Unity My….Gluteal Muscles

Step One. Atheist Scientist (often a prominent one) says (honestly): “science and religion are not compatible”.

Of course, this is true, if one defines religion as it is often practiced in the west (evolution is directionless, our planet is only one super tiny place in a vast, multi-billion galaxy universe, virgins don’t give birth to babies, snakes don’t talk, dead people don’t come back to life, etc.). One can find types of religion that talk about how people should live their lives, but that isn’t the type of religion that people in the western democracies are exposed to. One can also talk about an “indifferent to humans” deist type of deity, but that isn’t what is usually meant by religion.

So I see this movement as one that is trying to put some honesty into the discussion. But we seem to have an etiquette (in the US) that puts religious beliefs into the category of “stuff that shouldn’t be critiqued” and to offer a critique is to behave a bit like this:

Speaking of common “feel good” misconceptions, there is the misconception that, because the American People like policy X, Congress (particularly the House) will pass policy X. Wrong. The House is elected locally, and what seems like “common sense” in one region is an anathema in another. What I see as “obstructionism” is seen as “standing up for us” in another district.

And no, businessmen (or business people) wouldn’t solve our problems if only they could bypass Congress and get together. For one thing: their point of view is very narrow and, they often simply don’t know what they are talking about WHEN IT COMES TO A NATIONAL ECONOMY. One succeeds as business by getting one’s group “on the same page”, delivering as little as possible for as much as possible (profit is revenue minus expense, so you maximize the revenue while minimizing the expense) and by running competitors out of business.

On an unrelated note: here Paul Krugman talks about Social Security. When it was “fixed” a few years ago, increasing life expectancy was factored in. What was NOT factored in is how the share of GDP that somes from payrolls would drop; right now capital is a bigger part of the slice. Hence reforms might have to change the mix of how Social Security is funded.


December 28, 2012 - Posted by | Democrats, economy, politics, politics/social, religion, republicans, science | , , ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: