Krauthammer Weighs In on ID

[BPSCG]

In thrall to the religious right, Charles Krauthammer observes: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/17/AR2005111701304.html)
Intelligent design may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud. It is a self-enclosed, tautological "theory" whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge -- in this case, evolution -- they are to be filled by God. It is a "theory" that admits that evolution and natural selection explain such things as the development of drug resistance in bacteria and other such evolutionary changes within species but also says that every once in a while God steps into this world of constant and accumulating change and says, "I think I'll make me a lemur today." A "theory" that violates the most basic requirement of anything pretending to be science -- that it be empirically disprovable. How does one empirically disprove the proposition that God was behind the lemur, or evolution -- or behind the motion of the tides or the "strong force" that holds the atom together?Note how he puts the scare quotes around "theory." More economical than saying "so-called theory" over and over.

[Hutch]

Whoa, first Will, then Krauthammer slamming ID--and obliquely the religious conservative Republicans. Will have to go googlin' to see who, if any, 'Conservative' columnists are defending Kansas/ID.

Me agreeing with both Krauthammer and Will in the same week--somethin' just ain't right with the world..

[BPSCG]

Whoa, first Will, then Krauthammer slamming ID--and obliquely the religious conservative Republicans. Will have to go googlin' to see who, if any, 'Conservative' columnists are defending Kansas/ID.

Me agreeing with both Krauthammer and Will in the same week--somethin' just ain't right with the world..Or maybe you'd been seeing Republicans tarred with the "religious right" brush for so long you'd actually come to believe it?

Maybe Republicans - like Democrats, like blacks and gays and servicemen and soccer moms and thirtysomethings - are not some monolithic force, marching in lockstep to the cadence of their drill sergeant?

Maybe (shudder) you really are a Republican?

What we were discussing in the George Will debate: the battle for ascendency in the Republican party.

Every party has these battles. The Dems' most dramatic one was in 1860, when they couldn't even agree at their convention on a nominee to run against Lincoln, the candidate of the upstart Republican party. They split three ways, with Stephen A. Douglas finally getting the actual nomination at a hastily-called special convention after the scheduled one broke up in disarray, but with John C. Brechenridge and John Bell breaking off to form their own parties. The Democratic vote thus splintered, Lincoln was easily elected, even though he didn't even appear on the ballot in most of the south (Hutch, this is for everyone else here - I know you know this stuff already...)

Then in 1948, the battle for the Democratic party was between Roosevelt's New Deal Dems and Strom Thurmond's "Dixiecrats." Smart money would have predicted a Thomas E. Dewey election in 1948, with the Dems again divided, but Truman managed to win anyway.

So, do the the creationists splinter off from the Republicans to form their own political movement (the "Cre-Publicans")? Or do they decide that much as they dislike what the right's intellectual lights have to say, that breaking with them would put the Democrats in control again, a prospect even more odious to them than losing the "teach ID in the schools" debate?

[Ed]

Will's point about some of these things giving conservatives "chills" (or whatever word he used) might be underneath it.

For a long time, until that idiot GW actually, I considered myself a conservative. I believed in minimal government intervention into my life, small government, fiscal responsibility. Socially, I was liberal. There is no place for me in GW's way of thinking and I suspect that there are many others that have had it with the damn soul saving rhetoric. Maybe there is hope.

[Ed]

Or maybe you'd been seeing Republicans tarred with the "religious right" brush for so long you'd actually come to believe it?



I think that it is because the felliation administered by the republicans to the religious right matched that administered by the Dems to blacks, both of which make Monica look like an amature.

The christians are looking for payback now, just like some black dude wanting to live next to Ted Kennedy, and some in the party are saying "whoa, when we said we loved you we didn't mean move in".

Interesting times.

[headscratcher4]

I think it is a sign of the apocolypse.

Two conservative columnists -- both whom I loath -- have written intelligently about the fraud of ID. Wow. This is just like if some staunch, defense friendly moderate-conservative decorated war veteran Democratic Congressman who supported the war in Iraq (who has often been seen as "in the pocket" of the pentagon) were to come out and state that it is time to pull out. Oh, wait...

The apoloypse is upon us....

P.S. WHen I say I "loath" them, I mean they often get under my skin and make me mad...there is an arrogance about their writting and their attitude. Having said that, they are both good writers and excellent communicators who often make solid points even if I disagree with them...which, of course, makes me hate them even more.

[Ed]

So, do the the creationists splinter off from the Republicans to form their own political movement (the "Cre-Publicans")? Or do they decide that much as they dislike what the right's intellectual lights have to say, that breaking with them would put the Democrats in control again, a prospect even more odious to them than losing the "teach ID in the schools" debate?

This is religion. R v. Wade, ID and other issues define their religiosity. I think they would go down in flames before they would compromise. I hope so, at least.

[Charlie Monoxide]

The more I think about these various epiphanies of the right-wing commentators the more I get this vision of rats abandonning a sinking ship ....

Charlie (stalwarty anti-GW) Monoxide

[Mark]

Or maybe you'd been seeing Republicans tarred with the "religious right" brush for so long you'd actually come to believe it?




I always love it when Republicans try to pretend the Religious Right are not part of the backbone of their party. It's like a cat trying to cover a mess on a tile floor.

[BPSCG]

P.S. WHen I say I "loath" them, I mean they often get under my skin and make me mad...No, when you say you "loath" them, you mean to say you "loathe" them... :D

There. Got that nit picked off...
there is an arrogance about their writting and their attitude. Having said that, they are both good writers and excellent communicators who often make solid points even if I disagree with them...which, of course, makes me hate them even more.Maybe you're just a Republican who's afraid to admit it? C'mon, headscratcher4, you can come out of the closet...

[headscratcher4]

Maybe you're just a Republican who's afraid to admit it? C'mon, headscratcher4, you can come out of the closet...

Not at all...the appeal of solid writing is always great. However, Krauthammer and Will, in particular have been loathesom :) in how they have pushed thier neo-con vision of the world and carried the drum for GW's drive to the war in Iraq. Pundits indeed.

No, I hope that I can hear truth from what ever direction it comes from, when its logic is inexcapable or well stated. Come on, you can admit that Moore makes you mad becasue in spite of his arrogance and hypocracy, you know that his points are not all wrong? :).

P.S. as an example, I hear the truth in your spelling lesson. Merci (sorry, its french) :)

[BPSCG]

Or maybe you'd been seeing Republicans tarred with the "religious right" brush for so long you'd actually come to believe it?I always love it when Republicans try to pretend the Religious Right are not part of the backbone of their party. It's like a cat trying to cover a mess on a tile floor.QED. Thank you, Mark.

Yes, the religious right is part of the Republican party. So is the fiscal-conservative right, and the social-conservative-but-not-religious-right (probably a lot of the people right here on this board), the neo-con right who don't give a pinch of owl droppings about religion one way or the other, and so on.

Krauthammer, hardly a right-wing nutjob or a religious one, has issues with abortion, but acknowledges the vast majority of Americans support the right to it, to some degree and that that battle is over. He favors federal funding of stem-cell research - perhaps partly due to his own personal situation. Will marvelled publicly at the photos from Saturn we saw last year, and justified the expense and effort to get them because when we reach for the stars, we are ultimately searching for - ourselves. that last perhaps an unconscious echo of Carl Sagan's memorable quote from his last Cosmos episode, "These are some of the things hydrogen atoms do, given four billion years of cosmic evolution."

So, Mark, you may continue painting Republicans as a bunch of Bible-thumpers. The first step in losing a battle of any kind is to underestimate your opponent. If you don't believe me, ask Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, or John Kerry.

[RandFan]

Ahhh perception. Great thread. Great posts. I'm a huge Krauthammer fan and I like George Will also. Back to perception, it's funny how an issue can serve as a Rorschach test. Charlie sees a sinking ship and Mark sees a monolithic or near monolithic party. Well, people see what they want to see. Time will tell if either or both are right. I suspect that the Republican party will evolve over time to meet the changing perspectives and needs of its constituents. Just my opinion of course.

[headscratcher4]

I think that this will put all of the permutations of the republican party into perspective...

http://www.thefrown.com/frowners/becomerepublican.swf

:)

P.S.: "Krauthammer, hardly a right-wing nutjob ..." No, pretty much a right-wing nut job, just not a "crazy right-wing nutjob" :)

[BPSCG]

Come on, you can admit that Moore makes you mad becasue in spite of his arrogance and hypocracy, you know that his points are not all wrong? :).Good FSM, could you have picked a poorer example?

I loathe Michael Moore, and not just because he's arrogant and hypocritical, plus he's a fat tub of goo. And it's not just because his points are, indeed, all wrong. It's because he has a legendary ability to twist facts out of all recognition to create an alternate, false reality that suits his political ends, and is wildly successful at selling his twisted vision to the ignoranti.

You read Krauthammer and Will and are forced, at times, and grudgingly, to agree with them. I hear Moore and ask, "How on earth can people be buying this (Rule 8)?"

Better example might be Richard Cohen, who's a pretty loonie lefty, but who I occasionally - very occasionally - find myself grudgingly agreeing with. He had a column some years ago beating up on some Republican congressman or senator on some issue. He pointed out that there is one sure sign that someone has lost the intellectual argument: When he demands, "Think of the children", when the issue at hand has little or nothing to do with children.

Pissed me off. Because he was right.
Merci (sorry, its french) :)Pas grand chose... (Trans: "No biggie...")

[headscratcher4]

Good FSM, could you have picked a poorer example?

I loathe Michael Moore, and not just because he's arrogant and hypocritical, plus he's a fat tub of goo. And it's not just because his points are, indeed, all wrong. It's because he has a legendary ability to twist facts out of all recognition to create an alternate, false reality that suits his political ends, and is wildly successful at selling his twisted vision to the ignoranti.

You read Krauthammer and Will and are forced, at times, and grudgingly, to agree with them. I hear Moore and ask, "How on earth can people be buying this (Rule 8)?"

Better example might be Richard Cohen, who's a pretty loonie lefty, but who I occasionally - very occasionally - find myself grudgingly agreeing with. He had a column some years ago beating up on some Republican congressman or senator on some issue. He pointed out that there is one sure sign that someone has lost the intellectual argument: When he demands, "Think of the children", when the issue at hand has little or nothing to do with children.

Pissed me off. Because he was right.
Pas grand chose... (Trans: "No biggie...")

I could havve used Hillary as an example, but I didn't want your brain to explode...I was only thinkiing of your welfare. I'm like that. :)

[RandFan]

Good FSM, could you have picked a poorer example?

I loathe Michael Moore, and not just because he's arrogant and hypocritical, plus he's a fat tub of goo. And it's not just because his points are, indeed, all wrong. It's because he has a legendary ability to twist facts out of all recognition to create an alternate, false reality that suits his political ends, and is wildly successful at selling his twisted vision to the ignoranti.

You read Krauthammer and Will and are forced, at times, and grudgingly, to agree with them. I hear Moore and ask, "How on earth can people be buying this (Rule 8)?"

Better example might be Richard Cohen, who's a pretty loonie lefty, but who I occasionally - very occasionally - find myself grudgingly agreeing with. He had a column some years ago beating up on some Republican congressman or senator on some issue. He pointed out that there is one sure sign that someone has lost the intellectual argument: When he demands, "Think of the children", when the issue at hand has little or nothing to do with children.

Pissed me off. Because he was right.
Pas grand chose... (Trans: "No biggie...") I can't find anything that I disagree with except that I do like Moore. I find his movies entertaining. I've just learned to take him with a heaping spoonful of salt

[Mark]

QED. Thank you, Mark.


So, Mark, you may continue painting Republicans as a bunch of Bible-thumpers. The first step in losing a battle of any kind is to underestimate your opponent. If you don't believe me, ask Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, or John Kerry.

It's your Party platform, not mine.

Believe me, I do not underestimate the Republican ability to spread effective lies,fear, and hysteria to defeat their opponents. I mean, they do control all branches of government (and look what happened!).

And for the umpteenth time: I am not a Democrat, either.

[BPSCG]

Believe me, I do not underestimate the Republican ability to spread effective lies,fear, and hysteria to defeat their opponents. And if you think that's all the appeal they have, then you do, indeed, underestimate them.

[Ryokan]

For a long time, until that idiot GW actually, I considered myself a conservative. I believed in minimal government intervention into my life, small government, fiscal responsibility.

Strange how that's actually the definition of liberalism, and still is in Europe.

[Mark]

And if you think that's all the appeal they have, then you do, indeed, underestimate them.

Perhaps.

But what else is there? Fiscal policy? Please; the 'Pubs have generated the worst deficits in the history of the nation. They have obviously lost the claim to that crown.

"Family values?" An ill-defined, yet emotional term that is used to demonize the opponents.

Foreign Policy? You can't seriously claim that as any kind of success at this point!

Abortion? Well, that has won them the majority of the Religious Right's votes.

What else is there? Other than their successful playing to people's worst emotional fears?

[Nyarlathotep]

I will interrupt the Mark and BPSCG Love Fest Hour to chime in that I find it encouraging to see influential Conservative pundits come out and say, essentially "These ID wing-nuts are really giving the Republican Party a black eye". Yes I realize the religious right isn't the sum total of the Republican Party, but of late it has been the most vocal and thus the most visible wing of the party. The Republicans are a lot less scary to me when those guys don't seem to be running the show.

[DavidJames]

I will interrupt the Mark and BPSCG Love Fest Hour to chime in that I find it encouraging to see influential Conservative pundits come out and say, essentially "These ID wing-nuts are really giving the Republican Party a black eye". Yes I realize the religious right isn't the sum total of the Republican Party, but of late it has been the most vocal and thus the most visible wing of the party. The Republicans are a lot less scary to me when those guys don't seem to be running the show.I agree with you although I'd modify part of your comments this way....I realize the religious right isn't the sum total of the Republican Party, but of late it has been the most vocal and thus the most visible and the ones that Republican voters have been electing...

[Mark]

I will interrupt the Mark and BPSCG Love Fest Hour to chime in that I find it encouraging to see influential Conservative pundits come out and say, essentially "These ID wing-nuts are really giving the Republican Party a black eye". Yes I realize the religious right isn't the sum total of the Republican Party, but of late it has been the most vocal and thus the most visible wing of the party. The Republicans are a lot less scary to me when those guys don't seem to be running the show.

We're an item. ;)

Btw, for the record, I never said the Religious Right were the sum total of the Republican Party. What I said was they are "part of the backbone of the Republican Party."

And so they are.

[Freakshow]

And for the umpteenth time: I am not a Democrat, either.You don't seem to spend much time criticizing them, though. Why not? Note that "The Republicans are the ones in power" is a total BS excuse. Why don't you jump in with Democrat-bashing, whenever someone brings up their party? You seem to whenever someone mentions the Republican party.

[Mark]

You don't seem to spend much time criticizing them, though. Why not? Note that "The Republicans are the ones in power" is a total BS excuse. Why don't you jump in with Democrat-bashing, whenever someone brings up their party? You seem to whenever someone mentions the Republican party.

I did when they were in power.

Why do I have to keep saying this? My problem is with One Party Rule. It is utterly corrupting. If you don't think so, read the papers.Trust me, if the Dems ever gain control of all 3 branches of government, you'll hear me screaming about their corruption, too.

The 90s worked, IMO (can you say balanced budget?) because the Dems controlled the White House and the 'Pubs controlled Congress; they cancelled each other out. Party loyalty---over patriotism---is preventing that from happening again, IMO.

[Freakshow]

I did when they were in power.

Why do I have to keep saying this? My problem is with One Party Rule. It is utterly corrupting. If you don't think so, read the papers.Trust me, if the Dems ever gain control of all 3 branches of government, you'll hear me screaming about their corruption, too.

The 90s worked, IMO (can you say balanced budget?) because the Dems controlled the White House and the 'Pubs controlled Congress; they cancelled each other out. Party loyalty---over patriotism---is preventing that from happening again, IMO.I'm sorry, but that's a BS excuse.

Tell me...right here, right now...with all these witnesses...what do you dislike about the Democratic party, its leadership, and its members?

Or do you think that the Democratic party is somehow more "good" than the Republican party?

[Mark]

I'm sorry, but that's a BS excuse.

Tell me...right here, right now...with all these witnesses...what do you dislike about the Democratic party, its leadership, and its members?

Or do you think that the Democratic party is somehow more "good" than the Republican party?

Unsurprisingly, this has been tried before. Keep in mind, this is a list in response to your question, not an attempt to engage you in a debate on these topics. Start another thread(s) if you want to do that.

My current problem with the Democrats nationally is the way they turned into a bunch of limp wieners regarding the Iraq invasion. They are now acting like they knew it was bogus all along, and that makes me very angry. It leave us wide open for the same thing to happen again...war fever driving us into a totally irrational quagmire. There are supposed to be checks and balances, and they dropped the ball. Dropped it? My God, they punted it out of the stadium!

In California, I am very displeased by their lack of leadership regarding our budget deficit. The Republicans are no better, but they are not the majority party in the Legislature, so that doesn't matter. The Democrats need to grow some stones and start proposing something substantive in the way of a solition.

To be fair, on social issues and the environment I do tend to agree with Democrats more than Republicans. On the other hand, I tend to agree more often with the Republicans regarding non-corporate law enforcement issues.

With the exception of the last election, I have never voted for a major party candidate for president.

Sorry you feel my views are a "BS excuse." I could say the same about blind party loyalty.

[jj]

In thrall to the religious right, Charles Krauthammer observes: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/17/AR2005111701304.html)
Note how he puts the scare quotes around "theory." More economical than saying "so-called theory" over and over.

Where were they before the elections? The trend to legislate religion as science has been completely visible for at least a decade.

Too little, too late.

[Freakshow]

Unsurprisingly, this has been tried before. Keep in mind, this is a list in response to your question, not an attempt to engage you in a debate on these topics. Start another thread(s) if you want to do that.

My current problem with the Democrats nationally is the way they turned into a bunch of limp wieners regarding the Iraq invasion. They are now acting like they knew it was bogus all along, and that makes me very angry. It leave us wide open for the same thing to happen again...war fever driving us into a totally irrational quagmire. There are supposed to be checks and balances, and they dropped the ball. Dropped it? My God, they punted it out of the stadium!

In California, I am very displeased by their lack of leadership regarding our budget deficit. The Republicans are no better, but they are not the majority party in the Legislature, so that doesn't matter. The Democrats need to grow some stones and start proposing something substantive in the way of a solition.

To be fair, on social issues and the environment I do tend to agree with Democrats more than Republicans. On the other hand, I tend to agree more often with the Republicans regarding non-corporate law enforcement issues.

With the exception of the last election, I have never voted for a major party candidate for president.

Sorry you feel my views are a "BS excuse." I could say the same about blind party loyalty.Hmmm...so you didn't say anything about them like you did with Republicans. Such as saying "What else is there? Other than their successful playing to people's worst emotional fears?" So...you think Republicans are worthless con-men (which I think they are) that simply play on people's emotional fears (which I think they do). But you don't think that the Democrat's are JUST as bad, and do EXACTLY the same thing? (I think they are, and I think they do.)

All you said was basically "They're too wimpy in battling those evil Republicans."

[Mark]

Hmmm...so you didn't say anything about them like you did with Republicans. Such as saying "What else is there? Other than their successful playing to people's worst emotional fears?" So...you think Republicans are worthless con-men (which I think they are) that simply play on people's emotional fears (which I think they do). But you don't think that the Democrat's are JUST as bad, and do EXACTLY the same thing? (I think they are, and I think they do.)

All you said was basically "They're too wimpy in battling those evil Republicans."

You asked me a question and I answered it openly and honestly.

You respond by putting words in my mouth that I never said. That is called lying.

[Freakshow]

You asked me a question and I answered it openly and honestly.

You respond by putting words in my mouth that I never said. That is called lying.I'll take that as a "Yes, I think Democrats are better people, less corrupt, and have better intentions than Republicans."

[Mark]

I'll take that as a "Yes, I think Democrats are better people, less corrupt, and have better intentions that Republicans."

As I said, I tried to answer your impertinent question openly and honestly. But there is clearly no answer I can give that will satisfy you.

I said that having control of all 3 branches of government is corrupting. I did not say say it wouldn't be if the Democrats in charge. I said the opposite. You are a liar.

[Freakshow]

As I said, I tried to answer your impertinent question openly and honestly. But there is clearly no answer I can give that will satisfy you.

I said that having control of all 3 branches of government is corrupting. I did not say say it wouldn't be if it were the Democrats in charge. I said the opposite. You are a liar.Well, you could clarify by giving a blunt response as to whether or not you think Democrats are better/less corrupt/have better intentations than Republicans. It would only take you about 30 seconds or so to write up. But you seem to be dodging the issue. I wonder why you won't give a direct response to such a simple statement?

[Mark]

Well, you could clarify by giving a blunt response as to whether or not you think Democrats are better/less corrupt/have better intentations than Republicans. It would only take you about 30 seconds or so to write up. But you seem to be dodging the issue. I wonder why you won't give a direct response to such a simple statement?

I haven't dodged anything...so once again you are lying. I do wish you would stop that. Also, you have not defined "corrupt" so I will use my own definition.

Do I think corporate lobbyists are ruining this country through buying our politicians? Yes.

Do I think the Republicans are worse? Yes, but only because they are in charge. If the Democrats had the 3 branch majority, I have no doubt they would get the lion's share of corporate largesse.

Got it? Or do I ned to use smaller words?

[Freakshow]

I haven't dodged anything...so once again you are lying. I do wish you would stop that. Also, you have not defined "corrupt" so I will use my own definition.

Do I think corporate lobbyists are ruining this country through buying our politicians? Yes.

Do I think the Republicans are worse? Yes, but only because they are in charge. If the Democrats had the 3 branch majority, I have no doubt they would get the lion's share of corporate largesse.

Got it? Or do I ned to use smaller words?TRUE of FALSE: Democrats are better people, less corrupt, and have better intentions than Republicans

Answer true or false please, and then, if you wish, explain your anwer.

My answer is "False". What's yours?

[BPSCG]

We're an item. ;):c2: Kiss kiss...

[BPSCG]

I did when they were in power.Your JREF join date is September, 2001. Who was in power then?

[headscratcher4]

:c2: Kiss kiss...

Watch it, some of us are eating here....

[CBL4]

IMO, Krauthammer, Will and Cohen are what I consider "old school" columnists. They have their biases but they are will to bash their own side when appropriate. They also have much more coherent arguments and are reasonably polite. The newer columnists (and talking heads) are ideologues who bash first and think later (if ever.) They are rabid and not worth reading.

Will used to be one of my least favorite columnist but each year he is looking better and better in comparison to others.

BTW, the Washignton Post has excellent columnist - Broder, Applebaum, Hoagland, Samuelson, etc. With the exception of Ellen Goodman, I enjoy reading them all.

CBL

[BPSCG]

BTW, the Washignton Post has excellent columnist - Broder, Applebaum, Hoagland, Samuelson, etc. With the exception of Ellen Goodman, I enjoy reading them all. Don't forget E.J. Dionne, the poor man's Maureen Dowd. If he was any more in bed with the Dems, his wife would divorce him.

[Mark]

TRUE of FALSE: Democrats are better people, less corrupt, and have better intentions than Republicans

Answer true or false please, and then, if you wish, explain your anwer.

My answer is "False". What's yours?

Asked and answered.

