Many of my more enlightened friends like to ask me: How could someone as intellectually gifted, delightfully urbane, profoundly moral and breathlessly handsome not want to spit at these stupid Tea Party candidates with their stupid positions and their stupid stupidity? […]
Do I wish there were more articulate and intellectual free-market candidates? Sure, I do. But, alas, Americans are in no mood for know-it-alls who think sailing is a sport.
Do I wish that science-challenged believers would resist the urge to raise their hands when asked if they believe the world is 5,000 years old? God, yes. But an election offers limited choices. Take Delaware, where voters can pick a candidate who had a youthful flirtation with witchcraft or one who dabbled in collectivist economic theory.
Only one of these faiths has gained traction in Washington the past few years. And as far as I can tell, there is no pagan lobby.
[…]
Those who believe being gay is a choice are Neanderthals. The enlightened trust science. That’s why the president appointed a science czar, people. A science czar who co-authored a textbook arguing for mass sterilizing of Americans to prevent an imagined population bomb. You know, “science.”
God has no place in this faith. That’s not to say that Yahweh has anything on our president, who once claimed future generations would see his election — Goliath government — as the point in history where we finally started “healing the sick” and “the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal . . . .”
Now, that’s the kind of faith-inflected lingo we slack-jawed yokels can comprehend. Otherwise, the left’s plans are just too darn complex for us to appreciate.
“Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now,” Obama recently explained, “and facts and science and argument [do] not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we’re hard-wired not to always think clearly when we’re scared. And the country is scared.” (Wait. If we’re hard-wired to be confused, and we’re confused, isn’t science winning the day? It’s all so perplexing.)
Science can explain all, including how bitter, frightened, clingy voters aren’t grateful enough.
Or — and I realize this is probably crazy talk — voters aren’t scared, they’ve just been paying attention and are turning to candidates who, though far less than perfect and not always sophisticated, better reflect their sensibilities.
Sure. But it’s not like these voters have read Hayek.
— Which, well, you know.
No, we establishment types will take if from here, thank you — and if you wouldn’t mind, now that we’ve got things under control, do us a favor and try not to be so unhelpful, agitating for your purist ideology while we’re busy doing the important work of massaging the system in such a way that all the big government circumvention of the Constitution that we tacitly support is put to work for our side, insuring that the right tyrants are entrenched in power, enjoying the money spigot.
If you behave, we promise to make it so that you can keep your hunting rifles and have your manger scenes at the community rec center.
Deal…?
Why would anyone think tea party candidates would be stupid or ignorant?
blah blah blah, link.
That’s not me.
That’s not me either.
My cow-orkers, bless their hearts, keep bringing up O’Donnell’s antics at the lunch table. And every time, I politely counter with “True or not, she remains the better candidate. What’s that say about your bearded Marxist?”
As a group who has profoundly damaged our Republic through their ignorance of basic economics and basic Constitutional limits on federal power, AJB and his bunch have a lot of damn gall pointing to the ignorance of anyone else. I’d be insulted by their presumption, but I try to bear in mind that those blinded by ignorance aren’t aware of how shaky is the ground upon which they stand. The poor dears.
Why would anyone think tea party candidates would be stupid or ignorant?
The boy says, of the Biden seat, without a hint of self-awareness.
For the same reason someone would cite as stupid or ignorant something that they know nothing about: they are stupid and ignorant.
Tell me, where in the First Amendment is the requirement for a separation of church and state?
Seems to me that “wall” came from Hugo Black, writing in a 5-4 decision, in the 1940s. Because Black, a former Klan attorney, hated Catholics, and was a conspiracy nut.
The “gaffe” here is on the side of those hurrying to point it out. How’d that work out with the “OMG! SHE SAID 1773! SHE’S SO STUPID!” move?
Ifill yesterday, Frank James today.
Just because you call it a gaffe — and all your friends rush to agree with you — doesn’t make it so. The Establishment Clause has been woefully misused. O’Donnell was absolutely correct.
AJB buggers goats, when he is not out proving how fucking stoopid he is. Again.
this is mostly a lesser of two douchebags conundrum but it’s of much more consequence that Colorado Team R can’t do better than Ken “gays are a disease and the tea party is the cure” Buck than it is that dirty socialists are quite good at finding and running quintessentially dirty socialist dirty socialists.
you see the same pattern in Delaware.
It augurs.
Harsanyi is wrong in framing this in tired science v. religion terms. At best it’s science v. a particular flavor of religion, but I don’t think that’s the best lens for to define the problem really.
What we’re seeing is a crisis of competence when it comes to selecting candidates, and I think we’re seeing this primarily because Team R is ideologically adrift and increasingly reactionary, as evinced by the enthusiastic repeated lynchings of Mr. Daniels and the weird animosity to the uber-staunch Mr. Krauthammer.
I dunno, AJB. When the tea partier is somewhat incoherent but basically correct, whereas her challenger and his allies at NPR and elsewhere are flatly, demonstrably wrong, which do you pick?
In this case, since anybody at NPR who made the mistake of actually reading the Constitution would begin nonstop shrieking over how eeeeeeeevul it is, it’s not at all difficult for them to focus on the incoherence and jeer.
Regards,
Ric
Good thing I’m a casual sailor, or I’d be forced to smack Harsanyi with a glove.
Ever notice how when Mitch Daniels is talking wonkish, it’s to be framed as such — and the anti-intellectual rabble just can’t see fine distinctions. But when it’s somebody like Ken Buck, his anti-gay bigotry and hate hate hate proves he’s anti-intellectual and the worser of two evils?
And that this is “sophistication”?
Well, me too.
Neither the state or federal government may enact laws which aid one or all religions, or give a preference to one religion over another. The Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion.
— USLegal.com
The context of the comment came with O’Donnell arguing for creationism in public schools.
O’Donnell was absolutely correct.
I’m really glad you said that. lol
well no I think the idea of sophistication enters into it rather differently… if you’re a Tea Party candidate like Mr. Buck… it’s distressingly unsophisticated to mire yourself in a debate about gayness when that’s not even tangentially an issue of concern to your supporters, your donors, and most especially not an interest of concern to the Tea Party whose priorities you purport to share
I’m going to break my rule 1 time, and 1 time only:
happy,
Why the fuck would you say something so pig-ignorant about Ken Buck? If you can source your quote, do it. If not, shut the fuck up.
Blatantly misrepresenting someone’s position for no apparent reason has gone beyond annoying. Go griefer somewhere else.
My #15 refers to hf’s #9.
AJB is profoundly stoopid.
“What we’re seeing is a crisis of competence when it comes to selecting candidates, and I think we’re seeing this primarily because Team R is ideologically adrift and increasingly reactionary, as evinced by the enthusiastic repeated lynchings of Mr. Daniels and the weird animosity to the uber-staunch Mr. Krauthammer.”
Should team R even be selecting candidates happyfeet? Or should they be esposing their beliefs and ideas and allowing the voters who identify with those to select the candidate that they think represents those shared ideas?
Admittedly I’ve been away from the net, news, and happenings for a few days. But after reviewing them, superficially at least, for most of the morning I don’t get the impression that Gov. Daniels is being “repeatedly lynched” by anyone in particular. Can you tell me who is continuing to do so?
Is it the Kraut, who you also referred to? I’m not sure what you mean exactly, and wonder if you might be reacting in a protective sort of way based on your regard for Mitch Daniels.
Ann Althouse on the O’Donnell-Coons 1st Amendment kerfuffle.
