|
|
| A Response To Howard Dean. |
| 12.09.04 (10:23 am) |
[i]Thank you for that introduction. It's a pleasure to be here.
Let me tell you what my plan for this Party is:
We're going to win in Mississippi ...and Alabama ...and Idaho ...and South Carolina.
Four years ago, the President won 49 percent of the vote. The Republican Party treated it like it was a mandate, and we let them get away with it. [/i]
Really? You managed to stonewall judicial appointees fairly well I'd say.
[i]Fifty one percent is not a mandate either. And this time we're not going to let them get away with it. [/i]
Curious.. so what constitutes a mandate? If getting a few million more votes or winning by the largest margin in popular vote in recent history doesn't, then what does?
[i]Our challenge today is not to re-hash what has happened, but to look forward, to make the Democratic Party a 50-state party again, and, most importantly, to win. [/i]
Thank God. I don't know if I could take 4 more years of kooky conspiracy theories and stolen election myths. You are sending out the memo on this one to everyone, right Howie?
[i]To win the White House and a majority in Congress, yes. But also to do the real work that will make these victories possible -- to put Democratic ideas and Democratic candidates in every office -- whether it be Secretary of State, supervisor of elections, county commissioner or school board member.
Here in Washington, it seems that after every losing election, there's a consensus reached among decision-makers in the Democratic Party is that the way to win is to be more like Republicans.
I suppose you could call that philosophy: if you didn't beat 'em, join them.
I'm not one for making predictions -- but if we accept that philosophy this time around, another Democrat will be standing here in four years giving this same speech. we cannot win by being "Republican-lite." We've tried it; it doesn't work. [/i]
Well, not to pick nits here Howie but it might help if you guys put up a candidate that wasn't a total self serving weasel. Your also going to have to take control of your party back from the radical left, because that is what hurts you more than anything come election time. Just look at the mainstream media for a bit. Notice how whenever you guys put up a candidate they try so hard to generate all that phony excitement and to downplay any idiotic thing he says? If you have that much of an advantage going for you their are only two reasons why you'd be loosing elections as badly as you are, either your candidates are really bad or your ideas are really bad. In this case it's both.
You can't win a Presidential Election without the South or at least part of Middle America. You've lost both. The Democratic party has become so mired in the mantra of unrestricted abortions, super-elite minority status for homosexuals and of course your usual race baiting class and class warfare nonsense that you have completely lost sight of most of America.
So who have you had that made it into the Presidency lately? Clinton squeaked by on razor thin margins in both elections, but would he have one if Perot hadn't split the conservative vote both times? Unlikely. Who else have you had lately.. well lets see, we have to go all the way back to Carter, don't we?
Carter slid past in part thanks to the Nixon scandals and in part due to the fact that he was running against a real anomaly, an incumbent who was in essence a total unknown. Gerald Ford has the distinction of being the only President of the United States who was never elected either President or Vice President.
So in reality you have had only two Presidents since 1970 that were Democrats. Only two in almost 35 years. That is a really, really bad track record no matter how you look at it. Then when you add in the fact that neither was elected under what might be considered "normal" circumstances, and you've got some really big problems.
Now compound that fact with the fact that despite all of the massive effort put forth by the mainstream media and extremely well financed hit squads like Moveon.org that the Republicans not only took the Presidency but managed to make gains in both the House and the Senate that should tell you something.
All you need to do is look at a map Howie, a map of the counties that went for Bush in this last election.
The map shows a very clear picture, that you have completely lost touch with both rural America and the south. About all you have left is a few urban population centers, and most of those are populated with people who are by and large on your payroll, such as people on some manner of government assistance.