Here's what I said
Do I think the Republicans are worse? Yes, but only because they are in charge. If the Democrats had the 3 branch majority, I have no doubt they would get the lion's share of corporate largesse.

Which part is confusing for you?

[Freakshow]

Asked and answered.

Here's what I said


Which part is confusing for you?The part where your response only talked about corporate lobbying, and skipped over the more broad categories of overalll honesty, corruption, and intentions.

[Mark]

The part where your response only talked about corporate lobbying, and skipped over the more broad categories of overalll honesty, corruption, and intentions.

The part where I complained that you did not provide a definition of corrupt, so I would use my own.

Here is what I said:
Also, you have not defined "corrupt" so I will use my own definition.

Do I think corporate lobbyists are ruining this country through buying our politicians? Yes.

Do I think the Republicans are worse? Yes, but only because they are in charge. If the Democrats had the 3 branch majority, I have no doubt they would get the lion's share of corporate largesse.

If you are going to demand I answer your questions, I should think the very least you could do is read the f***ing answers.

[Freakshow]

The part where I complained that you did not provide a definition of corrupt, so I would use my own.

Here is what I said:


If you are going to demand I answer your questions, I should think the very least you could do is read the f***ing answers.http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?postid=1279894#post1279894

What about playing on people's emotional fears?

[Mark]

http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?postid=1279894#post1279894

What about playing on people's emotional fears?

Uh...OK. This is getting tedious. Is there a question there? Are you asking if I think Democrats play to people's emotional fears? Yes, of course, although not as consistently or effectively as the Republicans. If you think that is wrong, I remind you of who controls the enire government. And it ain't the Democrats, Sparky.

Still, it is in politicians'---of both parties---best interest to keep us arguing about irrelevancies like abortion, race relations, gay marriage, etc. That way we don't focus too much on what they are really doing...selling out the country.

[BPSCG]

One thing I noticed about Krauthammer's column: He beats up on ID, on creationism - not on creationists. His argument is not with the people, but the ideas.

I'm sure it will surprise no one that I read a lot more conservative commentary than liberal, so I need some help here from the lefties. No doubt, the liberal columnists have also attacked the idea of teaching ID in schools. Do they do what Krauthammer did - eloquently and forcefully attack ID itself, as opposed to its proponents? Or do they instead attack the supporters of ID as a bunch of red-state knuckle-draggers, while giving short shrift to the actual case against ID?

[Mark]

One thing I noticed about Krauthammer's column: He beats up on ID, on creationism - not on creationists. His argument is not with the people, but the ideas.

I'm sure it will surprise no one that I read a lot more conservative commentary than liberal, so I need some help here from the lefties. No doubt, the liberal columnists have also attacked the idea of teaching ID in schools. Do they do what Krauthammer did - eloquently and forcefully attack ID itself, as opposed to its proponents? Or do they instead attack the supporters of ID as a bunch of red-state knuckle-draggers, while giving short shrift to the actual case against ID?

The "Lefties"---meaning Democrats, not the ACLU (who are not really Leftists, anyway) tend to be silent on the subject (cowards) as far as I can tell. Note I said "tend," please; I know there are exceptions.

Most of the argument against seems to come from people with at least some scientific background and who tend to be otherwise apolitical. Just my impression...not stating it as fact. But I think that is why it is creeping in everywhere...the pro-ID/Creationsim people are pretty successful at portraying it as a family values issue---and how many people want to come out against that?

[BPSCG]

The "Lefties"---meaning Democrats, not the ACLU (who are not really Leftists, anyway) tend to be silent on the subject (cowards) as far as I can tell. Note I said "tend," please; I know there are exceptions.Where are the Maureen Dowds and the E.J. Dionnes and the Richard Cohens on this important issue? This is about education. For FSM's sake, think of the children!

[Mark]

Where are the Maureen Dowds and the E.J. Dionnes and the Richard Cohens on this important issue? This is about education. For FSM's sake, think of the children!

I actually agree with your last 2 lines. We should think of the children and their future in this world.

As far as where those columnists stand on the issue, I have no idea. Does it matter? I thought we were talking about politicans; maybe I misunderstood that.

[BPSCG]

As far as where those columnists stand on the issue, I have no idea. Does it matter? I thought we were talking about politicans; maybe I misunderstood that.Krauthammer's a politician? Who knew?

I went to the NY Times website and trolled back to October 1, looking for a single column about ID by any of their regular columnists.

Zilch.

Lotsa stuff about Scooter Libby, though...

[Nyarlathotep]

One thing I noticed about Krauthammer's column: He beats up on ID, on creationism - not on creationists. His argument is not with the people, but the ideas.

I'm sure it will surprise no one that I read a lot more conservative commentary than liberal, so I need some help here from the lefties. No doubt, the liberal columnists have also attacked the idea of teaching ID in schools. Do they do what Krauthammer did - eloquently and forcefully attack ID itself, as opposed to its proponents? Or do they instead attack the supporters of ID as a bunch of red-state knuckle-draggers, while giving short shrift to the actual case against ID?

Most of the ones I have read attack the idea. I am sure one could dredge up some far left blog or something doing exactly as you describe, but then again I could probably dredge up a choice comment or two by people on the far right as well. As far as the mainstream goes, though, I think most attacks on ID are one the concept, not the proponents.

The last one I read (no link, sorry, I can't even remember exactly where I read it) was mostly an admonishment to both sides of the debate. It pointed out to the IDers that "Goddidit" isn't a satisfactory answer to anything in a scientific sense, it pointed out to the opponents of ID that sceince doesn't speak to the existance of God one way or the other and they should refrain from saying so. A bit strawmannish on both sides, but not really demonizing either. It's pretty typical of the sort of thing I have read on both sides, though.

[Mark]

Krauthammer's a politician? Who knew?

I went to the NY Times website and trolled back to October 1, looking for a single column about ID by any of their regular columnists.

Zilch.

Lotsa stuff about Scooter Libby, though...

So what is your point?

First, you didn't search the NY Times very well at all (big surprise). From May 17, 2005 (and I found this within 30 seconds):
State school board science standards would do better to include a statement like this: While well-tested theories like evolution and the Big Bang have provided remarkable new insights and predictions about nature, questions of purpose that may underlie these discoveries are outside the scope of science, and scientists themselves have many different views in this regard.http://genesis1.phys.cwru.edu/~krauss/17comm2.html

Besides, I already said that my impression was most of the people coming out against ID/Creationsim were fairly apolitical, but that there were, of course, exceptions..I mean, are you seriously trying to make the claim that only the Right Wing have come out against ID/Creationism?!?!?!

Well, maybe you are; I mean, you probably buy the ultimate BS about Bush never linking 9/11 and Iraq.

[BPSCG]

First, you didn't search the NY Times very well at all (big surprise). From May 17, 2005 (and I found this within 30 seconds):
http://genesis1.phys.cwru.edu/~krauss/17comm2.html (http://genesis1.phys.cwru.edu/%7Ekrauss/17comm2.html)
I went to the Times's website and went through the archives of their columnists, which went back only to October 1. Any farther back and I'd have had to pay $$$ and I ain't about to make Punch Sulzberger any richer than he already is. I have other things to do today (the bathroom remodeling is coming along nicely, but my hair is now full of ceramic tile dust...).

In any case, your link is to an article by a physics professor, which doesn't address the question I was asking, which was, do any left-wing columnists have anything to say about the ID controversy, and if so, what tack do they take. You seem to be having trouble giving straight answers today, aren't you (I was giggling at your exchange with Freakshow...)?
I mean, are you seriously trying to make the claim that only the Right Wing have come out against ID/Creationism?!?!?!No. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. I'm sure the left has written about it. At least I'd expect them to have. I was wondering what form their criticism might take. Try to read what I wrote, not what you'd like me to have written.
Well, maybe you are; I mean, you probably buy the ultimate BS about Bush never linking 9/11 and Iraq.This is not just a derail; it's driving the train off the cliff. So let's try to make it a short derail. Please put up a link to any speech Bush made where he said Saddam was involved in the events of September 11, 2001. Not that he had a relationship with al Qaeda or was trying to build one, but that he was involved in the events of September 11, 2001. Otherwise, get back on-topic.