Creationism is the belief of a number of major religions. And the argument had to do with what is “establishing” a state religion. Teaching creationism (while I don’t agree with it) doesn’t establish a state religion. At worst, it establishes that their are religious beliefs that are at odds with certain scientific beliefs.
AJB’s comment is just another “wow, you’re all so stupid, LOL.” But it’s founded on nothing but mock-amazement and faux-ironic consternation.
I’ve talked about the teaching of, say, intelligent design (I believe it fine to raise the issue to show the difference between a scientific theory and a metaphysical one, and to then teach the scientific method); but that’s not the point.
The point is, should the Federal govt be able to tell states what their schools can teach, when that pronouncement is not based on the text of the Constitution?
That the left likes to fight this issue by raising the fear of a coming theocracy speaks to their profound cynicism. They don’t want the issue ever discussed on the merits of what is truly being argued — namely, limits on the power of federal government to dictate what states can and cannot decide upon for themselves.
“The Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion.”
And they’ve failed miserably!, when it comes to the public finding of the gaia cult, through NASA monies dissipated, the mis-use of the EPAs regulatory authority, and the attempt to short-circuit factual skepticism by utilizing the public school systems to indoctrinate our youth in the global warming fetishism.
Save your drive by inanity for HotAir AJB.
The primary voters of Colorado selected Buck, happyfeet.
Perhaps you and Patterico and Karl Rove can select our candidate for us next time, and save us the trouble of thinking for ourselves?
After all, we’re not doing it right, evidently — and smart people like you and Frey know what’s best. Plus, you don’t want them to laugh at you for being tethered to us.
that wasn’t a quote that was a characterization Mr. scotch, and it’s not a particularly unfair one I don’t think… Ken Buck is a Tea Party candidate and for a Tea Party to cavalierly drag the Tea Party into the social con swamp as he has done is a betrayal of the trust the Tea people have placed in him I think. It’s not merely a faux pas as Mr. Harsanyi said. It evinced a lack of understanding of what it means to carry the Tea Party banner I think.
I know that comment about, paraphrasing, “Daniels not being understood by the common rabble” was directed at ‘feets but I sincerely hope that isn’t how I’ve come across on the topic.
In short, my position is that it’s impossible to be understood if people like Grover Norquist and the writers for the Politico aren’t accurately conveying your statements or their context.
Mr. Jeff Ken Buck is not ably representing the concerns of the Tea Party as we head into the final weeks of the campaign… but I would definitely allow that it may very well be that he’s representing Colorado Team R people very very ably.
“The point is, should the Federal govt be able to tell states what their schools can teach, when that pronouncement is not based on the text of the Constitution?”
In terms of dictating cirriculums? Not at all.
But I don’t find it unreasonable that they be able to require a base level of proficiency in the commonly accepted mechanisms of learning; that is ability to read, write, and mathematics.
I personally would add factual history to that list, but, it is something that can be obtained through the employment of the basic skills I listed.
Just an OT aside based on JeffG’s comment at #20.
oh. at #23 that should have been and for a Tea Party *candidate* to cavalierly drag the Tea Party into the social con swamp…
He is not a representative of the Tea Party on every issue. He was selected by the primary voters because he is a fiscal conservative — the facet of his candidacy that won him Tea Party support.
But he is still him, and he still has views on other issues. You can weigh how important those views are to your choice to vote for him or not.
There are some Tea Party-types who are agnostic or atheist. There are some who are pro-same sex marriage and some who aren’t.
Deal. The world doesn’t exist to make your decisions cut and dried for you.
Bob,
What basis would the feds have to dictate anything to a state run school? If they want to tie grant moeny to it, fine – but what would be the basis for a federal requirement that all schools in Rhode Island have _____ standards in math, _______ in English, etc?
Jeff, you CO peasants need to listen to your better, hf, when he tells you who represents what – how dare your and the rest of the Coloradan rabble decide on who should represent them nad their values?! The nerve…
Coloradans aren’t being very helpful.
If it was a characterization why was it in quotes?
And Ken Buck didn’t just randomly start spouting off about gays. He was asked about it. In a debate, in which the public can find out where candidates stand on issues. What would have him do? Lie?
It’s not a major platform issue. It’s not what he campaigns on.
And, Tea Party candidates (in case you haven’t noticed) can hold wildly diverging views. If my choice in this election is between a guy who’s stated he wants to limit the size and scope of government and one who doesn’t, I’m taking the size and scope of government guy. I don’t give a shit on their other policies. What are the chances, assuming a Republican take-over of the senate happens, that Obama will pass anything they want anyway?
And since when are you the fucking standard bearer for the tea party movement?
Seriously, go griefer somewhere else.
I’m going for a walk.
This election cycle has been very illuminating for me. To the point that I now know for certain what I’ve long suspected: many of the most vocal members of my “side” aren’t on my side at all.
The right is filled with plenty of McCains. Even among the most ardent anti-McCainiacs.
And now I’m going back to ignoring hf.
I’m dealing just fine. Ken Buck can either be patted on his good little social con head for his gays are a disease equation or he can be criticized for it. I choose to criticize him for it and point out that his view is not representative of issues that are of central concern to the Tea Party. Harsanyi chooses to muddle the controversy as having something to do with a tension between religion and science. I think that’s inapt. I say the controversy has more to do with a tension between Buck’s stupid utterances and his Tea Party supporters what didn’t sign onto his candidacy in anticipation of a bunch of 700 Club drivel.
Your inability to play nice with social cons is really unpleasant happyfeet.
You are absolutely right Colonel John,
They can’t dictate anything, at least not based on the US Constitution. All the Feds could really do is set goals for those same baselines and entice the states to agree with the lure of educational funds. A luxury that will have to largely go by the wayside soon, owing to fiscal demands. Just like the whole department of education! Unless, you know, the commerce clause is somehow again twisted to establish a Constitutional basis for it’s existence.
Thanks for reminding me of the extra-constitutionality of the Dept of Ed and of modern federal “mandates” as a whole.
If Ken Buck’s views on homos and homosexuality aren’t central, then why the fuck do you insist on making them so?
I don’t think the federal government should have any part in schools, either funding or curricula.
I don’t think the state should have any part in schools, either funding or curricula.
Schools, if they must be a government entity at all (something else I’m not convinced of), should be run only at the local city/district level.
#36, Bob, actually, looking at the Constitution, the Feds have no say, in any capacity, in “public” education. It is literally none of their business.
I’m on your side, Jeff G. At least, I really think I am.
Ace has a rundown of this, and apparently the WaPo article misquoted O’Donnell. Meat of the link: she actually said,
NOT
The WaPo corrected their online article (no notice, of course) and subbed the first blockquote for the second. But the internet never forgets, so the sneering lefty articles (like the one linked in #1) quote the original version.
Lying. It’s what’s for J-school!
Or he can be ignored with respect to that opinion and told to go cut spending, because all the candidates who say the right things about gays seem to want to trade carbon emissions credits, tax the fuck out of me, spend my kid into poverty, take away my liberties, and turn my country into a socialist dystopia, with themselves as the “benevolent” ruling caste.
So it isn’t just either / or.
Nuance.
why the fuck do you insist on making them so?
Mr. Ernst did you even read the article Mr. Jeff linked? You will find this there…
I think your argument is more with Mr. Harsanyi than me.
Comment by AJB on 10/20 @ 11:00 am
Neither the state or federal government may enact laws which aid one or all religions, or give a preference to one religion over another. The Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion.