Your not going to be winning too many national elections like this, and your never going to sell rural or southern America on this drive thru abortion for 10 year olds, don't mention your religion or you go to jail, only minorities should have rights version of America you've been trying to sell for some time now. Thus far your tactics have been to continue to support these unwanted and unpopular social policies, then when you loose the election you rant and rave about how it was thanks to the unsophisticated, unwashed bible thumping rednecks in Middle America or down South that cost you the election. Sorry guys, but it is us unsophisticated knuckle draggers who are America. If you can't connect with us and convince us you'll do a good job you aren't going to be winning too many more elections. And your never going to connect with us if every time you loose your first refuge is to blame us for being so uncool, unhip and stupid for not voting for you in the first place. Bad strategy, no matter how you slice it.
[i]The question is not whether we move left or right. It's not about our direction. What we need to start focusing on... is the destination.
There are some practical elements to the destination.
The destination of the Democratic Party requires that it be financially viable, able to raise money not only from big donors but small contributors, not only through dinners and telephone solicitations and direct mail, but also through the Internet and person-to-person outreach.
The destination of the Democratic Party means making it a party that can communicate with its supporters and with all Americans. Politics is at its best when we create and inspire a sense of community. The tools that were pioneered in my campaign -- like blogs, and meetups, and streaming video -- are just a start. We must use all of the power and potential of technology as part of an aggressive outreach to meet and include voters, to work with the state parties, and to influence media coverage.
The most practical destination is winning elective office. And we must do that at every level of government. The way we will rebuild the Democratic Party is not from consultants down, but from the ground up.
We have some successes to build on. We raised more money than the RNC, and we did so by attracting thousands of new small donors. This is the first time in my memory that the DNC is not coming out of a national campaign in debt. We trained tens of thousands of new activists. We put together the most sophisticated get-out-the-vote operation our Party has ever had. We registered millions of new voters, including a record number of minority and young voters. And we saw those new voters overwhelmingly vote Democrat.
[/i]
Yup, you need to start from the ground up alright. But personally I think step one would be to rid yourselves of the rhetoric and B.S., at least when trying to identify the problems you face. I expect you to lie to others, your politicians. But if you can't even be honest with yourselves you'll never be able to fix the multitude of problems that beset your party. Most of the money in the Democratic coffers doesn't come from poor working stiffs like me, it comes from spoiled snotty billionaires like Soros. You lost touch with working America a long time ago, and the distance between us is just getting bigger and bigger every day. The more you ignore that, or belittle us, the worse that problem becomes. As to your contention that most new voters went Democrat, not hardly. All of the huge effort made to "get out the vote" by your rock stars, your celebs and the rest of your gangsta rappers did almost no good at all. There was no appreciable change in the participation of young voters, and certainly no huge gains in Democratic voters nation wide.
[i]Now we need to build on our successes while transforming the Democratic Party into a grassroots organization that can win in 50 states. [/i]
Lol.. good luck. You'll need to win back over 31 out of those 50 states, and if this last election is any indication you have a huge uphill battle considering you lost ground even in states that normally go Democrat.
[i]I have seen all the doomsday predictions that the Democratic Party could shrink to become a regional Party. A Party of the Northeast and the Pacific Northwest. [/i]
That's not a doomsday prediction, you that's just a simple glance at the map.
[i]We cannot be a Party that seeks the presidency by running an 18-state campaign. We cannot be a party that cedes a single state, a single District, a single precinct, nor should we cede a single voter.
As many of the candidates supported by my organization Democracy for America showed -- people in places that we've too long ignored are hungry for an alternative; they're hungry for new ideas and new candidates, and they're willing to elect Democrats. [/i]
Oh were hungry for new ideas and new candidates, no doubt about it, but obviously were not all that willing to elect democrats. If we had been you guys wouldn't in such dire straights at the moment. The biggest problem here Howie is that the Democrats haven't put forth a new idea or even a new candidate in a long, long time. Almost all of your presidential candidates are by and large liberal to ultra liberal, and all of their ideas boil down to "evil republicans", "right wing conspiracy", and "we have a plan". No specifics, mind you. No actual details. Just more or less, "trust us". We don't. That's why you lost.