[Freakshow]

Uh...OK. This is getting tedious. Is there a question there? Are you asking if I think Democrats play to people's emotional fears? Yes, of course, although not as consistently or effectively as the Republicans. If you think that is wrong, I remind you of who controls the enire government. And it ain't the Democrats, Sparky.

Still, it is in politicians'---of both parties---best interest to keep us arguing about irrelevancies like abortion, race relations, gay marriage, etc. That way we don't focus too much on what they are really doing...selling out the country.Its only tedious because you refused to answer a very simple true/false question.

If we assume for a moment that Republicans do play to people's emotional fears more consistently than Democrats (I won't bother asking how you measured it)...do you think that is solely because the Republicans are in power now? Or do you think that Democrats, if they were in power, would be playing to people's fears less consistently than the Republicans do now?

[Ryokan]

This 'OMG, one party controls the entire government!' reasoning sounds very strange to me.

I mean, isn't it up to the voters to elect them into power? Isn't that what they've done? When you have two parties, isn't it really damn easy for one party to gain control like that? It's even possible if you have many parties. It happened frequently in Norway back in the days when we had only two parties (well over a hundred years ago). It has happened in modern times as well, when Labour gained majority in the parliament. That's how democracy works, the people vote and the results of those votes decides which people get the power.

What do you suggest the American public do, Mark? Have a quota on how many can vote on one party in a given election? 'Sorry, folks, the Republicans control the Sentate and the Congress, so for this presidential election, you can only vote for a Democrat.'

I just don't get it.

[Elind]

Whoa, first Will, then Krauthammer slamming ID--and obliquely the religious conservative Republicans. Will have to go googlin' to see who, if any, 'Conservative' columnists are defending Kansas/ID.

Me agreeing with both Krauthammer and Will in the same week--somethin' just ain't right with the world..

Maybe, just maybe, it indicates a case for optinism in human rationality, ultimately?

Now all we need is for O'Reilly to slam the IDers and the universe will stop wobbling.

[Elind]

The part where your response only talked about corporate lobbying, and skipped over the more broad categories of overalll honesty, corruption, and intentions.

How about the part of "God is on our side"? (Of course He is on all sides, like any good instigator; but the question is, who makes the claim loudest?).

[BPSCG]

I just don't get it.Actually, it sounds to me like you "get it" very well.

[Mark]

Its only tedious because you refused to answer a very simple true/false question.

If we assume for a moment that Republicans do play to people's emotional fears more consistently than Democrats (I won't bother asking how you measured it)...do you think that is solely because the Republicans are in power now? Or do you think that Democrats, if they were in power, would be playing to people's fears less consistently than the Republicans do now?

I have answered each of your questions up to now as honestly and openly as I could. In return I have received lies and insults.

In the above post, you ask me questions which I have already answered---and within the very question!---you give a reason to (in your mind) reject any new answer before I even give it.

If you really want to know the answers, read my posts on this thread; I have already answered them. What point is there to my doing so over and over? You either cannot or will not understand the answers.

[BPSCG]

I have answered each of your questions up to now as honestly and openly as I could. In return I have received lies and insults. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/05/DS19_gagne.jpg/180px-DS19_gagne.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5d/GIBSPHU016001.jpg/180px-GIBSPHU016001.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/ff/Jackie_Robinson.jpg/180px-Jackie_Robinson.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cd/Koufax4Balls.jpg

[Ryokan]

Mark, if you don't want to debate with Freakshow, why are you replying to him instead of replying to my serious questions?

[billydkid]

I considered myself a conservative. I believed in minimal government intervention into my life, small government, fiscal responsibility.

Unfortunately, conservatives, as we have come to know them in this country, never did really believe in those things. One would have to be monumentally stupid to associate fiscal responsibility, minimal intervention into our lives and small governent with the people who have been running the country in recent years. And yet, there still loads of people going around claiming that.

[Elind]

One thing I noticed about Krauthammer's column: He beats up on ID, on creationism - not on creationists. His argument is not with the people, but the ideas.

I'm sure it will surprise no one that I read a lot more conservative commentary than liberal, so I need some help here from the lefties. No doubt, the liberal columnists have also attacked the idea of teaching ID in schools. Do they do what Krauthammer did - eloquently and forcefully attack ID itself, as opposed to its proponents? Or do they instead attack the supporters of ID as a bunch of red-state knuckle-draggers, while giving short shrift to the actual case against ID?

I don't think that argument has much weight. Whatever the topic, do you think there is less demonizing of the left by the right than the other way around? What, for example, are you doing in the above comment?

[Ryokan]

Still no reply to my questions, Mark? I'm going to assume you haven't really thought your position on the matter through, then.

It's a shame, I was really trying to understand your position.

[BPSCG]

What, for example, are you doing in the above comment?I thought I was just asking a simple question: Have liberal columnists written about the ID controversy, and if so, did they attack ID itself, or attack its proponents? They've been known to do the latter, you know. A lot.

[fishbob]

I thought I was just asking a simple question: Have liberal columnists written about the ID controversy, and if so, did they attack ID itself, or attack its proponents? They've been known to do the latter, you know. A lot.You say that like it is a bad thing.

[Elind]

I thought I was just asking a simple question: Have liberal columnists written about the ID controversy, and if so, did they attack ID itself, or attack its proponents? They've been known to do the latter, you know. A lot.
Yes they do, but you seemed to suggest that this is fundamentally wrong in some way. I'm just saying that the right does as much character slamming as anyone else when it comes to fundamental differences.

On the other hand I don't necessarily think there is anything wrong with that in the case of a straight science versus superstition situation.

What is the point of attempting to summarize all scientific knowledge on evolution in a specific debate, when such data is easily available from innumerable sources to anyone who wants to understand?

Clearly ID proponents have decided to ignore whatever data doesn't fit their fantasy, and that is a character flaw, not a valid scientific argument.

They deserve to be slammed, personally.

[Mark]

This 'OMG, one party controls the entire government!' reasoning sounds very strange to me.

I mean, isn't it up to the voters to elect them into power? Isn't that what they've done? When you have two parties, isn't it really damn easy for one party to gain control like that? It's even possible if you have many parties. It happened frequently in Norway back in the days when we had only two parties (well over a hundred years ago). It has happened in modern times as well, when Labour gained majority in the parliament. That's how democracy works, the people vote and the results of those votes decides which people get the power.

What do you suggest the American public do, Mark? Have a quota on how many can vote on one party in a given election? 'Sorry, folks, the Republicans control the Sentate and the Congress, so for this presidential election, you can only vote for a Democrat.'

I just don't get it.


Surely in a Democracy, I can voice my concern and try to encourage bi-partisanship? I have not proposed any legislation to require it. Or is it now illegal to challenge Republican domination?

I suggest that the American public wake up and realize that One Party Rule is bankrupting our country...fiscally and morally. But if they choose to continue down this path, there is nothing else I can do about it. The people can continue to vote themselves "Bread and Circuses" if that's what they want.

[Mark]

Mark, if you don't want to debate with Freakshow, why are you replying to him instead of replying to my serious questions?

All evidence to the contrary, I do not live on this board. I have been gone for the last 24 hours or so. Jeez.

[Ryokan]

All evidence to the contrary, I do not live on this board. I have been gone for the last 24 hours or so. Jeez.

You replied to others after I asked my questions, otherwise I would've assumed you were not around and not beg you to adress my post as I did.

Are you going to? I'm still keen to learn your position and reasoning.

[Mark]

You replied to others after I asked my questions, otherwise I would've assumed you were not around and not beg you to adress my post as I did.

Are you going to? I'm still keen to learn your position and reasoning.

Thought I did; please see the above post.

Cheers.

[Freakshow]

I have answered each of your questions up to now as honestly and openly as I could. In return I have received lies and insults.

