Thales

Jefferson the emanciapator won. The Declaration of Independence, an expression of individual rights, resulted in the freeing of the slaves. This is a fact. I don't know this to be true. Nor do I believe you have used an objective source. You have presented as biased an argument as is possible. This is supposition, not fact. Why are you presenting supposition as if it's fact? Which words are those? I've seen direct quotes from Jefferson where he was sickened seeing another slave owner beating his slaves. He fought against it his whole life. Ending it at the signing of the DOI would have ended it at his door step and across the entire country. So he clearly did a great deal. I note that you have the essence of Jefferson down pat... He was a spend thrift, who beat his slaves, and was a hypocrite. This according to you is the essence of the man. What have you been reading, post modernist revisionist "history"? You, quite simply, have no idea who the man was. I've read enough of his writings to know that you are so far off the mark it isn't funny.

Jefferson fought for the freeing of slaves well before he penned the Declaration of Independence. He did this free of charge. Upon the writing of the Declaration of Independence he insisted that the slaves be freed. He was very upset when he wasn't able to make this happen. Franklin, who agreed with him, advised him that it would have to be done in small steps, and the Declaration was a start. Jefferson was very adamant that slaves be treated well, and was very much concerned for their welfare. He did not free his slaves for three reason I know of 1> because laws at the time made it illegal, 2> because he was concerned that a ruthless owner would acquire one of them, and 3> because he was concerned with their abilities to take care of themselves in the conditions of that time. One of his famous phrases about not freeing the slaves is that he considered it to be a "firebell in the night". Iows, he thought it meant trouble for the future, and there he was right. Jefferson was miles ahead of most anyone in his time. He was a moral hero. 99% of us today would not have been as good as he morally, nor would we have been able to achieve as much. Remember, Jefferson helped make America possible, which lead to the freeing of slaves. That's his legacy. His severe critics are all the worse, because they are so blatantly unjust in their criticisms of him. They use our times to evalue him out of context. These are usually the same people who judge capitalism of the 1800s by the standard of our lives today, rather than by the standards of life before the 1800s.

I think the danger comes when they enact laws restricting our freedoms. Republicans in Congress, on the whole, have little passion for tax cuts and reducing regulations, but when it comes to issues like abortion, and prayer in school, they suddenly have all sorts of passion. They also have the desire to distort the founding ideals of America, putting forth the notion that this is a Christian nation. Rick Santorum is what I'd call the quintessential religious senator. Bush goes after things like stem cell research, and free speech on the air waves. Those are concrete examples of the dangers caused by religious ideas in the culture. Having said that, I'm not convinced that religion is any more powerful today than it has been in the past in this country. I gather that in the 1800s religion was a more dominate force. Though religion was not so strong around 1776, when logic was highly valued. I also acknowledge that there are better counter ideas in the culture today. I refer to none other than Objectivism. For instance, Rush Limbaugh, while he promotes the bad ideas of conservatism, also promotes the good ideas of capitalism, and frequently recommend's Ayn Rand's novels! I find the culture very hard to assess. In my day to day life, I like to focus on my career, and my dreams, always working to advance myself, and I'm fundamentally optimist from this point of view. However, I have one vigilant eye on the political scene at all times as well. That's where pessimism arises. ...John Alway

I'm not sure how to edit a message... but a couple of glaring gramatical errors need to be dealt with in my posting above. That should read "this *is* due to confounding factors..." That should read "I don't know if there *are* any really top notch scientists..." That's what I get for editing in the middle of my writing!

Global Warming is purely part of an ideological movement. Science isn't the driving factor. The temperature record has not shown any clear trend up or down since about 1920. From the mid 1800s, or so, to about 1920, there was some warming, but this was as we were coming out of the so called "little ice age". The most accurate data comes from satellite measurements of the atmosphere. These are more accurate and cover a much wider area than do ground level measurements. Satellite data over the last 25 or so years has shown no trend up or down. Well, there had be a very slight downard trend, but that was very slight. Balloon measurments are also accurate, though spotty. Balloon measurements match satellite measurments. Ground level measurements are where warming is being observed, and this are due to confounding factors, such as the "urban heat isle effect", where the concrete and bricks of buildings holds heat. Other problems are also the spottiness of the records. When the confounding factors are taken out, or where they are none existent, the ground level measurments match the satellite and balloon measurements. There are also modelers who have predicted warming. However, the modelers have been wrong about the temperature trend, in both magnitude and direction. Douglas Hoyt is a seasoned atmospheric scientist. He gives a run down on the modeler's success here : Greenhouse Warming Scorecard Also, Douglas Hoyt on climate change. He used to have a much better write up, complete with graphs and charts, but this is the best I can do for now. I"m not sure if there is any really top notch atmospheric scientists supporting the global warming theory. I do know that Richard Lindzen is perhaps the foremost atmospheric scientist in the U.S. and he doesn't agree with it. He believes there will be a very slight warming over the next 100 years, but nothing dramatic. I think some here have referenced the SEPP website, which has much information, including petitions signed by scientists against the theory. This includes lots of atmospheric scientists. This is Fred Singer's organization. Fred Singer is an atmospheric physcist, IIRC. There is also a site that was run by John Dayl, who just past away this year. But his site is still up. He used to keep track of the latest machinations of the global warming theory. His website is here: Still Waiting For Greenhouse.