[i]Since we started Dean for America last March, we raised over $5 million, mostly from small donors. That money was given to 748 candidates in 46 states and at every level of government. [/i]
Assuming that's true, and sadly I can't given your track record of badly distorting facts, at least you can be proud of the fact that your not as stingy as John Kerry. He still has 15 million left over and won't even cut checks for the people who were supposed to be getting paid to work on his campaign.
[i]We helped a Democratic governor get elected in Montana and a Democratic mayor get elected in Salt Lake County, Utah.
We helped Lori Saldana in San Diego. Lori, a Latina grassroots environmental organizer was outspent in both the primary and the general, won a seat on the state assembly.
Yup.. and you helped Tom Daschle and John Edwards, just to name a few, into early retirement.
We also helped Anita Kelly become the first African-American woman elected to her circuit court in Montgomery Alabama.
Funny how this is supposedly some sort of milestone achievement and yet supposedly the first African American woman ever to hold the post of Secretary of State is some sort of.. lets see, what was the term used by some of our friends on the left, oh yes, that's right, "Aunt Jemiamah." Why? Because she was nominated by the wrong party.
[i]Fifteen of the candidates who we helped win last month never ran for elective office before.
And in Texas, a little known candidate who had been written off completely ran the first competitive race against Tom Delay in over a decade.
There are no red states or blue states, just American states. And if we can compete at all levels and in the most conservative parts of the country, we can win ... at any level and anywhere.
People will vote for Democratic candidates in Texas, and Alabama, and Utah if we knock on their door, introduce ourselves, and tell them what we believe. [/i]
Lol.. Howie, you go knocking on doors in Alabama and telling them that you are there to confiscate all their guns, make sure their daughters all can get abortions even at the age of 12 without their consent, that gays should be married and that you want to take away about half of what they make at their 9-5 job so that someone that doesn't work can live in a nicer house and just see how many votes you get. Lol.. you'll be lucky to get out of the front yard, much less get a vote.
[i]There is another destination beyond strong finances, outreach, and campaigns.
That destination is a better, stronger, smarter, safer, healthier America. [/i]
A stronger America? Oh, you mean by slashing the military budget every chance you get?
[i]An America where we don't turn our back on our own people. [/i]
How about an America where we count on each other to do the right thing, without being forced to give over half of our income at gun point to the charity of your choice?
[i]That's the America we can only build with conviction. [/i]
Conviction? Nope.. more like commitment. If you think you can build a stronger America with those types of policies you need to be committed, for at least an evaluation if not extended mental care.
[i]When some people say we should change direction, in essence they are arguing that our basic or guiding principles can be altered or modified. [/i]
Can't see why not, Kerry modified his from day to day. Heck, he'd modify them in the middle of the same sentence.. lol...
[i]They can't.[/i]
Then plan on loosing a lot more elections.
[i]On issue after issue, we are where the majority of the American people are. [/i]
Lol.. ok, have you checked the polls, ever? On issue after issue you have lost mainstream America, and your getting further and further away daily.
[i]What I want to know is at what point did it become a radical notion to stand up for what we believe? [/i]
The moment what you believed became radical in and of itself.
[i]Over fifty years ago, Harry Truman said, "We are not going to get anywhere by trimming or appeasing. And we don't need to try it."
Yet here we are still making the same mistakes.
Let me tell you something: there's only one thing Republican power brokers want more than for us to lurch to the left -- and that's for us to lurch to the right. [/i]
Why? you keep going further and further left, the Republicans keep winning more and more elections. Why would the fear that?
[i]What they fear most is that we may really begin fighting for what we believe -- the fiscally responsible, socially progressive values for which Democrats have always stood and fought. [/i]
Lol.. Fiscal Responsibility? Lol.. ok, Howie, who are you kidding here?
[i]I'll give this to Republicans. They know the America they want. They want a government so small that, in the words of one prominent Republican, it can be drowned in a bathtub.