– USLegal.com
You need to find a better legal reference, dude. The First Amendment prohibits the Feds from establishing a national religion. The individual states could, and did, have official religions until the 14th Amendment was ratified.
http://undergod.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000069
Of course, a whole lot of us signed on to the Tea Party for the cutting spending… and how cutting that spending will leave the government unable to dictate to the local school board what they should teach on any subject. And unable to tell the Catholic Church that it has to allow gay couples to adopt, or perform abortions in its’ hospitals.
I sometimes wonder if some of this doesn’t arise from one’s social circle.
It’s pretty easy for me to recognize that I’m in the minority on lots of these issues nationally because I’m also in the minority locally amongst my friends and colleagues.
So, when I want to argue my point, I know it’s better to use persuasion rather than anything else.
Ken Buck is a Tea Party candidate and for a Tea Party to cavalierly drag the Tea Party into the social con swamp as he has done is a betrayal of the trust the Tea people have placed in him I think.
Please tell me haps – where, when, and from who did you receive the authority to determine who may be in the tea party or not and what a tea party person my or may not talk about?
Actually my argument was with “Ken Buck can either be patted on his good little social con head for his gays are a disease equation or he can be criticized for it. I choose to criticize him for it and point out that his view is not representative of issues that are of central concern to the Tea Party [emph. orig.]” and “I say the controversy has more to do with a tension between Buck’s stupid utterances and his Tea Party supporters what didn’t sign onto his candidacy in anticipation of a bunch of 700 Club drivel.”
If it’s not central, then how controversial can it be?
I agree that that’s what’s to be hoped for Mr. Jeff – the focus on the spendings and the taxings. But I don’t think ignoring Mr. Buck’s blatherings about the gays does the Tea Party any particular favors really and I don’t think that Mr. Harsanyi’s framing of Buck’s views and the ensuing controversy as “a faux pas about nature and/or nurture” is particularly honest.
I find it unreasonable. It’s none of their business. “Business” being defined as being defined as such in the Constitution.
“After all, what’s more consequential than a faux pas about nature and/or nurture? Who cares that Democrat Michael Bennet was busy moralizing about the cosmic benefits of dubious economic theory and science fiction environmentalism — ideas that have already cost us trillions with nothing to show for it?”
happyfeet,
Don’t you think Harsanyi was being sarcastic, or at least ironic, in the passage you cited? He cartainly wasn’t saying that Buck’s statements were dealbreakers, nor even trying to put them in leagie with Bennetts. It sounds to me like he’s ridiculing the weight thrown behing the outrage over Buck’s periceved anti-gay status; saying that it pales to the ass-rape (SWIDT)attempted on the nation that Bennett has been acomplice to.
I thought the tongue in cheek line about wasting one’s time in church when you should be watching meet the press was also pretty funny.
But I don’t think ignoring Mr. Buck’s blatherings about the gays does the Tea Party any particular favors
Because the people most likely to equate the tea-party movement with lifeydoodle, fag-bashing Christers have only the best interests of the movement in mind.
Reader poll!
You’re right SSgt,
Colonel John already reminded me of the extra-constitutionality of such madates on the whole. Its as much a testament to my lax thinking as it is to the insidious intertia that the Dept of Ed aquires just by existing since the ’70s.
I hope Mr. Buck wins.
Hypothetical: A young, white, British female says to her companion, “‘Ere, love, give us a fag.” Unknown to them, an openly gay abortionist walking behind them overhears.
Question: Is the British female a lifeydoodle cumslut hoochie?
The difference here being that Mr. Harsanyi has made an honest effort to understand Mr. Buck’s comment (grasp the intent), which would obviate the need to ignore anything.
That would depend on a couple of things, Darth. Is the woman in question wearing an ironic T-shirt? Does she play World of Warcraft? Does she espouse the forced sterilization of those whose intellect or politics she finds distasteful?
While I don’t play WoW, I could easily see myself doing so. Don’t hate teh geeks, Squid!
Creationism is the belief of a number of major religions.
Yes, Christian O’Donnell is most definitely pushing for the Hindu view of creation to be taught in public schools.
BTW… ID = Creationism
The fact that I have gone from drive-by commenting, once per thread, to multiple appearances on a thread, is a sign of my increasing desperation. Someone please save me from the wingnutz!!
I think she’d be happy if you’d just quit fapping each time you successfully parrot your master’s talking points, AJB.
No worries, Cranky. This was me in a not-so-long-ago life.
In a sane country (or state) we would teach the little bastards about all of the things they are likely to encounter in the larger world. As it is now, we only teach them the things that have been approved by the progressive educational overlords. In essence, we shield them from reality.
My #61 was supposed to be a semi-sockpuppet. I guess I need to be more obvious.
I should really get to work.
Exposure to the idea of creationism prevented this country from inventing the cotton gin, the incandescent light-bulb and human flight. Stupid religion ruins everything.
Are you now telling me that Judaism, Christianity, Catholicism, and Islam are all the same religion?
Tell that to the Deists.
Science doesn’t deal with First Causes. It can’t. And so the question of ID is outside the purview of science on a macro level. It is a question for metaphysics, and so philosophy.
— Meaning that if your idea of intelligent design is that it is creationism, and your suggestion is that intelligent design can’t be raised in schools because creationism establishes a religion in violation of the first amendment, you are arguing that schools can’t teach important concepts in philosophy, because philosophy, in those instances, is both anti-science and runs afoul of the First Amendment — and that philosophers who engaged in such considerations were the original slack-jawed knuckle-dragging redneck cousinfuckers.
Good luck with that.
Does ID really = creationism? Or, is AJB trying to avoid it’s prior asshattery by practicing even more asshattery?
Never mind, JeffG already pointed out how fucking truly pig ignert AJB is.
Interesting read.
AJB trying to change the subject. Having his credentials as a “dope constitutional expert ‘n shit” been given the pimp hand of knowledge
Jefferson wrote about “seperation of church and state” in private letters and in some legislation in Virginia. For what that is worth. But Jefferson did not write the Constitution and that phrase is not there. O’Donnell was right. Cooms was arguing later jurisprudence. She was arguing the actual text.
OT but… FrumForum calls for drafting Daniels. I am not a big FrumFan, but hey, the link is at HA. Again, I was hoping a candidate like Daniels would give a little more choice to the current mix of Palin-Pawlenty-Huckabee-Romney.
But hey. Screw intent.
See #71 Joe.
ID is the argument that God set the wheels in motion for creation and evolution (and that the mechanism is the laws of science and nature we observe). If you believe in God, the father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things seen and unseen…well then ID is part of that (even if you believe in evolution). You can then get into mental thought games about an omnipowerful God knowing everything in advance, predestination, and whether or not there is free will or not. But all of that are issues of faith. How do you prove or disprove any of those propositions?
Personally I think you could teach science and biology and evolution and then teach philosophy and social studies to kids about different faith systems and it should be all good. They did that when I was in parochial school in sixth and seventh grade we got a basic course in different Christian faiths, Judaism, LDS, Greek philosophy, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism and Confusianism, Animist belief systems, etc. It included creation myths and theories.
But this is why primary education should be paid for and controlled on the local level and the feds and the federal courts should stay out of it.
Thanks Jeff for #71.
Just finished it myself. The final section, “The Trouble with Metaphors in the Law”, is also pretty damn insightful beyond the specific Church and State issue.
Yes Black screwed everything up. The intent of the first amendment was not to enforce a vigorous secularism that has resulted in nativity scenes being considered some sort of oppression and driving any discussion of religion (well at least Christian and Jewish religion) out of public schools. Islam, Wicca, and the rest are okay because they fall into the multicultural exception…which I am pretty sure is not in the Constitution either.
