Reasons to agree:  %
R2D(-): 0 R2AD(-): 0 R2DD(+): 0 Total Score: 1
|
Sep 20, 2010
The Kindle is better than the Nook
Nov 24, 2009
America should just be a good republic, and not try to be an empire
Help me populate the fields below! Just leave a comment, and I'll add it to the debate
Reasons to agree: %
%- We just want to create a good place for our people to live. We don't need anything more than that.
Nov 15, 2009
Value Validity: Equality
The numbering system below describes a system that scores groups of people within a range of 1 to 10 by how much they value equality.
- These people undervalue equality. People who value equality at a 1, do not value equality very much. These people are willing to accept inhuman, or even unnatural cruelty to others, or specific groups of people. They do not value all life equally. People from their group (family, race, nationality) are acceptable, however they give little or no concern to those from other groups, or actively seek to harm those from other groups.
- These people over value equality. Someone who overvalues an otherwise positive value like equality would be willing to sacrifice other good values in order to satisfy equality. These people not only are willing to steel from Peter to give to Paul, but are willing to trample all over such concepts as "freedom of choice", the "law of the harvest", justice, or reasonable application of mercy in order to ensure that Peter does not have anything more than Paul. An example of someone who is overly concerned with equality hate the strong, powerful, or beautiful. These people are not just concerned about equality of opportunity, but also equality of outcome. They are willing to sacrifice freedom, and require massive amounts of power in order to guarantee the outcome that they see fit. They don't care if anyone is happy, just that no one is more happy than others. They are so concerned with equality, that they can not accept that truly evil might be sad, or noble people to experience any happiness. They feel bad for Hitler. These people would say that no tradition, no norm, no action is wrong, or worse than other actions. It is wrong to say that someone is bad, and another person is good. We are all equal, and therefore everyone can be whatever they want as long as it is not better than someone else.
Oct 9, 2009
Clearing the Fog: A Call for Organized, Meaningful Information Exchange
Let's face it - we are inundated with information. The problem is, much of it isn't organized in a way that helps us make better decisions or gain deeper understanding. In the current landscape, we have a situation that I like to call "manufacturing confusion".
Imagine a system where each reason to agree or disagree is tagged, organized, and classified. You could trace the genesis of an argument, finding the first person who made that claim, or discover more eloquent ways it has been expressed.
Each post would carry a wealth of associated information: better or more succinct ways of expressing the same idea, the inception of the argument, and references to books, songs, and statistics that support or challenge this perspective.
To cut through the noise and make real progress, we need not just more, but better organized information. We should be brainstorming common interests and opposing viewpoints, and generating alternative solutions.
I've been toiling away at this concept since 1998, and it's been quite frustrating to see that no one else seems to be advocating for or trying to build the web forum of my dreams. On the surface, it seems simple - a platform that promotes meaningful information exchange, instead of cluttering the web with more noise. I've started some work on this project at Group Intel and Idea Stock Exchange, but I would love to brainstorm with others about the features of this forum and how to bring it to fruition.
Thank you for taking the time to read this post. If you're as passionate as I am about making the internet a platform that promotes good information, I would love to talk about it with you. Let's start a conversation today to build a better tomorrow.
Imagine a system where each reason to agree or disagree is tagged, organized, and classified. You could trace the genesis of an argument, finding the first person who made that claim, or discover more eloquent ways it has been expressed.
Each post would carry a wealth of associated information: better or more succinct ways of expressing the same idea, the inception of the argument, and references to books, songs, and statistics that support or challenge this perspective.
To cut through the noise and make real progress, we need not just more, but better organized information. We should be brainstorming common interests and opposing viewpoints, and generating alternative solutions.
I've been toiling away at this concept since 1998, and it's been quite frustrating to see that no one else seems to be advocating for or trying to build the web forum of my dreams. On the surface, it seems simple - a platform that promotes meaningful information exchange, instead of cluttering the web with more noise. I've started some work on this project at Group Intel and Idea Stock Exchange, but I would love to brainstorm with others about the features of this forum and how to bring it to fruition.
Thank you for taking the time to read this post. If you're as passionate as I am about making the internet a platform that promotes good information, I would love to talk about it with you. Let's start a conversation today to build a better tomorrow.
Aug 14, 2009
Nancy Pelosi is wrong
As anyone who follows history and politics knows, there has always been a very healthy debate on the issues in our country.
Yet, now that conservatives are expressing their disapproval of President Obama's proposed health care plan, liberals are suddenly very critical of dissent and debate. Earlier this week, Speaker Pelosi accused honest citizens expressing their views on health care of being "un-American." And why? Because they disagree with her on the need for a new government insurance program.