They want a government that runs big deficits, but is small enough to fit into your bedroom. They want a government that is of, by, and for their special interest friends. [/i]
Oh please.
[i]They want a government that preaches compassion but practices division. [/i]
After the nasty, over the top personal attacks and conspiracy theories you personally put forth in the campaign you have no right to preach to anyone about practicing division. You should be ashamed of yourself.
[i]They want wealth rewarded over work. [/i]
No, they want work rewarded with wealth.
[i]And they are willing to use any means to get there. [/i]
Boo hoo.. boo hoo.. evil republicans.. lol.. Ok, Howie, this nasty evil republican rhetoric hasn't worked in 30 years, you guys loose more and more ground with each election. Time to wake up and smell the coffee buddy.
[i]In going from record surpluses to record deficits, the Republican Party has relinquished the mantle of fiscal responsibility.
And now they're talking about borrowing another $2 trillion to take benefits away from our Senior Citizens. [/i]
Aha! The social security card, can't play old maid without it.. lol. Egads.
[i]In going from record job creation to record job loss, they have abandoned the mantle of economic responsibility.
In cutting health care, education, and community policing programs... and in failing to invest in America's inner cities, or distressed rural communities... they certainly have no desire to even claim the mantle of social responsibility.
In their refusal to embrace real electoral reform or conduct the business in government in the light of day, they are hardly the model of civic responsibility.
In their willingness to change the rules so that their indicted leaders can stay in power, they have even given up any claim on personal responsibility.
And in starting an international conflict based on misleading information, I believe they have abdicated America's moral responsibility, as well.
There is a Party of fiscal responsibility... economic responsibility.... social responsibility... civic responsibility... personal responsibility... and moral responsibility.
It's the Democratic Party. [/i]
Ok, so to paraphrase, blah blah blah, whine whine whine, bad evil republican's hate you all never vote for them, blah blah blah. Ok, any wonder why your getting your butts kicked in election after election? Just a few paragraphs ago your talking about how people want new ideas and new candidates, then you fall into a mind numbing tirade with all the same old rhetoric and crap, and you don't advance a single new idea. All you do is criticize your opposition, mostly unfairly I might add.
Look at your rhetoric here for a second. You squawk about the evil republicans "cutting" funding for things like education, but that just isn't true Howie and you know it. Lets say your boss decides to give you a pay raise at the end of the year. You are expecting or hoping for a raise of 10%, but you only get an 8% raise. Did your boss "cut" your pay? No. That is just total nonsense. You got a pay raise, it just wasn't as much as you wanted or perhaps hoped for. But it's still a raise, not a cut, no matter how you look at it.
Same thing happened in Congress on spending for all these programs you mentioned. The spending went up, but it didn't go up as much as you wanted or hoped for, and you try and call that a cut. It's nonsense Howie, and unfortunately for you and your party people are starting to catch on. Your just not making much headway with the scaring people with the big bad wolf republican stories anymore.
[i]We need to be able to say strongly, firmly, and proudly what we believe. [/i]
That would be a nice change of pace.
[i]Because we are what we believe. [/i]
Not since JFK, I'm afraid.
[i]And we believe every person in America should have access to affordable health care. It is wrong that we remain the only industrialized nation in the world that does not assure health care for all of its citizens. [/i]
Maybe you should come up with some ideas on how to pay for that, or how to make it a workable system see as how every other example of socialized medicine in the entire world is a terrible mess. Maybe then this is an idea you could sell. As it is you are doing what you always do, promising the moon and the stars without ever making mention of the fact that it is the people who are voting for you that will ultimately pay the check for a poorly run government program fraught with waste and abuse. You whine about how "irresponsible" private companies are, but at least with a private company if I get service I don't like I can always choose to go elsewhere.
But once you put government in charge you take all the power out of my hands and put it into yours, and that of your cronies. If your program offers terrible service with no options and doesn't respond well to my needs so what, I have no choice, no other options. I can't take my business elsewhere, because you are the only game in town. That's what your really talking about here Howie, taking the power away from me and people like me and putting it all in your hands. Thanks, I'll pass.