In the above post, you ask me questions which I have already answered---and within the very question!---you give a reason to (in your mind) reject any new answer before I even give it.

If you really want to know the answers, read my posts on this thread; I have already answered them. What point is there to my doing so over and over? You either cannot or will not understand the answers.As BPSCG said (with a great visual demonstration), that was yet another dodge.

I'll ask again: If we assume for a moment that Republicans do play to people's emotional fears more consistently than Democrats (I won't bother asking how you measured it)...do you think that is solely because the Republicans are in power now? Or do you think that Democrats, if they were in power, would be playing to people's fears less consistently than the Republicans do now?

I know what is happening here. You DO in fact lean strongly towards the Democrats, and you do think they are "better people" than Republicans. But you make up this BS about "I'm not a Democrat, either" (you might not be a registered Democrat, but you definately lean towards finding them superior to Republicans), simply because it gives more credibility to your Republican-bashing.

[Mark]

As BPSCG said (with a great visual demonstration), that was yet another dodge.

I'll ask again: If we assume for a moment that Republicans do play to people's emotional fears more consistently than Democrats (I won't bother asking how you measured it)...do you think that is solely because the Republicans are in power now? Or do you think that Democrats, if they were in power, would be playing to people's fears less consistently than the Republicans do now?

I know what is happening here. You DO in fact lean strongly towards the Democrats, and you do think they are "better people" than Republicans. But you make up this BS about "I'm not a Democrat, either" (you might not be a registered Democrat, but you definately lean towards finding them superior to Republicans), simply because it gives more credibility to your Republican-bashing.


Asked and answered, counselor.

[Freakshow]

Asked and answered, counselor.DODGE! AGAIN!

Its okay, though. I have my answer. Just like I said a couple posts ago: I know what is happening here. You DO in fact lean strongly towards the Democrats, and you do think they are "better people" than Republicans. But you make up this BS about "I'm not a Democrat, either" (you might not be a registered Democrat, but you definately lean towards finding them superior to Republicans), simply because it gives more credibility to your Republican-bashing.

[Mark]

DODGE! AGAIN!

Its okay, though. I have my answer. Just like I said a couple posts ago: I know what is happening here. You DO in fact lean strongly towards the Democrats, and you do think they are "better people" than Republicans. But you make up this BS about "I'm not a Democrat, either" (you might not be a registered Democrat, but you definately lean towards finding them superior to Republicans), simply because it gives more credibility to your Republican-bashing.

Your lies are getting increasingly irritating.

I already said I lean toward the Democrats on most social and envionmental issues. I also said (and gave an example) of how I lean toward the Republicans on others.

I have never said, even once, that Democrats are "better people." You are a liar. THAT is the reason I am refusing to answer any more of your dumb questions. That and the fact that I HAVE answered them, multiple times. I shouldn't be held responsible because you can't read.

[Freakshow]

I have never said, even once, that Democrats are "better people." But you have refused to actually come out and state "No, I don't think that Democrats are better people than Republicans. I think both sides have the same character flaws." I wonder why that is?

If you believe one side is actually made of better and more honest people than the other, that's fine. But at least admit it. Why won't you step up and make a definitive statement? Why are you afraid?

I know why. Already stated: I know what is happening here. You DO in fact lean strongly towards the Democrats, and you do think they are "better people" than Republicans. But you make up this BS about "I'm not a Democrat, either" (you might not be a registered Democrat, but you definately lean towards finding them superior to Republicans), simply because it gives more credibility to your Republican-bashing.

[Ryokan]

Thought I did; please see the above post.

Cheers.

Ah, I'm terribly sorry, I didn't see that post.

Thank you, your position is now clear to me.

[Mark]

But you have refused to actually come out and state "No, I don't think that Democrats are better people than Republicans. I think both sides have the same character flaws." I wonder why that is?

If you believe one side is actually made of better and more honest people than the other, that's fine. But at least admit it. Why won't you step up and make a definitive statement? Why are you afraid?

I know why. Already stated: I know what is happening here. You DO in fact lean strongly towards the Democrats, and you do think they are "better people" than Republicans. But you make up this BS about "I'm not a Democrat, either" (you might not be a registered Democrat, but you definately lean towards finding them superior to Republicans), simply because it gives more credibility to your Republican-bashing.

If you would like to get along with me and engage in a meaningful discussion, stop putting words my mouth and thoughts in my head with which I not only disagree, but actually repudiate.

Tell you what, you answer a question for me: Do you think partisan Republicans are better people than partisan Democrats?

[Freakshow]

If you would like to get along with me and engage in a meaningful discussion, stop putting words my mouth and thoughts in my head with which I not only disagree, but actually repudiate.

Tell you what, you answer a question for me: Do you think partisan Republicans are better people than partisan Democrats?No, ABSOLUTELY not! I think they are the same, except they just weigh in on different sides of the issues. But I think that in terms of honesty, integrity, intentions, etc., they are just the same.

For example...its obvious that right-wing Republicans don't care about the poor. But you know what? Left-wing Democrats don't, either. Their claims that they do, and their backing of certain programs, are just a sham, to get elected. They don't actually care about the poor anymore than the right-wing Republicans do. In fact, I would say that some of those left-wing Democrats don't WANT the poor to improve their situation. If that happened, they'd lose a major voting block.

I think both political extremes are equally worthless b****rds.

[Mark]

No, ABSOLUTELY not! I think they are the same, except they just weigh in on different sides of the issues. But I think that in terms of honesty, integrity, intentions, etc., they are just the same.

For example...its obvious that right-wing Republicans don't care about the poor. But you know what? Left-wing Democrats don't, either. Their claims that they do, and their backing of certain programs, are just a sham, to get elected. They don't actually care about the poor anymore than the right-wing Republicans do. In fact, I would say that some of those left-wing Democrats don't WANT the poor to improve their situation. If that happened, they'd lose a major voting block.

I think both political extremes are equally worthless b****rds.

I agree with your statement more or less. Except for a couple of points:

a) The subject seems to be the partisan politicians. I am not (here) referring to the voters.

b) I have never seen any evidence that Democrats or Republicans want the poor to stay poor. What they all want is power and money (I am speaking in generalities; of course there are individual exceptions). If having poor gives them that, then that's what they want (in either party); if eliminating the poor would give them power and money, then that's what they would want, IMO.

Democrats may want the poor as a voting block, but Republicans want those fat corporate donations and will help transfer the wealth into the hands of the wealthy at every opportunity to keep 'em coming; as evidence, I note that the Republicans just yesterday narrowly defeated the attempt to eliminate Bush's "temporary" (he lied) tax breaks for the very wealthy. But Democrats have done this sort of thing too, although not as successfully.

[DavidJames]

Left-wing Democrats don't, either. Their claims that they do, and their backing of certain programs, are just a sham, to get elected. They don't actually care about the poor anymore than the right-wing Republicans do. In fact, I would say that some of those left-wing Democrats don't WANT the poor to improve their situation. evidence for each of these statements please.

[Freakshow]

evidence for each of these statements please.My personal belief, based on examining the ineffectiveness of social programs in treating poverty, combined with examining the personal wealth of some of these left-wing Democrats (if they care SO MUCH, why are they millionaires?)

You aren't going to find any sort of secret document revealing the true motives of either party. We can infer a person's intentions and thoughts by examining their actions and words.

[Mark]

You aren't going to find any sort of secret document revealing the true motives of either party. We can infer a person's intentions and thoughts by examining their actions and words.

Right...and the fact that we still have poor at the levels we do indicates to me that neither party is doing what they should.

And the situation is worsening...I, for one, do consider our budget deficit to be very, very alarming. There is a major transfer of wealth going on in this country...and it ain't going to the poor.

[Freakshow]

Right...and the fact that we still have poor at the levels we do indicates to me that neither party is doing what they should.

