Rack the kids at OU

Jimmy Medalions · Post by **Jimmy Medalions** » Sun Jun 04, 2006 3:56 pm

King Crimson · Post by **King Crimson** » Sun Jun 04, 2006 4:08 pm

the CU GOP kids did a similar thing with a bake sale where people of different skin color were charged different prices or something like that to "protest" affirmative action and quotas....something like that.

conservative campus organizations are getting a ton of money from conservative lobby groups these days to organize and start publications and stage events such as this....there was an interesting article in the NY Times about it maybe 2 years ago.....focussing on Bucknell.

pretty weak ("subliminal") photoshop of the American Flag backwards behing the pic of Bush at the top of the GOP college page. :D

Cicero · Post by **Cicero** » Sun Jun 04, 2006 4:09 pm

That's fucking awesome.

T REX · Post by **T REX** » Sun Jun 04, 2006 5:05 pm

Uhhh...I tend to belive the head climatologist at NASA over some kids PR stunt.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6341451/

Yeah, I'm sure this guy has no idea what he's talking about.

Heads back in the sand, kids.

Oh and PS...I'm a republican. I just don't swallow everything Rush spoon feeds me.

SunCoastSooner · Post by **SunCoastSooner** » Sun Jun 04, 2006 6:33 pm

T REX wrote:Uhhh...I tend to belive the head climatologist at NASA over some kids PR stunt.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6341451/

Yeah, I'm sure this guy has no idea what he's talking about.

Heads back in the sand, kids.

Oh and PS...I'm a republican. I just don't swallow everything Rush spoon feeds me.

Don't have the time today to hunt down the links but Trix you might want to look into what the MIT Climatology department has to say about glaobal warming. If it is still up the head of the dept. had some very choice words towards your lead man at NASA. Just sayin'.

T REX · Post by **T REX** » Sun Jun 04, 2006 6:37 pm

SunCoastSooner wrote:
T REX wrote:Uhhh...I tend to belive the head climatologist at NASA over some kids PR stunt.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6341451/

Yeah, I'm sure this guy has no idea what he's talking about.

Heads back in the sand, kids.

Oh and PS...I'm a republican. I just don't swallow everything Rush spoon feeds me.
Don't have the time today to hunt down the links but Trix you might want to look into what the MIT Climatology department has to say about glaobal warming. If it is still up the head of the dept. had some very choice words towards your lead man at NASA. Just sayin'.

Wonder where they get funding from......THAT would be intersting to see.

King Crimson · Post by **King Crimson** » Sun Jun 04, 2006 6:54 pm

T REX wrote: Wonder where they get funding from......THAT would be intersting to see.

i'd rather dip my cock in a large tumbler of sangria and try and fuck my pre-heated toaster oven than vote either GOP or Dem....but i DO work at a university and science (especially physics) funding tends to determine the course and results of the kind of sponsored work being done.

this is a good point. there *is* a political economy of the production of knowledge/science in higher education.

i'm out of this discussion, otherwise.

SunCoastSooner · Post by **SunCoastSooner** » Sun Jun 04, 2006 8:32 pm

T REX wrote:
SunCoastSooner wrote:
T REX wrote:Uhhh...I tend to belive the head climatologist at NASA over some kids PR stunt.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6341451/

Yeah, I'm sure this guy has no idea what he's talking about.

Heads back in the sand, kids.

Oh and PS...I'm a republican. I just don't swallow everything Rush spoon feeds me.
Don't have the time today to hunt down the links but Trix you might want to look into what the MIT Climatology department has to say about glaobal warming. If it is still up the head of the dept. had some very choice words towards your lead man at NASA. Just sayin'.
Wonder where they get funding from......THAT would be intersting to see.

And NASA doesn't need governement funding now does it?

T REX · Post by **T REX** » Sun Jun 04, 2006 10:08 pm

SunCoastSooner wrote:
T REX wrote:
SunCoastSooner wrote: Don't have the time today to hunt down the links but Trix you might want to look into what the MIT Climatology department has to say about glaobal warming. If it is still up the head of the dept. had some very choice words towards your lead man at NASA. Just sayin'.
Wonder where they get funding from......THAT would be intersting to see.
And NASA doesn't need governement funding now does it?

Huh? Why are you rolling your eyes? Of course NASA gets its money from the gov't. READ the article. Hansen is biting the hand that feeds him FOR A REASON. Maybe because the empirical evidence is there. The guy has only been researching this for 20-30 years. Naw......

WHILE at universities the funding can come from PRIVATE SECTORS that can influence the research. Did you not READ what Crimson just wrote?

War Stoops · Post by **War Stoops** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:23 am

This is a little old but I think its a great framing of the Global Warming debate. What's always bothered me about this issue is that rational arguments in contrary to the consensus are dismissed as right wing propaganda. T Rex's comment on the MIT funding is a perfect example. If someone disagrees with Global Warming, the first move is always to question that person's motives. Why not the same standard for those left-of-center?