[i]We believe the path to a better future goes directly through our public schools. I have nothing against private schools, parochial schools and home schooling. Parents with the means and inclination should choose whatever they believe is best for their children. But those choices must never come at the expense of what has been -- and must always be -- the great equalizer in our society -- public education. [/i]
Lol.. sadly though it is your failed, liberal policies that have turned our public schools into the terrible places that they are today.
[i]We believe that if you put in a lifetime of work, you have earned a retirement of dignity -- not one that is put at risk by your government or unethical business practices.
The first time our nation balanced its budget, it was Andrew Jackson, father of the Democratic Party, who did it. The last time our nation balanced its budget, it was Bill Clinton who did it. I did it every year as Governor. Democrats believe in fiscal responsibility and we're the only ones who have delivered it. [/i]
Whoop Whoop Whoop.. BS Alert, BS Alert.. warning, the lies you are about to hear are to secure Clinton a legacy. Had these been actually true you would have been notified as to where to get further information... lol..
Clinton had nothing to do with balancing the budget, that was the Republican Congress and their contract with America. You want to thank somebody Howie, thank Gingrich for that one.
[i]We believe that every single American has a voice and that it should be heard in the halls of power everyday. And it most certainly must be heard on Election Day. Democracies around the world look to us as a model. How can we be worthy of their aspirations when we have done enough to guarantee accurate elections for our own citizens. [/i]
Well, every American that isn't a backward uneducated Redneck, right Howie?
[i]We believe in a strong and secure America... And we believe we will be stronger by having a moral foreign policy. [/i]
Moral? Ok, explain to me how it is moral to allow millions of people to suffer under the hands of a brutal dictatorship and do nothing.
[i]We need to embrace real political reform -- because only real reform will pry government from the grasp of the special interests who have made a mockery of reform and progress for far too long. [/i]
Special interests like NOW, or the AFL/CIO, or maybe the ACLU? Lol..
[i]The pundits have said that this election was decided on the issue of moral values. I don't believe that. It is a moral value to provide health care. It is a moral value to educate our young people. The sense of community that comes from full participation in our Democracy is a moral value. Honesty is a moral value. [/i]
Yup, and if you guys had a good plan to make any of that happen rather than just paying it the same lip service you always pay it maybe you might make some headway.
[i]If this election had been decided on moral values, Democrats would have won.
It is time for the Democratic Party to start framing the debate.
Nope.. time for you guys to start walking the walk, instead of just talking the talk.
[i]We have to learn to punch our way off the ropes. [/i]
Well you did a fairly good job of hitting below the belt in the last election.
We have to set the agenda.
We should not hesitate to call for reform -- reform in elections, reform in health care and education, reforms that promote ethical business practices. And, yes, we need to talk about some internal reform in the Democratic Party as well, and I'll be discussing that more specifically in the days ahead.
Yup.. good luck.
Reform is the hallmark of a strong Democratic Party.
Those who stand in the way of reform cannot be the focus of our attention for only four months out of every four years.
Reform is a daily battle.
And we must pursue those reforms with conviction -- every day, at all levels, in 50 states.
A little while back, at a fundraiser, a woman came up to me. She identified herself as an evangelical Christian from Texas. I asked her what you are all wondering -- why was she supporting me. She said there were two reasons. The first was that she had a child who had poly-cystic kidney disease, and what that illness made it impossible for their family to get health care.
The second thing she said was, "The other reason we're with you is because evangelical Christians are people of deep conviction, and you're a person of deep conviction. I may not agree with you on everything, but what we want more than anything else from our government is that when something happens to our family or something happens to our country -- it's that the people in office have deep conviction."
To each there own I guess. I know a lot of crazy people with great conviction, but I certainly wouldn't elect them to office.
[i]We are what we believe. And the American people know it.
And I believe that over the next two... four... ten years... Election by election... State by state... Precinct by precinct... Door by door... Vote by vote... We're going to lift our Party up...
And we're going to take this country back for the people who built it.[/i]
Personally I think I'll stick with history on this one. Thus far you've been in a rapidly expanding tail spin from whence it appears there is no escape. Your spiraling out of control and the ground is approaching fast. If you keep tossing out nothing but this sort of rhetoric your going to crash, and hard.
As to giving this people back to the people who built it, I would note that these are not the people collecting government checks. These are the people your taxing to the point where over half of there income is no longer there own. You take there money and give it to a bunch of people who are supposedly "victims" of our "unfair" society. Then you want to expand the power of the government in our lives, take over our healthcare, our retirement accounts, everything. Take our power away to decide for ourselves what is best for us and put all that power in your hands.
Pass.
Seriously Howie, is it any wonder why you keep loosing?
[i]Submitted by: Stepdad[/i]
|
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Barney Frank declared a gay turncoat (thank goodness no film at 11) |
| 12.09.04 (6:50 am) |
Ran across quite the rant on another blog today, felt it necessary to respond but sadly the comment section simply didn't have enough room to dissect the entirety of the diatribe, so I thought it best to do a full blog entry.
[i]We the people for a sane world officially declare 100% support for gay marriage, as a civil right and a birthright. [/i]
Which leads to an interesting question, who's right is it? If I have a fundamental right to be married, as the poster suggests, then it would stand to reason that such a "right" would belong to the individual. Since each and every individual would therefore have a "right" to marriage, technically speaking you then must acknowledge that who, or what they decide to marry is completely immaterial, since marriage is supposedly a fundamental "right" of the individual. So it would soon have to be permissible for any individual to declare himself legally married to anything or anyone he wishes. You open a pretty big door here with this statement. It would be possible for a man to marry an animal, for example. You also open the door for such things as polygamy and yes, even marriages between adults and children.
Marriage is not a fundamental right, it never has been under the law. Legal marriages as provided for by the various states involve a liscening process, much like a drivers license. Just as not everyone is entitled to a drivers license merely as a function of their birth, so too not everyone is entitled to marry merely as a function of their birth.
[i]Those religious institutions that condemn such partnerships are in flagrant violation of the US Constitution's first amendment, which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Furthermore, said institutions often encourage attitudes of hatred and promotion of violence against sexual minorities in many other ways, and have a long history of such. And these "godly" organizations remain, as they have for untold centuries, the main and sole cause of virulent homophobia.[/i]
Well, the First Amendment does state that Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of a religion, however it doesn't really apply in this case as what we are talking about here is not the establishment of a particular religion. If one were willing to make this leap then one must also acknowledge that most crimes, up to an including murder, should be legal thanks to the First Amendment. After all, these same religious "zealots" are also responsible for moral judgments like "thou shall not kill". If the notion is any law that happens to agree with a religious principle is automatically a violation of the First Amendment, I'm afraid most of our laws would be Unconstitutional.
[i]Furthermore, said institutions often encourage attitudes of hatred and promotion of violence against sexual minorities in many other ways[/i]
I can't speak for other religions, only my own, but my religion doesn't encourage hating or being violent towards anyone. But there is a significant difference between "hating" someone and simply not agreeing with or condoning their actions. It is possible to not support Gay Marriage and to feel that homosexuality is wrong without "hating" people who are homosexual. The simple fact that some may disapprove of such a lifestyle is not homophobia. I also happen to disapprove of the way my neighbor parks his car, but I don't hate him for it, and it certainly doesn’t make me “Steveophobic”.