They don’t understand what’s coming for them.
The Dems are done, they pissed off middle America, and that is ALWAYS fatal. So now the Reps get their shot, a chance to walk the small government walk and not just talk the talk. If they fall back into their routine and screw the pooch like they did under Bush, THEY will be gone next cycle.
And then it’s anybody’s game.
I don’t agree with this. A first cause that some have called God is all that’s required for belief in ID.
Could be space aliens. Or ur-Mattel. Even atheists can believe in ID, I suspect, because it only requires an intentioned first cause, not a God per se.
mojo–the problem is the only way to effectively cut government is to cut everything, including entitlements. Unfortunately, we need leaders who can put that proposition in front of the people. I think a lot more people than are given credit for are coming to that conclusion on their own. That means drastrically scaling back medicare, restrictions on social security, enforcing immigration because you cannot have a social benefit system that people who have not paid into get to join, and cutting all federal agencies(defense included).
There is no way the GOP, even if it wins big, will do that in this cycle.
god created adam and eve not adam and steve
happy, God created Steve too. He gave him the job of musical director at the local Episcopal church.
“The priests fear me, and they are right to do so. For I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal enmity to every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”
— Thos. Jefferson
They usually trim the first part. Can’t think why.
“Those people who want to ban crosses on public display are jerks.”
–Stuff Jefferson Said, 3rd Ed.
Linkerized for ya.
tired science v. religion terms
It has nothing to do with either science or religion, properly constituted: it has to do with what you consider to be the final authority for answering difficult questions.
Some people will call the matter settled if they find a Bible verse that they believe addresses the issue. End of story.
And others will call the matter settled if they hear an answer introduced with “scientists say” enough times.
On the other hand, science is actually the art of taking accurate measurements and religion is the art of developing personal virtue, and there’s no reason to have to choose between the two.
Unless you think that science can answer religious questions and vice-versa. Which, if you do, you need to rethink your perception of both.
Is actus back with a new name and slightly revised M.O.? How do people get to be that willfully obtuse?
Slart, thanks for that link!
Nice one, Slart. It’s like Sparky used to say: When in doubt, dike it out!
Of course, Sparky was killed by a gang of angry lesbians who didn’t know what a diagonal cutter was. It’s just as well; I hear he named his dog “Boy.”
This should probably be blindingly obvious from the context but diagonal cutters are dykes like lineman dykes, right?
Googled it. Yeah, it was blindingly obvious.
ID = Creationism
Creationism means that the creation story in Genesis is God’s way of telling us the science surrounding the earth’s origins. The two variants have the six days being six earth days, or six days from God’s reference point, which makes each day 1000 years long. Explanations for fossils and geological structure vary.
ID holds that the earth is indeed 4.5 billion years old and that life did originate as a single-celled organism and developed over the billenia, but that random mutation was not what primarily drove the development of life but rather divine intervention, as evidenced by “irreducible complexity,” things in nature that are functional only in their developed form but not in a simpler form, meaning that there was no way for natural selection to bring them about.
ID relies on the “god of the gaps,” a god whose existence is manifest only in that which we cannot explain (that which is “supernatural,” or outside of nature), which means that his realm tends to shrink alarmingly, and which means that he’s not to be trusted so much.
science in particular is more and more a propaganda vehicle used to raise difficult questions moreso than to answer them I think
I had to think about that one for ten seconds; then I LOLed.
Ever notice how the same folks who can synthesize “separation of church and state” out of “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” seem to struggle with “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”?
Slart,
Prof. Reynolds summarizes:
The actual content is irrelevant.
Regards,
Ric
Science is mis-used as a propaganda vehicle, relying on an implied infallibility that arises from the notion that actual science, explanations of phenomena in the world surrounding us as well as predictions of future occurances based on current conditions, is both testable, rational, and repeatable. Increasingly in our society it is inappropriately appealed to as an arbiter of absolute moral authority, especially when the cited conclusions have been hurriedly reached or are inappropriately extrapolated from.
Science in and of itself is not propagandistic, it’s how we wrap our minds around the wonder of the cosmos and all creation. It’s how people resort to using it that can be.
Especially the whole, “the science is settled!”, crowd that attempts to quash further discussion or debate based on conclusions drawn from a particular data set.
That’s because you can’t out-argue a .45 Slart.
the society what has the leastest powerfulest “the science is settled” crowd wins all the marbles
for example these ones
hah that’s neat and did you know the Germans totally owned the marble market until the early 20s?
it’s a true fact
I thought that Ken Buck was the guy who was speaking at a religiously-oriented gathering, reading remarks prepared for him by a minister or some such, and passed over the anti-gay stuff without speaking it, i.e. refused to read that part out loud, yet had the remarks attributed to him anyway.
There you go again, bringing the truth into the discussion. There’s much frothing at the mouth to do here, sir.
It should go without saying that the above is a decent example of “the science is settled” kind of absolutism sans evidence.
Ever notice how the same folks who can synthesize “separation of church and state” out of “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” seem to struggle with “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”?
My favorite is when my lefty friends ask whether the Second Amendment means that I should be able to keep a howitzer in my driveway. “Of course I do!”
Stunned silence usually occurs, which is good, since it allows me to continue at some length: “One of Congress’ enumerated powers is to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Surely Congress wouldn’t grant such letters to citizens armed with nothing more than a slingshot. If I have the right to bear arms, and Congress has the power to grant me authorization to capture enemy vessels by land or sea on its behalf, then surely I have the right to bear arms sufficient to capture enemy vessels per my Letter or Marque. Q.E.D.”
Yes, children — it says in the Constitution that you can have your own cannon.
I don’t know, Slart. That’s probably a fairly safe absolute; no scientist should consider that “the science is settled.” Otherwise, they’re not good scientists. And good scientists are certainly more likely to win marbles than bad scientists.
Are harpoons constitutional?
Sure. But it’s not like these voters have read Hayek.
Friedrich August von Hayek. You have to say the middle name, or else I’ll suspect you do not know it. And that would lump you in with the simpletons who haven’t even read his middle name.
And you have to admit it’s a very august middle name; August. Like the month, the adjective owes it’s etymology to the latin ‘augustus’ (the revered one); a name bestowed on the Roman emporer Augustus who – if you had read him – you might call Gaius Octavianus Thurinus Julius Caesar Augustus without ommitting his many middle names.
But hey, those tea partiers probably don’t even know how to spell ‘pedantic’, nor ‘elitist dickwad’ for that matter.
#
Comment by Wm T Sherman on 10/20 @ 2:37 pm #
I thought that Ken Buck was the guy who was speaking at a religiously-oriented gathering, reading remarks prepared for him by a minister or some such, and passed over the anti-gay stuff without speaking it, i.e. refused to read that part out loud, yet had the remarks attributed to him anyway.
#
Comment by cranky-d on 10/20 @ 2:40 pm #
There you go again, bringing the truth into the discussion. There’s much frothing at the mouth to do here, sir.
no this is not true Mr. cranky and Mr. Sherman. You’re thinking of Carl Paladino who is a different Tea Party candidate what has gone out of his way to cultivate an anti-gay image.
It’s hard to keep them straight.
Hah I made a funny!
Eh, who cares. They’re all a bunch of lifey-doodle gay-bashers anyway. Screw them.
Ah, hf, I stand corrected.
It’s an important issue. Certainly rolls right over any concerns about the government’s role in maintaining the current economic depression and the rise of an all-powerful state. The coming all-powerful state in fact can ensure that haters like Buck are rounded up for their intemperate speech.
I should have used my cranky-feet handle for that last one.
And on that note, for wasting everyone’s time, the TrollHammer has been deployed. See you in a few weeks, hf.
I’m just trying to be helpful I’m the staunchest one if it were up to me these candidates would be focused on the spendings like a very intense laser beam especially cause they are Tea Party candidates, which is a brand what people like Carl and Ken should be working to protect and burnish
Provided you have a Letter of Marque and Reprisal to go with it.
He was asked the question, in a debate, you mendacious ugnaught, and I’m sorry, to seriously consider
Andrew Cuomo, is almost as crazy as the RITH guy, MacMillan, who it turns out hasn’t rented in a long time
You CAN have your own cannon. Lots of towns do. Even (gasp) private citizens.
Ammo, that might be a little stickier…
Shut up all you lifeydoodle cumsluts and hoochies, I’m staunch!
I’m not arguing that Buck wan’t asked the question in the debate he just had a stupid answer.
*wasn’t* I mean
Provided you have a Letter of Marque and Reprisal to go with it.
Well, that’s just if you want to go after other nations’ stuff. I don’t think you need the letter if you’re just using it to keep kids offa yer lawn.
(Totally counterproductive, by the way. If you had a cannon on your lawn, I can pretty much guarantee that the neighborhood kids’d be all over that bad boy.)
And it bears noting that, regardless of what one may think of his statement to the Hacidem in Brooklyn, and the subsequent explanations, unlike Cuomo, Palladino doesn’t have his fingerprints all the frig over the real estate bubble.
But that he might have hurt the feelings of a constituency that by and large would never vote for him anyway trumps that, for sure.
New Yorkers, on November 2nd vote ABC; Anyone But Cuomo…
Palladino isn’t remotely even in the race anymore Mr. Bob whatever he’s running for it doesn’t look to be the governorship of NY
Sorry, links for 121:
http://tinyurl.com/26vpg36
http://tinyurl.com/27bc94c
But, you know, let’s instead focus on his comments on to a religious group, written by that group’s leader. Because his vow to cut spending by 20% and taxes by 10%, in the bankrupt second highest taxed state in the country pales to upsetting the LBGT voting bloc that demands that the rest of society not just tolerate, but affirm and celebrate their lifestyle choices.
happyfeet,
That’s because the militant LBGT advocates and their allies in the MFM have successfully made his statements the issue, instead of, you know, the real issues of spending and taxation.
Nice how that works in a year where, as you often contend, spending is the issue.
Also convenient how Cuomo won’t debate Palladino one-on-one and let’s his surrogates do his dirty work instead.
I sure hope Daniels manages to keep from upsetting that same group.
I don’t understand how it was that Paladino was reading a speech “written by that group’s leader” and how would that make him any less responsible for the speech…
but the speech thing was covered October 10 and the poll graph linked above shows he started sinking end of september… then post-speech he seems to take another hit – so it seems likely that his comments resonated beyond a narrow voting block… I think it’s a more general temperament issue what’s really in play here
So you are ripping on that NY guy for NOT saying something that someone else wrote?!
that’s part of the story I think JD cause the people he was speaking to distributed the prepared remarks which he deviated from – but I haven’t seen an explanation of how it is that people are saying that he didn’t write the speech he was giving –
I think though he would have been bagged on either way cause of what he did say was pretty silly, and not at all helpful towards controlling the spendings.
This was sort of an own goal from the start.
Sure the speech resonated, because that’s all they talked about in the local media; how much of a loose canon and bigot he was. Repeated continuosly…
And I never said he wasn’t responsible for anything he said; in fact, he extemporaneously left some of the prepared text out. Now, it probably wasn’t judicious to agree to read a speech written by someone else in lieu of speaking one’s own mind.
Still, it doesn’t change the fact that the local, and to some extent national, MFM repeated the mantra that Palladino was a loose canon, bitter clinging, hating bigot; simply because he essentially said that homosexuality was not a lifestyle choice that should be portrayed as equivalent or natural to children.
He bucked the gay orthodoxy, vocally, and is paying the price for that; and he hasn’t been able to gain access to outlets in order to refute the gay hater meme. And since Cuomo probably won’t debate him, choosing instead to run out the clock while his surrogates work, there’ll be no chance to talk past the MFM and nail Cuomo on taxes, spending, and his role in the real estate bubble.
And prove who’s putting social issues above fiscal ones; the overwhelmingly Democrat New Yorkers who can’t see past TEH GAY H8TER!11!1! rhetoric to talk about actual issues instead…
who wrote the speech exactly do we know?
I’m already feeling better.
The Rabbi of the temple Palladino spoke at wrote the remarks.
so the rabbi wrote this part of the speech too?
I don’t get this.
oh. Here this explains. The rabbi says this…
so the comment at #132 was written by someone else – not Rabbi Levin – we don’t know who wrote that one it seems
Rabbi Levin’s speech in Borough Park seems to have been fairly uncontroversial – it was mostly just Sacred Definition blah blah blah… it was the second one at Williamsburg what’s caused him problems
Mr. Bob I think your analysis is off-base – it looks like it was Mr. Paladino what interjected these issues into the campaign as opposed to talking about the spendings, and it blew up in his face
To a religous person, like, say, an orthdox Jew, homosexuality isn’t an equally valid and successful option to traditional heterosexual marriage. And they probably don’t appreciate the “Heather has two mommies” approach to validating and affirming that lifestyle to their children in schools.
Do their children all go to public schools? Maybe not. Is their view as valid,and arguably more mainstream, as those on display at the yearly “up your alley” Fulton street festival in San Francisco
http://zombietime.com/up_your_alley_2008/part_1_full/ (WARNING NSFW)
Probably so. But guaranteeing our children are indoctrinated into viewing “heather has two mommies” as equivalent to traditional coupling is more important than spending, or being instrumentally involved in the GSE facilitating the real estate bubble. Vital in fact.
Who’s putting social issues ahead of fiscal ones again?
it gets even more complexicated…
Indeed, Palladino made the remarks. And since then all there has been is the drumbeat of H8TER! BIGOT! and no discussion of issues. Just Palladino’s hate for gays.
Convenient how that works, when Cuomo has no issues to run on, and the biggest skeleton in his closet awaiting exposure.
In a state where a large number of attorneys and financial types lost their sweet, sweet, jobs as a result of the bursting bubble, that might change a few opinions.
But not when all they hear about is gay h8ting.
Mr. Bob I think the problem with Mr. Paladino’s speech is that he suggests that kids have a choice about being gay or not – that they can be cajoled into getting their gay on – and that the gay ones shouldn’t be treated as if their lives are equally valid. That’s not a mainstream view so maybe it’s not wise to pander to orthodox jews in these matters. A lot of New Yorkers what have gay kids or relatives or friends are probably thinking he’s kind of a dick.
So the Rabbi is a violent homophobe…Because he won’t forsake his religious beliefs for warm and fuzzy multi-culti equivalence.
Funny how that works, or even effin’ flies!, in a state with a large number of Jews. But St. Andrew of HUD is, like, a Democrat; so his opponents are obviously of low moral character.
happyfeet,
The science isn’t settled regarding whether homosexuality is nature/nurture. No matter what sympatico folks might believe. One can find credible, supporting, arguments on both sides of the issue.
But you’re right. A lot of people who know gay folks here probably think he’s a real jerk for his statements. All of the gay folks I associate with only talk about that, instead of any issues; many others only talk about his RAAAAAAAACIST! opposition to the GZM.
Go figure he has poor numbers, labeled a racist, a homophobe, and a bigot. Convenient that, when Cuomo has no issues to run on.
The problem with Paladino’s speech is that it gives happy reason to be horrified just like his lefty buddies, so that they can see his anger and indignation and tell him, hey, we know you don’t agree with us on spending and such, but at least you care about people and freedom and liberty and you like the right cupcakes and pop music and you know what? having you around could be interesting, like you’re kind of a pet, and at the end of the day we can all stop talking politics and talk Gossip Girl instead!
Andrew Cuomo is a douche but Paladino stepped in this mess all by his own self it looks like to me – I hadn’t paid a lot of attention cause I never thought Paladino had a chance really… I really wonder though what he hoped to gain by going on this particular tangent… how did he think this would break for him?
Mr. Jeff that happyfeet only lives in your head I’m not like that at all at all… mostly I look at Paladino’s adventures through the lens of what happens when a Tea Party candidate takes his eye off the spendings and the taxings and the economy – which has been kind of a theme for many moons with me
but for the record I think Paladino’s comments were more dumb ass than hateful
Actually, God doesn’t shrink the more knowledge we discover, as long as He has that 1,000,000+ room mansion called the First Cause to live in. Never mind that Religion and Science don’t address the same questions. Science addresses What and How; Religion addresses Why.
Oh, and when they find that “gay gene”, there will be a genetic test about 15 seconds later, and “chlorinating the gene pool” will no longer be a metaphor. The Islamic countries will be running assembly line tests; they will be pass-fail, and the failures will go straight to the boneyard.
Science doesn’t deal with First Causes.
Here’s a monkey wrench for ya: There was no First Cause.
If, as Einstein said, time is an illusion caused by our passing through a fourth spatial dimension, without being able to perceive that fourth dimension spatially, and if time does not end going forward, it can’t “begin” when you’re looking back.
We have no problem imagining that three-dimensional space extends in all directions forever (soap-bubble models notwithstanding): the fourth dimension can be infinite as well, which means that there is no beginning to time nor an end, “first” being a conceptual artifact of the illusion called “time.”
that they can be cajoled into getting their gay on
It’s become something of a holy writ that GAY IS DETERMINED AT BIRTH, but according to research done by the likes of Kinsey, there is a lot more flexibility in the issue than is allowed to be talked about. So, yeah, as it turns out it is likely that they can be cajoled into getting their gay on. Of course, pointing this out makes me a bigot under the current rules.
And yet, dicentra, Einstein believed in God.
And in the instance you describe, the first cause is what gave us the mechanism that shows itself resistant to first causes as we imagine them.
happy —
I’ve read enough of you over the past several months to know that the happyfeet that lives in my head and the happyfeet that posts here and claims a special kinship with nishi and mr frey is one and the same.
I remember when the brain structure alleged to “determine” gayitude was identified. The news article said it’s found in some percentage of people way, way greater than the unsupported claim of 10% of people that are actually gay — let alone the actual much lower percentage that I’ve always heard ranged from 1% to 3%.
Which raises the obvious question: if this brain structure DETERMINES gayitude, why aren’t all of the people who have it, gay?
No one has ever answered me that question.
I was told there would be no Riemannian geometry…
that seems very arbitrary to me Mr. Jeff
This is the least scientific argument ever but the first time that it occurred to me that homosexuality might have an innate component (whether genetic or created by the embryonic hormone bath) was when I considered the fact that I’d never want to have sex with a dude. That it would never be a primal urge the way desiring women is a constant fact of life for straight dudes.
If it’s a choice, how is it one that I could live 1,000 years without once choosing differently?
There is no “gay gene”: if there were, identical twins would be either both gay or both straight, but when one twin is gay, the other is also gay only about 50% of the time.
As it turns out, the actual DNA is not the whole story, because there’s some other mechanism that determines when a gene is turned on and when it’s not. That doesn’t rule out an organic factor: it just means that there’s no discrete “gay gene.” For all we know, the thing what turns on DNA is environmental: perhaps the hormones in the womb, or maybe experiences after birth.
Furthermore, you can’t ignore the large number of gay men who were sexually abused by men when they were boys. Predators seek out the more vulnerable kids to begin with, which may explain the tendency of gay men to be sensitive and artistic, as goes the stereotype. Or the predators seek out the already-gay kids in the first place. Who knows?
Some gay men weren’t abused, and they had a decent father and mother in the home.
It may be that there is more than one road leading to Teh Ghey, which might explain why some gays can be cured while others cannot.
And regardless of the cause–whatever measure of nurture or nature—none of it speaks to whether homosexuality is “just another type of normal” or a defect. Or a sin.
Schizophrenia is entirely organic, but we don’t call it “another kind of sanity”; being left-handed (as I am) is mostly genetic too, and it is another kind of normal.
I’m not sure why anyone feels the need to place all their eggs in one basket or the other (same with the evolution question). Ethics and morality have little to do with scientific fact. You can’t infer or deduce the existence of God by observing the natural world, nor can you know whether homosexuality is a legitimate alternative to heterosexuality by parsing through the human genome.
we need this viral on this date
link
And yet, dicentra, Einstein believed in God.
The business about there being no beginning comes to me from Joseph Smith, who used a wedding ring to show how eternity has neither beginning nor end, because time is something we mortals experience but that isn’t part of God’s reality.
It is possible to believe in God but not in a First Cause.
I do it all day long.
I think it’s irrelevant what the catalyst for the gay is I think the point is we treat people like it’s all good cause of Jesus loves the little chilrens all the chilrens of the whirl red or yellow black or white or gayer than liberace they are precious in his sight Jesus loves the little chilrens of the whirl.
which is not to say Mr. Jesus doesn’t love some chilren more than others
dicentra,
While Einstein may have been using that analogy, relating space-time to a more easily understood Euclidian geometry, in relativistic physics time is an inseperable part of each spatial dimension.
So it’s not like there is no time, or it has no beginning or end.
Apologies dicentra,
I just saw your #157…
This thread isn’t about relativistic pysics and I don’t mean to derail it by discussing such wonkery…
A thousand pardons.
Jesus loves the sinner, but hates the sin all the same; and teaches us all to do the same.
Just sayin’
mr. darwin says no christine
Sure, now you think it’s irrelevant. Now I’d point out that politicians aren’t Jesus. I’d also point out that there is a biological imperative to propagation of the species, and those who by choice or by genetic makeup fall outside of the capability of fulfilling that imperative can be classified as dysfunctional from that standpoint.
The problem is that to express what is merely a clinical evaluation based on biology is made to come across as all judgey.
So, it turns out that sometimes gay IS a choice (I concede sometimes it is not), and that you can correctly label it as dysfunctional. But only because it’s true.
Then again, the new rules state that truth = hate. So I’d better stop.
that’s not in the song Bob
You bring up Darwin on this subject all the time but I don’t understand your argument, nr.
For instance, would you say that the infertile can’t be products of evolution? Or, what about worker bees?
Oh, btw, I really do like this Harsanyi column. I’m pro-rainbow happy times and constantly high-fiving Darwin and still, too be perfectly honest, I don’t even understand where I’m actually supposed to disagree with the dude.
Why is it that what we vaguely call social issues are supposed to be such big disagreements compared to the others?
We argue about all kinds of things from tax schemes to the drug war. Why is it that this one odd class of subject matter is supposed to tear us apart rather than just be another thing that we agree or disagree on and then simply vote to decide?
how do gays procreate?
issues of identity
i know gay men give gay women a turkey baster with their signature
nah cupcakes
My best guess is that gay men are created by straight women (impregnated by straight men) in the womb whether it’s that whole older brothers increasing anti-bodies dealio or environmental stress to the mother, nr. And, occasionally, they procreate the old fashioned way but the odds that they make another gay kid are probably as low as anyone else’s.
In your example, eternity is.
If you believe in God, you believe him the first cause, because he is responsible for what we see as eternity.
a creationist! yes
Because you don’t have to accept my tax plan, but you have to accept me, otherwise that hurts my self-esteem.
Hater.
cupcake adventure! my sister was in town today and she *promised* me she wouldn’t bring me cupcakes. She lied. She brung me a chocolaty salty caramel. I’ve had that before it’s very very tasty. Also she brung me a divine divinity which I’ve never had. And also a chocolate vanilla. That one I just tasted and it’s sort of derivative I thought and didn’t really have its own identity… mostly it tasted like a vanilla cupcake mixed up with a chocolate cupcake. Hey you got your vanilla in my chocolate. Oh shut up.
Tomorrow they have apple blue cheese which I’ve been wanting to try and pancakes and bacon, which sounds pretty darn awesome. But it’s out of the question.
In an odd way we’re all sorta creationists, nr. That’s sorta what Jeff was saying, I take it. If there is existence, there is a hunt for Aristotle’s prime mover.
Want to hear some strangeness? If I still got high I’d bore you with how math has so many of the qualities I used to reject in a deity.
That probably has to be it, Jeff.
Just seems so deeply weird, you know?
how do homosexuals procreate? simple question for darwin types. no math involved!!!
Huh?
I answered your question.
yes you did: joey hairplugs
Is celebacy a choice or is it determined at birth?
Possible, maybe, that there’s a difference between a sexualorientation and a behavior? The celebate has an orientation (whatever it may be), and simply chooses not to act on it.
Not acting on every urge is the very basis of civilization.
No chance though that any of that enters in to Mr. Buck’s answer though, right?
I do.
But I understand the blowback against it. Just read happy. Dude makes me want to curbstomp a homo just to strike back at him.
I like a lot of your links and such but you’re essentially impossible to interact with.
that would be precipitous
187 for 184.
188 for 186
There is no god but TrollHammer, and SBP is its prophet.
You understand that though, don’t you, ‘feets?
I’m less than psyched when we take the same position lately. You pitch Daniels by shit-talking Palin. You pitch gay acceptance by maliciously characterizing mainstream opinions. And many more topics play out the same way.
i really don’t care about “gays”: live and let live: but don’t tell me that the gay stuff is something i should accept. or their methodology to do a destruction of the culture with a marxist vibe. go axs allah “he’s 10 ft tall”
191 for 9, 14, 23, 25, 27, 34, 43, 49, 55, 83, 94, 99, 100, 108, 113, 118, 119, 122, 125, 127, 129, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138, 140, 144, 145, 146, 153, 158, 159, 166, 171, 179, 188, and 190
1) That’s all anyone should ask of you and 2) I don’t.
Okay, I was wrong. See, we can interact. Just need a few straightforward declarative statements from time to time.
I’m not pitching. I’m just commenting. Personally I think Palin has the nomination already and the trend line on gay acceptance proceeds apace without any persuasions from camp happyfeet.
But I don’t think ignoring Mr. Buck’s blatherings about the gays does the Tea Party any particular favors really and I don’t think that Mr. Harsanyi’s framing of Buck’s views and the ensuing controversy as “a faux pas about nature and/or nurture” is particularly honest.
You know, I keep reading this kind of stuff from hf and I am again struct by the fact he knows as much about the science on sexual orientation as a horse does algebra.
You have to be a fundie true believer that binary sexual orientation is genetically fixed (nature), uneffected by environment (nurture) and that choice of behavior never enters the equation.
Face it, hf, you’re as rigid as any white trash hoochie crister cumslut out there. Or as ossified in your little church of one as AJB, who asserts that ID is exactly the same as Young Earth Creationism.
Darleen you missed #158 I think. I don’t think it matters one way or the other whether it’s a choice or not, and good manners is to take the position that it’s entirely neither here nor there.
Clearly it’s at least partially inherited: if your parents didn’t have sex, chances are you won’t either.
how time does dana perino spend on her hair?
Anne Heche is a powerful argument against genetic.
nah “good manners” says that that you are a chris coon stupid
how time does cupcakes
We are in an age of pseudo-science. Most of what is being done in the name of science over issues like homosexuality, global climate, marijuana, etc, etc, ad infinitum is at best advocacy dressed up as science, often it is simply charlatanism by opportunists in search of easy money – they match their results to whatever you are willing to fund.
The griefers know this, but like all else, their fundamental dishonesty permits them to avoid the truth.
cupcakes are an inseparable part of each spatial dimension
Consuming cupcakes may lead to an increase in one’s spatial dimensions…
Unless, you know, you’re moving a signifigant fraction of the speed of light. Then no one will notice.
But gayness isn’t.
Bob it’s true this is why I made her promise
she’s evil
Newrouter I agree with everything you say, except for the last sentence.
The Founders were not quite so pragmatic in their approach to governance. Even if they believed the government could do those other things ‘better’ or more economically they still would have opposed government doing those things precisely because those things are rightly the province of a free people. Government should only do the minimum of what is necessary in order to preserve all else for the people.
It is not about what is better, or what is cheaper, it is ultimately about what is right.
I guess you need to just start moving faster happyfeet. Maybe buy a faster car, or a motorized skateboard or somethin’…
been working at a convenience store
managed to save just a little bit of money
That’s Reagan not newrouter, Thomas.
Well, then he and I have a beef. ;-)
I’ll be charitable and assume that’s his old democrat ways slipping through.
Heh, there’s nothing wrong with busting Reagan’s (speechwriter’s) balls from time to time, Thomas.
More of a virtue I’d say.
Thanks bh, I certainly have the urge to kick Noonan in the balls from time to time.
Good. I’m not the only one.
I don’t think it matters one way or the other whether it’s a choice or not, and good manners is to take the position that it’s entirely neither here nor there.
oh good lord … you sure are one of the clumsiest goal post movers out there, since IIRC, Buck said NADA about how we must be rude to teh gheys AND he DID say it was neither here nor there:
He’s just 25/75 nature/nurture .. and science has swung back-and-forth between those too poles for a long time and nothing has stopped the swinging yet.
I’m only sorry Buck was honest enough to answer a question he thought was asked in good faith. It wasn’t.
too = two
I’d expand that a bit, RTO.
Not acting on every animal urge is what makes us human. I’d be willing to trot out the Reverend Mother Gaius Helen Mohiam and her gom jabbar, just to be sure.
darleen why are you so hostile and also so determined to miss the point? I said Harsanyi wasn’t honestly framing the conversation, that the more defining tension was between Buck and the Tea Party than between science and religion…
as a party of tea candidate Buck really had no business blundering into the blah blah blah about the gays… and that lesser of two weevils argument Harsanyi makes lets Buck off the hook way too much I think
…determined to miss the point…
That’s fucking rich.
Cupcake rich.
yeah well you’re a taco
i have two tea sets/ lil hummels
on the mantle
and i want to,should really dust
them off but i don’t wan’t to be considered to be
a fag or anything
i am not mary poppins!
going doggerel
Mr. Bim would fancy a cup of tea I think
Okay, that cracks me up. And when you think about it, it has the ring of truth. If you posit an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent God who cares about every sparrow that falls, why would that God create a class of people just to be despised? Surely He foresaw the need for interior decorators??