T REX · Post by **T REX** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:28 am

War Stoops wrote:This is a little old but I think its a great framing of the Global Warming debate. What's always bothered me about this issue is that rationale arguments in contrary to the consensus are dismissed as right wing propaganda. T Rex's comment on the MIT funding is a perfect example. If someone disagrees with Global Warming, the first move is always to question that person's motives. Why not the same standard for those left-of-center?

Exactly, what are the motives of NASA's head climatologist to risk his job and welfare. He could easily be blackballed. What is his motive to hypothesize something 100 years away?

War Stoops · Post by **War Stoops** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 2:13 am

I was actually making a general point that Science debates should be about hard science and not politics or personal motivations. But, to answer your question, there are 20 Democrats on the House Committee on Science (along with 24 Republicans). Since most Republicans support NASA while many Democrats have called for a reduction in funding for NASA, maybe Hansen's comments are a part of a strategic effort to win friends on the left side of the isle.

Of course, that probably isn't true but you see how such a comment can take the focus off the underlying issue.

T REX · Post by **T REX** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:37 pm

War Stoops wrote:I was actually making a general point that Science debates should be about hard science and not politics or personal motivations. But, to answer your question, there are 20 Democrats on the House Committee on Science (along with 24 Republicans). Since most Republicans support NASA while many Democrats have called for a reduction in funding for NASA, maybe Hansen's comments are a part of a strategic effort to win friends on the left side of the isle.

Of course, that probably isn't true but you see how such a comment can take the focus off the underlying issue.

Come on.........

War Stoops · Post by **War Stoops** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:33 pm

Didn't read the link, did you...

Anyone know why I'm trying to explain myself to this guy? Me neither.

T REX · Post by **T REX** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 4:45 pm

War Stoops wrote:Didn't read the link, did you...

Anyone know why I'm trying to explain myself to this guy? Me neither.

I got as far as the Drake equation. Don't have that much time. It's not a knock. I just don't think Hansen has alterior motives besides..."look what's happening!"

War, I wasn't trying to discount anything you are saying. This guy is goign against the grain....for a reason.

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:38 pm

Just because this hasn't become a CFB topic and more of a politics/science one.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:55 pm

SunCoastSooner wrote:
T REX wrote:Uhhh...I tend to belive the head climatologist at NASA over some kids PR stunt.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6341451/

Yeah, I'm sure this guy has no idea what he's talking about.

Heads back in the sand, kids.

Oh and PS...I'm a republican. I just don't swallow everything Rush spoon feeds me.
Don't have the time today to hunt down the links but Trix you might want to look into what the MIT Climatology department has to say about glaobal warming. If it is still up the head of the dept. had some very choice words towards your lead man at NASA. Just sayin'.

Uh...Richard Lindzen, while a prof at MIT is certainly not the "head" of the department. Maybe you should look up what MIT is saying about climate change.

King Crimson · Post by **King Crimson** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:30 pm

T REX wrote:
WHILE at universities the funding can come from PRIVATE SECTORS that can influence the research. Did you not READ what Crimson just wrote?

it's also not accurate to draw too sharp a line b/ween public (govt) and private funding sources. the Physics and Astrophysics department at Colorado is largely bankrolled by the Dept. of Defense contracting agencies and whatever Ball Aerospace is called these days....in addition to other high tech companies in the Denver-Boulder "corridor".

there are a lot of mutual interests to be served. for note: CU's Physics dept. has produced 3 Nobel Laureates in Physics in the last decade. they have serious $$$.

my point about the production of knoweldge is that often what is performed in the name of science.....is also often merely the means to a desired *social* end--whether it be military, medicinal, "technological", or as is often the case in all three: potential profit.

not moralizing about it: that's just how it is. the troublesome thing for me is that often the cultural emphasis on the purity and pragmatic values of "science and math" often occludes students/people/citizens ability to evaluate and critically examine what those "ends" are--since they are social. the ends themselves do not exist in the vacuum of the labratory. they exist in the real world. the other polar response seems to be an over-politicization of science as a mere means to a poltical end.

i think that's where education fails in America--in not providing people with the rational-critical tools to avoid both extremes.

JMO.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:47 pm

Nothing like a global warming debate to demonstrate that all sides of the political spectrum are subject to reactionary silliness.

Do I think human-caused global warming is a fact? -- Yes

Do I think it's going to cause problems eventually? -- Yes

Am I shouting for radical legislative measures to put a stop to this evil threat? -- uhm...big negatory, since it would be senseless at this point in human developement. Change doesn't happen overnight, and it doesn't happen because a bunch of people have a happy shiney plan. It happens because of market conditions...and it probably will again in this case...same reason we became slaves to fossil fuels in the first place -- because it was economically viable to do so at the time.

King Crimson wrote:my point about the production of knoweldge is that often what is performed in the name of science.....is also often merely the means to a desired *social* end--whether it be military, medicinal, "technological", or as is often the case in all three: potential profit.

If people only knew the lengths the timber industry went to squash and silence any study that indicates that their techniques aren't the most environmentally sound(which is every study done on the subject), and how they cause a negative financial impact on other industries, Johnny Q would probably have a little different opinion on the subject.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:12 am

how much does being an environmental whacko pay?

a... friend wants to know