And the situation is worsening...I, for one, do consider our budget deficit to be very, very alarming. There is a major transfer of wealth going on in this country...and it ain't going to the poor.I also consider the budget deficit to be a huge problem. I don't think you'll find many that don't. I just disagree about the wealth transfer. But that's a whole different topic. :)

[Mark]

I also consider the budget deficit to be a huge problem. I don't think you'll find many that don't. I just disagree about the wealth transfer. But that's a whole different topic. :)

Many---such as Rush Limbaugh---are now making the argument that deficits are good for the country. And this after 50 years of saying the opposite.

As far as the transfer of wealth...that is indeed another topic. I note with interest (pun intended) that my brother-in-law is a federal bank examiner---and staunch Republican---who agrees with me completely on that subject.

[BPSCG]

Yes they do, but you seemed to suggest that this is fundamentally wrong in some way. I'm just saying that the right does as much character slamming as anyone else when it comes to fundamental differences.Perhaps. But ID can be attacked on its merits (or lack thereof), without having to attack the people who believe in it as 14th-century reactionaries. There's a big difference between saying, "Your science is wrong, and here's why," and "If you believe in ID, you must be a stupid dootyhead and a devout Christian because only stupid dootyhead Christians believe in ID."

The liberal columnists - you know who they are - who write for the New York Times get great pleasure in making mock of the ignorance of religious fundamentalists. I''m trying to find out if they've written anything on ID, and if so, have they attacked it on scientific grounds, the way Krauthammer did, or have they reverted to their usual sneering condescension of Christians?

Krauthammer performed a very useful service; as a widely-read columnist, he explained to a lot of people who don't know which side of the evolution/ID debate to believe, why ID is just religion tricked up as science. He wasn't speaking to the true believers, because they're hopeless anyway, and he wasn't speaking to us, because every one of us could read his column and understand and agree with every word he said. He was writing for the people who honestly don't know that ID is phony science, who don't know which side to believe at school board meetings. Others should do the same. Do they? That's what my question was.

BTW, if you simply don't know, "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer...

[BPSCG]

Many---such as Rush Limbaugh---are now making the argument that deficits are good for the country. So did a former Secretary of the Treasury - Alexander Hamilton - a well-known right-wing wackjob.

[BPSCG]

Originally Posted by Freakshow http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/misc/backlink.gif (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?p=1283085#post1282608):
I also consider the budget deficit to be a huge problem. I don't think you'll find many that don't. I just disagree about the wealth transfer. But that's a whole different topic. :) Many---such as Rush Limbaugh---are now making the argument that deficits are good for the country. And this after 50 years of saying the opposite.

As far as the transfer of wealth...that is indeed another topic. I note with interest (pun intended) that my brother-in-law is a federal bank examiner---and staunch Republican---who agrees with me completely on that subject.http://www.mwnews.net/assets/images/Marquette-RR-derail-lg.jpg

[Elind]

Perhaps. But ID can be attacked on its merits (or lack thereof), without having to attack the people who believe in it as 14th-century reactionaries. There's a big difference between saying, "Your science is wrong, and here's why," and "If you believe in ID, you must be a stupid dootyhead and a devout Christian because only stupid dootyhead Christians believe in ID."

The liberal columnists - you know who they are - who write for the New York Times get great pleasure in making mock of the ignorance of religious fundamentalists. I''m trying to find out if they've written anything on ID, and if so, have they attacked it on scientific grounds, the way Krauthammer did, or have they reverted to their usual sneering condescension of Christians?

Krauthammer performed a very useful service; as a widely-read columnist, he explained to a lot of people who don't know which side of the evolution/ID debate to believe, why ID is just religion tricked up as science. He wasn't speaking to the true believers, because they're hopeless anyway, and he wasn't speaking to us, because every one of us could read his column and understand and agree with every word he said. He was writing for the people who honestly don't know that ID is phony science, who don't know which side to believe at school board meetings. Others should do the same. Do they? That's what my question was.

BTW, if you simply don't know, "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer...
I appreciate the elaboration, but I think I understood you the first time:)

I've read many abreviations of the argument against ID. Krauthammer's was one of the best, not because of the logic involved, but because my impression is that he eloquently called the IDers morons.

I can't say that I've kept track of all the other opinions I've read, as to their typical political leaning, but no doubt many are "liberal". For example I haven't heard O'Reilly take on the fundies on this issue.

However, while I think I'm getting better at not calling people dootyheads in most situations, I do think that those who pick and choose the results of science (like how we manage this communication, for example) without most likely having the slightest idea of how any of it actually works, then turn around and say that those same scientists are all wrong on something as fundamental as evolution....are dootyheads; and they should be called that.

ID CANNOT be attacked on it's merits, because it has no merits according to scientific principles. Just like any form of creationism, it is a moving target that rejects all logic or fact that contradicts what they already know to be the truth. There is no common system of logic to attack or defend.

This is not an argument that can be won between a group of adults who have chosen education and another who have chosen ignorance; except by calling the latter what they are... ignorant dootyheads.

[BPSCG]

This is not an argument that can be won between a group of adults who have chosen education and another who have chosen ignorance; except by calling the latter what they are... ignorant dootyheads.I said the ignoranti were a lost cause anyway; nobody's trying to persuade them. But it's the great mass of people in the middle, who have little clear understanding of science, who have to be persuaded. Because if they aren't, they're going to see the battle over ID as just one side - evolutionists - vs. the other - ID-ists. They'll think this is just the equivalent of a dispute between Republicans and Democrats, that both sides have valid points and that both points of view should be taught in the schools. And then when the ID-ists demand that it be taught in the local schools, they'll get a lot of sympathy from people who don't understand that ID is a hoax.

Again, Krauthammer performed a valuable service. I'd like to know if any liberal columnists have done anything similar? Or do they just dismiss people who believe in ID as moronic Christian fundamentalists, who by the way all voted for Bush, proving just how stupid they are?

[Elind]

I said the ignoranti were a lost cause anyway; nobody's trying to persuade them. But it's the great mass of people in the middle, who have little clear understanding of science, who have to be persuaded. Because if they aren't, they're going to see the battle over ID as just one side - evolutionists - vs. the other - ID-ists. They'll think this is just the equivalent of a dispute between Republicans and Democrats, that both sides have valid points and that both points of view should be taught in the schools. And then when the ID-ists demand that it be taught in the local schools, they'll get a lot of sympathy from people who don't understand that ID is a hoax.

Again, Krauthammer performed a valuable service. I'd like to know if any liberal columnists have done anything similar? Or do they just dismiss people who believe in ID as moronic Christian fundamentalists, who by the way all voted for Bush, proving just how stupid they are?

One cannot educate people (adults) who have little education to begin with, except by showing them that most, including those they might respect, consider the ID proponents simply ignorant or fundies with an agenda. How many of those do you think read Krauthammer, or anything else of substance, for that matter?

I do seem to recall that Krauthammer was far from nice and gentle with the IDers, and I don't quite see why you seem to think "liberals" (whoever they may be) can't make their point by ridiculing ID instead of trying to paraphrase a textbook on evolution.

Instead of making this an issue of right/left debate styles, shouldn't we be discussing what strategies will be most effective to diminish the ID effect? Certainly, other than the example in question, I haven't heard much from the conservative benches (unless you count Bush's foot in mouth comment).

[DavidJames]

My personal belief, based on examining the ineffectiveness of social programs in treating poverty, combined with examining the personal wealth of some of these left-wing Democrats (if they care SO MUCH, why are they millionaires?)
...As I expected, no facts, just "beliefs" :rolleyes:

What does a person's wealth have to do with your original comments:Left-wing Democrats don't, either. Their claims that they do, and their backing of certain programs, are just a sham, to get elected. They don't actually care about the poor anymore than the right-wing Republicans do. In fact, I would say that some of those left-wing Democrats don't WANT the poor to improve their situation. Sounds like blustery hot air to me We can infer a person's intentions and thoughts by examining their actions and words.I think this type of comment would play better in the paranormal forum.

[Freakshow]

As I expected no facts, just "beliefs" :rolleyes: I think this type of comment would play better in the paranormal forum.You never try to infer people's intentions from their actions and words? I find that VERY hard to believe.