If you believe in God, you believe him the first cause, because he is responsible for what we see as eternity.
Not in LDS theology. We’ve got a great chain of being going backwards and forward forever, wherein the mature members of the species create their own universes full of stars and planets, then populate them with their offspring, and those of their offspring that reach full maturity create THEIR universes and planets and stars.
In other words, God was created by His God, who was created by His God, who was created by His God, and so on and so on and it’s pretty much turtles all the way down.
And now you know why many Protestants think we’re beyond the pale.
that’s a lot of turtles dicentra
I mean a lot
“Theories abound as to why Virginia Thomas would have made such a bizarre call,” NPR says, and proceeds to beat the motherloving shit out of her for daring to have a career what might conflict with her husband’s.
That’s oddly modern by way of cosmology.
I should comment more quickly. 232 for 229.
I’ve been trying to link this: http://tiny.cc/5f7sy
The self-proclaimed elite are as superstition-ridden as any peasants of the past, but rather than ascribing their beliefs to the Church or “folks say”, they tag them with “science”.
#229 it ain’t just the Protestants, it’s pretty much everyone who believes in the concept of one true God.
Serial monotheism not actually being monotheism.
But I’m sure you knew that.
bh — heh. As the commenters there pointed out, it’s not a new concept in SF. The difference is, this guy actually did the math, and I only know of two SF authors ever who might even have a chance of understanding the math (E. E. Smith and Travis Taylor).
As to the religious bit — I came to the conclusion long ago that all prophets are wrong, it’s just that some are (maybe) a little less wrong than others. The Word of God can’t be contained in a human brain or expressed in human language. It’s too big. It won’t fit. I consider myself at least nominally a Protestant Christian, but I have to admit a good bit of sympathy for Dorfl: Either All Days Are Holy, Or None Are.
Regards,
Ric
(the quote is from Feet of Clay, by Terry Pratchett)
We’ve got a great chain of being going backwards and forward forever, wherein the mature members of the species create their own universes full of stars and planets, then populate them with their offspring, and those of their offspring that reach full maturity create THEIR universes and planets and stars.
Crud if I don’t vaguely recall a SciFi novel about a group of scientists in a space ship racing to the edge of the universe then to retreat from the edge as it was accelerating to collapse. By the end of the novel just as the last stuff was disappearing they all figured out that at the zero hour each of them in their spacesuits would be able to start new universes by exploding themselves in the void.
I bet that paperback is in one of my pulp fiction boxes in the garage.
Black holes and the mysteries beyond the event horizon are also similar concepts.
thank god it’s not just me. I’ve been annoyed all day by my friends being all about wearing purple. I’m not gay, wasn’t particularly bullied (harassed a bit) and have wanted to kill myself. big whoop.
that and of course they have to throw gay marriage/hate into the mix as well. *sigh*
Comment by happyfeet on 10/20 @ 9:22 pm .
You’re wrong. No surprise there.
that and of course they have to throw gay marriage/hate into the mix as well.
The only thing to do with such a doctrinaire, is to annoy them by confusing them with the reality that today any gay in the US can get married because no licensing state asks about orientation at the window.
Towards the first, I’m ignorant of much more than I know how to express, Ric. Sci fi writers today, genetics tomorrow, and energy exchange across distance when we approach heat death much later. I’ll always be stupid. This is a personal truth, I think.
Towards the second, see above. Well before fitting God into my head I’ll be struggling with the instruction manual to my food provider.
Maybe somewhere along the way the new mix of congresspeoples will see fit to take a moment to fire NPR. That would be a good thing — though admittedly a minor thing — to do I think.
that’s a lot of turtles dicentra
See? Now you have to join. We’ll be sending the white van around to pick you up.
It ain’t just the Protestants, it’s pretty much everyone who believes in the concept of one true God.
There are many fathers on this planet, but only one of them is mine. Whatever other gods may exist, I owe allegiance to One and only One God. The rest of them have nothing whatsoever to do with me, my existence, or my salvation.
The insistence on God as Absolute Oneness across all dimensions of space and time and whatnot is a neoplatonic concept, and I don’t hew to neoplatonism.
There you go, bh. The two are connected.
We aren’t supposed to figure it all out. That isn’t the test. The test is whether we can get along (in all senses of the phrase) without figuring it all out.
So far we ain’t doin’ too well.
Regards,
Ric
(g’night)
Something I get a kick out of when talking with you, Ric, is that you’d maybe disagree with the specifics but would just shrug about my general conclusion.
None of us really move the meter. We just get confused and optimistic because we’ve met other humans.
Euler excluded. He’s .0001% better.
I guess NPR would have had to shit-can bumblefuck’s grandma too
oops wrong thread I will x-post
That made me LOL really loud, but then I remembered that both my kids are adopted.
#228
He doesn’t despise them we do. Free will and all that.
It’s hard to get your head around ,’infinite’ when infinite is everything, everywhere, all the time. Forever.
Amen.
Will you hate me if I say that sounds like Amway writ really, really large? ;-)
Universes inside black holes in universes inside black holes is what you get when the Physics department gets invited to the Theater department’s parties. Not that I have any personal experience in such things, mind you.
So, Squid, were you a set designer or a costume designer?
I kid, I kid.
Will you hate me if I say that sounds like Amway writ really, really large? ;-)
I would, except that there’s an unfortunate association between Utah Mormons and those Amway-type marketing schemes, in the sense that Utah is lousy with them.
I have a hard time understanding the attraction, except Mormons have lots of connections through their congregations, so they must figure they can make it work.
Me, I hates ’em. Wouldn’t do multi-level marketing even to save the Republic.
192. Comment by bh on 10/20 @ 7:45 pm #
In a peculiar way it increases support for the position and politician that haps disparages.
Sounds like marketing genius to me. Oh, and the near-continous stream of baby-talk? Just shows all of the respect in the world for the intended audience.
now I’m feeling so fly like a g6
Without getting too specific, I am always amused by people expecting God to live by their rules.
[…] progressive drum majors.UPDATE: Jeff Goldstein notes, as only he can, that the Democrats and MSM aren’t the only ones baffled by the Tea Parties.UPDATE 2: My friend Elizabeth Scalia is as smart on this subject as she is everything else. var […]
Now see I know this is all way late, but I was honestly chewing over this issue a week back–the whole “homosexuality is a choice” thing–and this is kind of the perfect topic for it.
Because if, as people are insisting, homosexuality is 100% nature and not nurture (which isn’t the case), that means there’s going to be a point in the future of the biotechnology revolution where we’ve got the technology to rewrite a person’s sexuality through altering their genotype. If it’s 50/50 nature/nurture, (closer to the truth), that means we’ve already got the option now to therapize people into changing their sexuality with a little help from hormone therapy and the like, and in the future we might be able to painlessly rewrite people who aren’t content with their sexuality. And if it’s 100% nurture, i.e., it’s completely a choice…
…I’ve got to write a paper up on this, but. Basically what I am saying is people are hiding behind REALLY OLD, REALLY BAD science when they’re going “homosexuality is not a choice!” to avoid the bioethical issues associated with it. Also, things like NARTH and pray-away-the-gay camps completely invalidate the underpinnings of their self-images, or would if they were effective. or something. is late; i need sleep. And a way to put this into (relatively) neutral words that just looks at the bioethics of choice of human sexuality, rather than theorizing about people’s states of mind and stuff.