[ RadSafe ] RE: The hot and cold of history & journalistic cr edibility

[Steven Dapra]

Feb. 8, 2007

         Lenin, Stalin, and Mao NEVER changed their minds about killing 
people by the millions.  Does that make them 'conservatives'?  They ignored 
the "proponderance of evidence" that killing is wrong.  How about Sen. Ted 
Kennedy?  He's never changed his mind about philandering, has he?  Does 
that mean Teddy Bare is a "true conservative"?

         How about you, Brent?  Will you change your mind on the definition 
of a "true conservative"?  I think someone has a little bit of an 
epistomological problem here, (and it's not me who does).  We could use a 
more intellectually rigorous example than the current Veep, too.  You're 
not talking about conservative, you're talking about unregenerately 
stubborn (intransigent?).

Steven Dapra
sjd at swcp.com


At 12:48 PM 2/9/07 +1100, ROGERS, Brent wrote:
>...or possibly because true conservatives never, I mean NEVER change their
>minds on ANYTHING once it is set, despite the preponderance of evidence
>placed before them.  The current Veep, and his continued rosy outlook on
>Iraq being the number 1 example coming to mind at the moment.
>
>Brent Rogers
>Leader Commercial Radiation Safety Group
>Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation
>PMB 1, Menai NSW 2234
>T 61 2 9717 3251
>F 61 2 9717 9266
>M 0417 231 879
>E brent.rogers at ansto.gov.au
>www.ansto.gov.au
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Syd H. Levine [mailto:syd.levine at mindspring.com]
>Sent: Friday, 9 February 2007 10:04 AM
>To: Susan Gawarecki; RADSAFE; gary at pageturners.com
>Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RE: The hot and cold of history &
>journalisticcredibility
>
>Because it is speculative alarmism?  Because conservatives seem to think
>more clearly?
>
>For some reason, there
> > is a branch of conservatism that strongly resists the scientific evidence
> > for global warming.