very short while before the subject changes.

Obama: “…lost his bearings…”(?) Nah!

Barack Obama is reported to have said McCain has “lost his bearings”, as if to say he “lost his marbles”, which refers to a problem of mental decay.

I did not take that meaning. McCain was in the U.S.Navy. “Bearings”, a navigation term used shipboard,
probably was a reference to McCain having lost his direction or position (bearing).

We all know why someone would want to give the statement its most pernicious meaning, don’t we?

Hillary’s Wager

O, ye’ll take the high road and I’ll take the low road and I’ll bet I’m in office afore ye.
Then me and my colleague will never be the same on the bonny, bonny banks of Potomac.

Sore Losers in the Democrat Party?

(I say “Democrat” because they are not “democratic”—the anti-democratic, uncommitted, “super” delegate thing.)

Will those who voted for the losing Democrat candidate then defect and vote for the Republican candidate, McCain? There is that concern for the general election. The answer is, probably not.

I argue by analogy. During the regular season, my team played another that was a tough rival within the conference. But when that rival team was playing in the post-season tournament or bowl game, then I rooted for that team out of loyalty to the conference. I think it will be the same loyalty operating in the general election this fall.

The Proposed Lincoln-Douglas Debate between the Two Dem Candidates

What an interesting idea! Which would be Lincoln and which Douglas? NO MODERATORS! Best idea yet. Like a pick-up game of hoops. Police yourself. Watch their cooperative skills in action. Watch their mutual respect for the operant, emergent rules they interact with. See their management style in action. Hear the topics fly by and show their gear-shifting manners in direct, face-to-face staring match. Notice the color rise in their faces, the false and true smiles that flicker through facial micro-momentaries — you’ve got to love it! The next President’s body language on parade, facing important negotiations of national moment, in free, make-it-up-as-you-go interaction. The wind currents and the para-glide through the issues.

An alternative, better yet: sit at a table and have a discussion (not a “conversation”–very intelligent, educated people know the formal difference, which I have detailed elsewhere on this blog).

We should be so lucky! No interloper coming between them! Whoopee!

The Polygamous Cult (JCLDS) in West Texas and the 72 Virgins

It seems to me that in West Texas we have, in such arrangements of the compound built around the subjection of young, almost pre-pubescent girls to the whims of older men, a similarity to the religion that has a belief that 72 virgins await the martyrs of the suicide-bombing? (I wonder how many rivals the bombers take with them to complicate their quest.) The polygamous cult does it without the death and destruction. Or do they, really?