Our Founding Fathers would be very surprised by Speaker Pelosi's attempt to clamp down on dissent. This nation was founded by patriots who staged the ultimate protest in declaring their independence from a distant and out-of-touch government. The rights to peacefully assemble and petition our elected officials are guaranteed by the Constitution. What Nancy Pelosi doesn't understand is that our differences and disagreements don't make us weaker; they make us stronger.
This is a critical time for our nation, and a lot of the issues we’re debating now will affect generations to come. All of us have a duty to press on ... a duty to state our case without fear of government reprisal.
That is why I’m writing to you to take two important steps today.
First, I encourage you to make your feelings on the health care bill known by calling the White House at (202) 456-1111 and your congressional representatives at (202) 224-3121. Let them know that dissenting is the most "American" thing one can do and that you have very real concerns about the cost and scope of this legislation.
Second, I hope you will consider making a contribution to my Free and Strong America PAC today. Your generous contribution of $25, $50, $100, $250, $500, $1,000, or even the maximum $5,000 will go a long way toward making sure that we push back when big government liberals like Nancy Pelosi try to stifle debate because they don't like it when ordinary Americans disagree with their far-left agenda.
Thank you again for your support and all that you do to ensure that our country remains free and strong.
Jul 28, 2009
Cambridge Police Profiling Still A Grim Reality for Harvard Faculty Assholes
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/07/cambridge-police-profiling-still-a-grim-reality-for-harvard-faculty-assholes.html
Guest Opinion
by Professor John Evans Evans-John
Harvard School of Harvard Faculty Asshole Studies
Harvard University
When I first learned of the arrest of my colleague Professor Henry Louis "Skip" Gates after he stood up to the fascist jackboots of a declasse, ill-educated Cambridge police officer, I was of course angered -- but scarcely shocked. L'Affaire Gates simply aired, in public, the dirty 100-thread-count table linen of an American culture where Harvard faculty assholes still face a daily struggle against profiling, abuse, and insolence.
It will come as no surprise that Skip's arrest was the talk of the Douchebag Room at the Harvard Faculty Club last Friday. I and a group of colleagues had assembled for our weekly lunch; I opted for their competently-prepared Ahi Tuna Tartare and an amusing glass of '05 Hospices de Beaune Premier Cru Cuvee Cyrot-Chaudron. I had noticed that the Franz Fanon Memorial Booth -- Skip's long-reserved lunch spot -- was uncharacteristically empty, and asked our waiter Sergio for an explanation.
"Professor Skeep, he no is come today," said Sergio. "I tink he is in the jail."
Our table exchanged knowing glances, for we knew immediately that Skip was only the latest victim of a system that singles out the Harvard faculty asshole for stigmatization and unequal justice. It is a system that all of us knew too well, and provided an opportunity for an open conversation about our shared experiences as Harvard faculty assholes in America while waiting for Sergio to bring the dessert cart.
One after one came the cascade of stark stories: the rolled eyes of our department secretaries. The Spanish language mockery of our office janitors. The foul gestures of drunken strap-hanging Red Sox lumpenproles aboard the MBTA. The frequent police stops on the highway to Cape Ann and Martha's Vineyard for "Volvoing While Asshole." And then there are the insulting media stereotypes, where we are routinely caricatured as pompous, effete, self-important, irrelevant elitists. All, I might add, by a motley collection of lowbrow inferiors, few of whom have ever published in a peer-reviewed journal. Let alone edit one.
Sometimes it even comes at the hand of self-styled "peers" from D-list state ampersand institutions. One colleague recounted the tale of his restroom confrontation with a Texas A&M professor at a national academic conference last year. After relieving themselves at adjacent urinals, my colleague noticed the oaf leaving hastily for the plenary session and decided to gently point out his hygienic forgetfulness. "A Harvard man washes his hands after urinating," he said. "And an Aggie don't piss all over his hands, asshole," came the reply.
A female colleague from the English department recalled a recent incident along the Charles River jogging path during her regular morning run. A confused passer-by rudely interrupted her progress and requested directions, as if my colleague were some sort of lowly campus guide or untenured adjunct. "Where does this street go to?" she demanded. Naturally, my colleague took the opportunity to correct her, noting that "at Harvard we do not end our sentences in prepositions."
"Okay, Where does this street go to, asshole?" barked the interloper. Needless to say, my colleague's daily morning runs have since been replaced with tear-filled visits to the Faculty Asshole Self Esteem Counseling Center.
For untold hundreds of Harvard faculty assholes such indignities are, sadly, still part and parcel of being "The Other." As Associate Director of the School of Harvard Faculty Asshole Studies, I have worked to institute policies to insure that Harvard maintains a nurturing environment for all assholes in our community, be they faculty, students, or alumni. Some progress has been made, such as Harvard's mandatory sensitivity and deference training program for all incoming freshassholes. But such internal programs do little to address the impertinence and discrimination we still face outside campus. Some have suggested that we involve the Cambridge Police Department in an educational outreach program, but in my experience the CPD is among the worst offenders.
Case in point: last winter I was slated to deliver the keynote address for an intradepartmental asshole colloquium at Lowell House. Running late, I temporarily parked along Plympton. As I emerged from my Audi, I discovered that I had captured the unwelcome attention of a CPD officer. "Hey Buddy, is that your car?" he barked.
"Why? Because I'm a Harvard faculty asshole in America?" I cleverly retorted.
"No asshole, because this is a snow route and you can't double park here," he sneered, concocting a flimsy excuse for his continued harassment. "You have to move it now."
"That's Professor Asshole to you, you fascist townie," I explained, tossing him the Audi's remote-start key. "Need a valet? Call your mother at the brothel."
It doesn't take an experienced asshole rights activist to tell you what happened next: my Audi was on its way to impound while I rode to the Cambridge Police Station in the unheated vinyl rear seat of Bull Conner's squad car. To add insult to injury, the desk officer refused my request for a dignified background bookshelf for my booking photos.
Thankfully the Constitution still allows even Harvard Assholes a bare modicum of human rights, so I used my allotted phone call to alert the Dean and the Faculty Grievance Committee to my plight. In those 35 excruciating minutes I wasted away waiting in that stark cell, I wrote the opening chapter of "Letters From a Cambridge Jail," my forthcoming scholarly magnum opus on the grim legacy of Asshole oppression in America.
Eventually my arrest record was expunged and I agreed to meet the loathsome arresting officer at President Faust's office for a conciliatory off-record "beer chat." As the University Counsel had predicted, the lure of free limitless alcohol proved irresistible to the simpleminded Irishman, and he was soon happily signing confessions of guilt and abject apologies. Still, even after he was fired, I was left to pick up the pieces of my shattered psyche.
As I recounted the details of that unpleasant encounter to my colleagues, a few wondered aloud if we were not better served by changing the system gradually. Then our eyes turned to the stately historic portraits of the Harvard faculty assholes who came before us, hanging in silent judgment on the Douchebag Room walls; Schlessinger, Galbraith, Leary, Cornel West, Alan Dershowitz, Theodore Kaczynski. Would these great assholes have accepted complicit silence in the face of crude police insolence? How will we be remembered by future generations of Harvard faculty assholes who will battle future generations of Cambridge police and parking enforcement officials? Where is Sergio with the damned dessert cart?
Some suggest that the election of President Obama proves that America's prejudice against Harvard assholes is a quaint relic of the past. But for those of us who live with it every day, the evidence shows the opposite. And it isn't just Harvard assholes suffering the cold, rude hand of uppity townie privilege. Other, if less endowed, asshole faculties suffer similar oppression; in the southern Lacrosse fields of Duke, in the west coast arugula farms of Stanford, at Northwestern, where ever Northwestern is.
No, we must not be silent. That is why I have used a portion of my class action windfall against the Cambridge Police department to produce a shocking new documentary film, "Asshole Like Me," detailing the courageous plight of the tenured Sphincter-American community. It premiers this Friday at the Science Center. Get your tickets now -- with free beer on tap, demand will be high!
Jul 10, 2009
It takes a village?
Reasons to disagree - People who say, "It takes a village" really want power. They don't think you should be allowed to run your life the way you want to, and so they want to get groups together, and then they want to lead that group's decisions. They people to make decisions as cities, towns, and governments, not individuals and families, because if we let individuals and families make decisions, they don't get to be involved, but they can get their hands into government.
- People who say, "It takes a village" really want power. They don't think you should be allowed to run your life the way you want to, and so they want to get groups together, and then they want to lead that group's decisions. They people to make decisions as cities, towns, and governments, not individuals and families, because if we let individuals and families make decisions, they don't get to be involved, but they can get their hands into government.
May 25, 2009
Books as reasons to agree or disagree with beliefs
What we become depends on what we read after all of the professors have finished with us. The greatest university of all is a collection of books."