[Freakshow]

What does a person's wealth have to do with your original commentsIf they really cared so much about the poor, they would give away money until they were no longer multi-millionaires. I'm not asking them to live in poverty. They could give away most of their wealth, and still enjoy a lifestyle much better than that of the average American. So if they care so much, why don't they? Maybe...because they don't ACTUALLY care?

[Mark]

If they really cared so much about the poor, they would give away money until they were no longer multi-millionaires. I'm not asking them to live in poverty. They could give away most of their wealth, and still enjoy a lifestyle much better than that of the average American. So if they care so much, why don't they? Maybe...because they don't ACTUALLY care?

A person can't be concerned about the poor unless he/she gives away mosteverything they own? That seems a little...extreme. Giving 10% of one's income means one does not care at all?

[DavidJames]

You never try to infer people's intentions from their actions and words? I find that VERY hard to believe. I'm human and yes, I will often do so. However, I try hard to present it as my opinion and avoid passing it off as fact. Further, I found no logical correlation between what actions you point to and their intentions. For example... If they really cared so much about the poor, they would give away money until they were no longer multi-millionaires. I'm not asking them to live in poverty. They could give away most of their wealth, and still enjoy a lifestyle much better than that of the average American. So if they care so much, why don't they? Maybe...because they don't ACTUALLY care?This, to me, is absurd and sure looks like a huge fallacy constructed to fit a personal bias. My opinion? You like the "rights" viewpoint vs the "lefts", but somewhere inside you're feeling a but guilty or not so sure, so you make up a standard like this so you can accuse the left of the same thing. PopPsy, you betcha, but I've seen a lot of it.

[RandFan]

This, to me, is absurd and sure looks like a huge fallacy constructed to fit a personal bias. My opinion? You like the "rights" viewpoint vs the "lefts", but somewhere inside you're feeling a but guilty or not so sure, so you make up a standard like this so you can accuse the left of the same thing. PopPsy, you betcha, but I've seen a lot of it. Absurd? I don't know about psychology but how about simple logic. Charlie Sheen's character in Wall Street asked a perfectly valid question, "how many yachts can you water ski behind?"

Look, I don't care what people do with their money. But if someone is so vocal about how much they care about poor people then it does seem to me that there is something they can do, right? I think most of us would agree. But how much? Well, how much do they care? Do they care enough to give up mansions, yachts, expense accounts, jets, vacations, etc? I guess the answer is no. Which just makes me wonder how much they really care about poor people? Certainly not enough to simply live comfortably rather than rich.

[aerosolben]

My personal belief, based on examining the ineffectiveness of social programs in treating poverty, combined with examining the personal wealth of some of these left-wing Democrats (if they care SO MUCH, why are they millionaires?)
Bill Gates also donates considerable amounts to charity, and intends to give away the vast majority of his personal wealth before he dies. But if he cares SO MUCH, why is he currently a multi-billionaire? He must REALLY hate poor people.

Having money does not mean you hate poor people. Throwing money at poverty does not make it go away. Perhaps many use their money to gain leverage into positions of power so they may make a larger difference. There are a number of examples that undermine your argument.

Also, without any evidence to back it up, it is difficult to agree that social programs have mostly been failures, let alone to jump from that to deliberate sabotage. Do you consider all attempts to alleviate the condition of the poor to be futile? If not, could you think of an example of one that is not?

[Mark]

So did a former Secretary of the Treasury - Alexander Hamilton - a well-known right-wing wackjob.

Oh give me a freaking break! Republicans have been saying for my entire life that deficits are destroying our country...they used that argument in every election against their Democrat opponents. Now that the 'Pubs inherited a balanced budget and turned it into a record deficit, they actually claim deficits are good for the country! And hope that no one will remember they have been fiercely arguing the exact opposite for 50 years! And you are more than happy to forget that on command.

One wonders whether to laugh or cry.

[BPSCG]

Oh give me a freaking break! Republicans have been saying for my entire life that deficits are destroying our country...they used that argument in every election against their Democrat opponents. Just wondering... since you're such an evenhanded guy, were you joining the Republicans in screaming that deficits were destroying the country when the Dems were running them up? Or is it only a problem, in your opinion, now that the GOP has them?

[Mark]

Just wondering... since you're such an evenhanded guy, were you joining the Republicans in screaming that deficits were destroying the country when the Dems were running them up? Or is it only a problem, in your opinion, now that the GOP has them?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I was. It was my main complaint against the Democrats in the 1970s. It was the main reason I did not vote for Carter in 1976.

In the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan asked Congress (during the course of his presidency) for 16 Billion dollars more than they actually approved, I realized it was a bi-partisan problem. In the 1990s, when the 2 parties shared power and cancelled each other out, more or less, we had a balanced budget. Which a Republican president then squandered.

So, yes, unlike Republicans, I have always been concerned about the deficit and still am.

So let me ask you one...were the Republicans lying to me then? Or now?

[BPSCG]

Krauthammer performed a very useful service; as a widely-read columnist, he explained to a lot of people who don't know which side of the evolution/ID debate to believe, why ID is just religion tricked up as science. He wasn't speaking to the true believers, because they're hopeless anyway, and he wasn't speaking to us, because every one of us could read his column and understand and agree with every word he said. He was writing for the people who honestly don't know that ID is phony science, who don't know which side to believe at school board meetings. I had the chance to talk with Krauthammer's research assistant over Thanksgiving, and we discussed the article. The RA is in charge of (among other things) screening his emails, and he said Krauthammer had gotten over 1700 on this column - way more than normal. He said they were overwhelmingly favorable. I asked how many were from people writing to say, "Thanks - you educated me."

Answer: "A lot..."

[Regnad Kcin]

So people are getting an education from opinion columnists? Well, that explains a lot.

[RandFan]

I had the chance to talk with Krauthammer's research assistant over Thanksgiving... Ok, if you were trying to impress me it worked. Why does this never happen to me? Look, I had a chance to talk with my mother-in-law over Thanksgiving about her cataracts. I suddenly feel like Rodney Dangerfield. It's not fair I tell ya.

[Elind]

So people are getting an education from opinion columnists? Well, that explains a lot.

I thank Krauthammer for that, but my point in this is that people can also be edudated by calling them ignoramuses. If they think the writer is someone smarter than them, they will then take the time to read a few books, maybe.

On the other hand, if they think Bush is smarter than them, then they will decide to let the school kids decide what is true and what is not, and when the kids grow up they can ask their kids to do the same.

[BPSCG]

Ok, if you were trying to impress me it worked. Why does this never happen to me? Look, I had a chance to talk with my mother-in-law over Thanksgiving about her cataracts. I suddenly feel like Rodney Dangerfield. It's not fair I tell ya.Yeah, and I got a call from my boss at 4:00 Wednesday afternoon telling me I had to drive back to DC from NJ to be in the office on Friday after Thanksgiving. Mrs. BPSCG and I left my sister's place still chewing desert (pumpkin creme brulee). And we got home after 11:00 pm so I could get up at 5:30 the next morning. I worked ten hours Friday, and have been at work since 9:00 today (Saturday), and the end isn't in sight.

So tell me about your troubles...

[RandFan]

Yeah, and I got a call from my boss at 4:00 Wednesday afternoon telling me I had to drive back to DC from NJ to be in the office on Friday after Thanksgiving. Mrs. BPSCG and I left my sister's place still chewing desert (pumpkin creme brulee). And we got home after 11:00 pm so I could get up at 5:30 the next morning. I worked ten hours Friday, and have been at work since 9:00 today (Saturday), and the end isn't in sight.

So tell me about your troubles... Sorry.

[BPSCG]

Sorry.'Sokay - your abject grovelling apology accepted. :D

And now Mrs. BPSCG is off to the Harry Potter movie with some friends and they're going to some cheeseburger place afterwards for dinner. I'm probably going to have leftover stuffing and cranberry sauce. :mad: