<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>NetCogito &#187; Topical Politics</title>
	<atom:link href="http://netcogito.com/blog/category/political-science/topical-politics/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://netcogito.com/blog</link>
	<description>Towards a new Liberalism: rational, compassionate and progressive</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:33:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Liberty: The Best Idea in History</title>
		<link>http://netcogito.com/blog/2010/07/11/liberty-the-best-idea-in-history/</link>
		<comments>http://netcogito.com/blog/2010/07/11/liberty-the-best-idea-in-history/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Jul 2010 20:19:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>tscottt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Rights and Liberties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The American Experiment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Towards a New Liberalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liberty]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://netcogito.com/blog/2010/07/11/liberty-the-best-idea-in-history/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Today, with your permission, I'd like to pay homage to the speechifying tradition. To keep things <strong>polite</strong>, I'm not going to talk about a particular candidate or party, nor praise a specific policy or polity.  In fact, I promise not to talk about anything controversial at <strong>all</strong>; and will, for the sake of friendliness and universality, limit my discourse to the following non-controversial topics:  science, economic policy, politics and religion. I will tie them with the common thread of liberty.  We'll leave more fractious debates and incendiary topics to others, and stick with these <strong>comfortable</strong> issues.  Now, I suspect you might consider this a full, perhaps <strong>too-full</strong>, agenda for such a beautiful day.  Likewise, I am obliged to be mindful of the plans you may have made-- for this evening, and will keep my comments brief.  But before you decide I've set myself an impossible task, I hasten to remind you that last year the same allotment of time proved sufficient to make good headway regarding The Meaning of Life.   Today's few topics should, <em>by comparison</em>, be much easier to manage.  So please, give me the liberty to speak for a few minutes more.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://netcogito.com/blog/2010/07/11/liberty-the-best-idea-in-history/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Broken Government &#8211; More evidence</title>
		<link>http://netcogito.com/blog/2010/02/22/broken-government-more-evidence/</link>
		<comments>http://netcogito.com/blog/2010/02/22/broken-government-more-evidence/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2010 14:51:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>tscottt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Elections, Races, Candidates & Outcomes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The American Experiment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://netcogito.com/blog/?p=81</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[According to a new CNN poll, 86% of American&#8217;s think government is &#8220;broken&#8221;, but of those, 81% think it can be fixed. A similar poll by CBS finds 70% dissatisfied. Most interesting (at least to me) is the CBS finding that &#8221; 81 percent of Americans believe members of Congress don&#8217;t deserve re-election.&#8221; Although the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://netcogito.com/blog/2010/02/22/broken-government-more-evidence/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Quaran Target Practice</title>
		<link>http://netcogito.com/blog/2008/05/18/quaran-target-practice/</link>
		<comments>http://netcogito.com/blog/2008/05/18/quaran-target-practice/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 May 2008 18:00:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>tscottt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[International Relatiions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rights and Liberties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topical Politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://netcogito.com/blog/2008/05/18/quaran-target-practice/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ have an opinion on the use of the Quran as a target for weapons practice by US personnel in Baghdad.

 

I was wondering what you other skeptics and/or atheists think.

 

I've found blogs that pretty much agree with the following, which is my opinion.

 

I view the Quaran as â€œjust another influential bookâ€. Why should I feel any differently about somebody shooting at it as opposed to, say, a Betty Crocker Cookbook? The difference as I see it, is that I highly doubt somebody just picked a random book - which happened to be the Quran - to shoot.

 

I suspect, that just like burning a flag is very often a political and philosophical statement, rather than a matter of practical expediency (i.e. keeping warm) or random happenstance, so is any non-random shooting or burning the Quran. I firmly support the right of free speech, even to the point where a citizen is entitled to burn a flag, fly a flag of choice, burn or shoot any book he may choose. On the other hand, I propose that when an official representative (e.g. a soldier, or other government agent) makes a political statement, it is sometimes difficult to separate the person from the role and thus may be easily misconstrued as an official statement. I cannot help but think it was intentionally inflamatory.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://netcogito.com/blog/2008/05/18/quaran-target-practice/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Problems with International Relations Theory</title>
		<link>http://netcogito.com/blog/2007/11/07/problems-with-international-relations-theory/</link>
		<comments>http://netcogito.com/blog/2007/11/07/problems-with-international-relations-theory/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2007 15:37:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>tscottt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[International Relatiions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://netcogito.com/blog/2007/11/07/problems-with-international-relations-theory/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Here&#8217;s a brief summary of topics I believe need further development with regards to the way scholars and professionals think about and approach International Relations. 1) The notion of disposition and relevance in defining International Relations phenomena: Potential interactions between discreet entities (e.g. nation-states or other social collectives) is largely predicated upon relational disposition.Â  Here, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://netcogito.com/blog/2007/11/07/problems-with-international-relations-theory/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Heated Debate</title>
		<link>http://netcogito.com/blog/2007/06/08/heated-debate/</link>
		<comments>http://netcogito.com/blog/2007/06/08/heated-debate/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Jun 2007 15:05:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>tscottt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Topical Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://netcogito.com/blog/2007/06/08/heated-debate/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Just when I was beginning to despair about the lack of substantive debate in government chambers, we have a reprise of the fracas between Griswold and Lyon.Â  It&#8217;s not at the national level, but we can at least hope passion is not dead in government. I would like to point out that in both instances, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://netcogito.com/blog/2007/06/08/heated-debate/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>South Carolina &#8211; Oh Dear!</title>
		<link>http://netcogito.com/blog/2007/03/16/south-carolina-oh-dear/</link>
		<comments>http://netcogito.com/blog/2007/03/16/south-carolina-oh-dear/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2007 14:55:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>tscottt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Topical Politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://netcogito.com/blog/2007/03/16/south-carolina-oh-dear/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[South Carolina has this nifty idea to cut the term of prison sentences for inmates who donate organs. Can you imagine the plea deals, &#8220;OK, I plead guilty to manslaughter and give you a kidney and half a spleen for three years plus ten probation&#8230;&#8221; &#8220;Cruel and Unusual&#8221; anybody? Maybe trafficking in organs? Perhaps somebody [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://netcogito.com/blog/2007/03/16/south-carolina-oh-dear/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Recipe for State Success</title>
		<link>http://netcogito.com/blog/2006/12/28/recipe-for-state-success/</link>
		<comments>http://netcogito.com/blog/2006/12/28/recipe-for-state-success/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Dec 2006 07:26:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>tscottt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ecomomics and Thermodynamics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energetics and Humanity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Towards a New Liberalism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://netcogito.com/blog/2006/12/28/recipe-for-state-success/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Five requirements of a free, innovative, progressive society.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://netcogito.com/blog/2006/12/28/recipe-for-state-success/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Two Stagnant Years</title>
		<link>http://netcogito.com/blog/2006/11/10/two-stagnant-years/</link>
		<comments>http://netcogito.com/blog/2006/11/10/two-stagnant-years/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Nov 2006 18:56:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>tscottt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Elections, Races, Candidates & Outcomes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political Science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://netcogito.com/blog/2006/11/10/two-stagnant-years/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The next two years will see the Federal government locked in a logjam of procedure and ideology as significant initiatives get hung up on the ego of President Bush. For all his politically expedient talk of brotherly love and non-partisan progress subsequent to the recent congressional Democratic switch, the man in the Oval Office remains [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://netcogito.com/blog/2006/11/10/two-stagnant-years/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>War on Terror &#8211; Dialogue</title>
		<link>http://netcogito.com/blog/2006/08/04/war-on-terror-diialogue/</link>
		<comments>http://netcogito.com/blog/2006/08/04/war-on-terror-diialogue/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Aug 2006 01:26:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>tscottt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Topical Politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Subject: [Topical] Dialog Concerning Economics and the War on Terror _____ From: Thompson,Scott Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 12:31 PM To: Rob; Joe Baksha Cc: Shiloh Madsen; T. Scott Thompson Subject: RE: Fun with Graphs We spend about 30% of our GDP on government (including entitlements and defense). Japan spends about 45, England 40, France [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://netcogito.com/blog/2006/08/04/war-on-terror-diialogue/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Three Assaults on Liberty</title>
		<link>http://netcogito.com/blog/2006/07/23/three-assults-on-liberty/</link>
		<comments>http://netcogito.com/blog/2006/07/23/three-assults-on-liberty/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Jul 2006 14:25:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>tscottt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Rights and Liberties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topical Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Towards a New Liberalism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://netcogito.com/blog/2006/07/23/three-assults-on-liberty/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Improvements in scientific analysis and improvements in humanityâ€™s knowledge-base of cause-and-effect relationships regarding the natural world translate neither obviously nor easily to the political and social world. As any teenager clearly demonstrates, knowing about or simply being told about dangers doesnâ€™t necessarily lead to personal belief alteration or behavior changes. It takes a certain level [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://netcogito.com/blog/2006/07/23/three-assults-on-liberty/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