- Thomas Carlyle
Ideas
We should allow users suggest books as reasons to agree or disagree with an idea. Now start thinking ahead what an algorithm could do, if someone says that a book agrees with their beliefs. Data is readily available from Amazon or E-bay or the New York Times best selling list of how well a book has sold.
So there would be three fields. One place where you submit the item that agrees or disagrees with the original idea. The second field would let you classify the object. Is it a book, awebsite, or simply a logical argument. The third field would be a place where the user explains why he thinks the book supports the conclusion that he/she has come to. Of course, people would be allowed to vote weather or not the book actually does support the side that the original user said that it would.
This is where the algorithm could get very sophisticated. Would you want to give more credibility to those who said they had actually read the book? Would you want to give even more credibility to those who had bought the book, as more proof that they actually read the book. Or how about people that used the website mediachest and could prove that they have the book, by the fact that they have let others use the book. What about people who wrote an essay on the book on the website. If Google was doing this, they could provide a place for users to write essays on books, similar to how Amazon lets users write essays. Perhaps they could not let people copy and paste essays into the form. It would only allow people to type their essays directly, to prevent stealing of essays. Perhaps people could vote on weather the book-essays were good or not similar to how Amazon lets users rate reviews, as to weather the review was "helpful" or not.
So, as an example, you could submit a best selling book as a reason to agree with an idea, and then right a thoroughly convincing explanation of why this book agrees with the idea, and an essay that proves that you understand the main points of the book.
If Google really wants to organize the worlds information, they must do this. We have plenty of books, we have plenty of content on the internet. We need ways of organizing this information into what it all means, and how all this information should affect us. The only good way information can affect us, is for it to help us make better decisions. In order for us to make better decisions, we must know all of the reasons to agree or disagree with a particular course of action. In order to do this, we should not start at ground zero, with only our own thoughts in our head. We should bring together all of the great thinkers from the ages from every corner of the planet, and organize all of their great thoughts, so that we can make the right decisions.
As you can see, this algorithm could be very simple, but it could also offer programmers hundreds of years of challenges to make it more sophisticated. I believe this is a strength of the idea, because it allows for continual improvement.
Examples
Books that agree that schools need to be reformed.
- De-schooling Society, by Ivan Illitch
Interest
Please help me brainstorm the most probable interest of those who agree or disagree with Romney on each issue. Just leave what you think motivates each side in the comment section, and I will add it to the list. Also, tell me the percentage of those who agree with Romneyyou think are motivated by each motivation. I will try to put the most likely motivation towards the top of the list.
The book Getting to Yes, tells us that we need to focus on interest instead of positions. To understand why someone believes something we must understand their interest. What are their values? Different interest or values lead to different positions.
Of course it is best when the author of an idea submits their interest. However others users of the website could submit and then vote on the most likely motivations of each side.
We need to also classify interest as opposing interest or mutual interest.
Businesses interest might include low taxes and good infrastructure.
Reasons
We need to have reasons to agree and disagree with Romney on the same page. We also need to have a post for each issue (that doesn't change topics), and then brainstorms all the reasons to agree and disagree with Romney, with the best reasons at the top of their respective list.
Steven Write said; "A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking ." And it is true. People make decisions becaus they only heard part of the story, and they never examined all the reasons to agree and disagree. That is why I want to use the power of the internet to brainstorm all the reasons to agree and disagree with Romney.If we separate our reasons to agree and disagree, and classify the reasons we could do some pretty cool stuff with computer software.
For instance we could create a computer algorithm that gives points to Romney's beliefs based on the number or reasons to agree with him. Then each reason can become its own post, with reasons to agree and disagree with it.
Every issue should have it's own comprehensive list of reasons to agree or disagree.
This would allow us to perform a Google duel between all the items that agree and disagree, which could represent the overall strength of the idea.
We could let people rate the reasons to agree or disagree, were the overall score of the reasons that agree contribute to the idea, and the overall score of the reasons that disagree take away from the score of the main idea.
We could assign a score to each reason based on the number of reasons that agree with it. The overall score of the reasons in the "reasons to agree" category would contribute to the overall score of the main idea.
This will allow us to talk to our ancestors, and include all the smart things that they said, about issues that we still face today. As we start thinking about this, we can see why a web site like the history channel may want to adopt it. What does Abraham Lincoln have to say about issues we are facing today?
Like Abraham Lincoln said, it is not so important that we pray that God is on ourside, but that we are on God's side. The same thing about the truth. We shoudn't work to try to prove that the truth is on our side, but that we are on the truth's side. If we have a truth promoting forum, then it is safe to investigate both sides of an issue. We have nothing to fear from those who would disagree with us, as long as we are on the side of truth, and we have a format that alows for rational debate. Using lists of reasons to agree or disagree is a very good way of thouroughly investigating an issue, without letting either side hi-jack the discusion, by changing the topic, talking too long. Each side should bring their best arguments, and list them on a page. If we are not in a shouting mach, or competing for a limited amount of time, why not thoroughly investigate an idea? We don't need to silence the other side, we just need to prove that they are wrong.
Usually, one point won't convince someone they are wrong. Everyone needs to feel that they got all of their reasons out on the table. We are not discounting people's beliefs, we are responding to them.
May 19, 2009
Solar Panel and Wind Turbine Idea
When wealthy people die, much of their money gets taxed. It is called
the estate tax, by those who like the tax and the death tax by those
who want to make the tax sound morbid. In nations that have the estate
tax, rich people who spend their money on solar panels or wind
turbines could avoid it, with all the money that they use for that
equipment.
the estate tax, by those who like the tax and the death tax by those
who want to make the tax sound morbid. In nations that have the estate
tax, rich people who spend their money on solar panels or wind
turbines could avoid it, with all the money that they use for that
equipment.
This would stimulate the market for this equipment. Billions of
dollars would get invested in this wind turbines and solar panels. And
we wouldn't be going around the estate tax really, because when you
die you are not transferring money, or houses. You give your kids a
pile of solar panels or wind turbines. The "value" of these items do
not get taxed.
So instead of Paris Hilton getting access to offshore bank accounts
when her father dies, she would get millions of dollars of solar
equipment that her dad bought in 2010, that helped stimulate the
economy, and that she can use to produce clean energy.
May 6, 2009
Obama is right about evolution
Q: If one of your daughters asked you, "Daddy, did God really create the world in 6 days?" What would you say?
A: What I believe is that God created the universe, and that the 6 days in the Bible may not be 6 days as we understand it. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth, that is fundamentally true. Now whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible, that I don't presume to know. But one last point--I do believe in evolution. I don't think that is incompatible with Christian faith. Just as I don't think science generally is incompatible with Christian faith. There are those who suggest that if you have a scientific bent of mind, then somehow you should reject religion. And I fundamentally disagree with that. In fact, the more I learn about the world, the more I know about science, the more I'm amazed about the mystery of this planet and this universe. And it strengthens my faith as opposed to weakens it.
Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College Apr 13, 2008
Obama is right about anti-intellectualism
Reasons to agree:
- People hate smart kids.
- Americans are way over-fascinated with calling smart people nerds, and geeks. This is not done so much in other cultures.
Background: "I try to avoid an either/or approach to solving the problems of this country. There are questions of individual responsibility and questions of societal responsibility to be dealt with. The best example is an education. I'm going to insist that we've got decent funding, enough teachers, and computers in the classroom, but unless you turn off the television set and get over a certain anti-intellectualism that I think pervades some low-income communities, our children are not going to achieve." ~ Meet The Press, NBC News Jul 25, 2004
Obama is right on Merit Pay
Reasons to agree:
- We should reward good behavior and punish bad behavior.
" Teachers are extraordinarily frustrated about how their performance is assessed. And not just their own performance, but the school's performance generally. So they're teaching to the tests all the time. What I have said is that we should be able to get buy-in from teachers in terms of how to measure progress. Every teacher I think wants to succeed. And if we give them a pathway to professional development, where we're creating master teachers, they are helping with apprenticeships for young new teachers, they are involved in a variety of other activities, that are really adding value to the schools, then we should be able to give them more money for it. But we should only do it if the teachers themselves have some buy-in in terms of how they're measured. They can't be judged simply on standardized tests that don't take into account whether children are prepared before they get to school or not." ~ Barack Obama, 2007 Democratic primary debate on "This Week" Aug 19, 2007
Background
Q: As president, can you name a hot-button issue where you would be willing to buck the Democratic Party line & say, "You know what? Republicans have a better idea here?"
A: I think that on issues of education, I've been very clear about the fact--and sometimes I've gotten in trouble with the teachers' union on this--that we should be experimenting with charter schools. We should be experimenting with different ways of compensating teachers.
Q: You mean merit pay?
A: Well, merit pay, the way it's been designed, I think, is based on just a single standardized test--I think is a big mistake, because the way we measure performance may be skewed by whether or not the kids are coming into school already 3 years or 4 years behind. But I think that having assessment tools and then saying, "You know what? Teachers who are on career paths to become better teachers, developing themselves professionally--that we should pay excellence more." I think that's a good idea.
Source: 2008 Fox News interview: presidential series Apr 27, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)