[i]America would not tolerate such ugly behavior by a religous group towards any other minority, in our modern day. And it is one important tenet of so-called activist judges, to protect a minority from the tyranny of the majority. Especially when such a minority is more universally hated than any other; as are homosexuals, transexuals and bisexuals. In fact, as oppressed as many minorities remain, most of them still cling to backward and hateful notions against even their own non-heterosexual minorities.[/i]
Funny, I haven't seen a lot of anti-gay bias in the media or coming from Hollywood. I see a whole ton of anti-Christian bias coming from both.
[i]The issue of gay marriage has become a glaring example of dangers that arise when church matters are not kept separate from those of the state. Indeed, it has become The Great Test Of Today's America regarding the issue of individual rights versus majority prejudice. [/i]
Again, there is no individual right to marriage, never has been. Marriage, as defined by law, has always been a legal contract between two parties, and the vast majority of the protections and benefits of that contract are not designed to protect either of the primaries of the contract (either spouse) but rather the offspring of that relationship should they have children.
[i]And if we keep moving in that sorry direction much longer, we are likely to see a full-blown holocaust against these long-suffering people[/i].
My apologies, but I hardly see this as being anything even remotely like the holocaust. Every year in this country over 1.2 unborn children are deprived of their lives without due process of law based on the unscientific notion that they are not people and thus not entitled to legal protection. That is a holocaust. The fact that a few thousand or perhaps as many as a few hundred thousand people are not able to enter into a contract of marriage hardly compares.
[i]But progressives of all stripes must also share considerable shame, for sometimes participating in homophobic actions (at worst), or looking the other way too often (at best). To rectify this, we stand with other responsible liberals and moderates, who take up the cause of gay equality starting with marriage, in brave and aggressive manners. Even some churches are finally joining in, thus answering to their savior's message of compassion. I hope this will mark a sea-change in attitude regarding our sexual minorities.[/i]
Well, our Savior certainly told us to have compassion, but he also instructed us not to ignore, enable or encourage sin. There is a bit of difference between the two.
[i]We stand with good folks like Assemblymember Mark Leno, with good organizations like Marriage Equality California, and with good media venues like Air America Radio...[/i]
Air America Radio? Are they even still on the air anywhere?
[i]and demand an apology from politicians such as Senator Diane Feinstein, for suggesting that gay marriage is responsible for contributing to the failure of our recent election. [/i]
Lol.. ok, certainly Senator Feinstein should apologize for many, many things but this isn't one of them. In every state where they proposed an amendment to their state constitutions to ban gay marriage it passed, and all by overwhelming margins. This wasn't a whim, this was a pretty good indication as to where the majority of the public stands on the issue.
[i]We decry even Senator John Kerry, for stating in a presidential debate that he is Catholic and against gay marriage. And we also condemn former president William Clinton, for his signing of the Defense of Marrage Act and the destructive policy coined Don't Ask Don't Tell. Lest we forget: we also condemn as queer turncoats those gay politicians like Congressman Barney Frank, who likewise blame gay marriage for the failure of Kerry to win the presidency. We also acknowledge that none of these four examples are Republicans; in fact they are all regarded as staunch Democrats. (Centrists have proven themselves to be Republican wolves in Donkey hide.)[/i]
Lol.. I decry Senator Kerry and former President Clinton for a lot of things, but on this topic all you can really berate them for is playing both sides of the fence. They tell those who are militant supporters of the gay agenda whatever they want to hear, and then tell the rest of the American public something different because they understand how untenable your agenda is to most of the rest of us. When it comes to standing up for what you believe in and getting elected, they'll take getting elected every time.
[i]All truly progressive people will not tolerate any more homophobia from our own liberal groups and representatives, and must therefore, if need be, not just condemn but separate ourselves from those who continue to harbor anti-gay attitudes. We must be as clear, as strong, and as unwavering regarding gay marriage, as we have been these many years against racism, misogyny, child abuse, and preemptive declarations of war. For it has become all too obvious that condemnation of gay marriage is a red herring that serves to detract us from the real agenda: removal of all LGBT rights to establish them as second-class citizens in perpetuity.[/i]
Lol.. ok, your already one of the most protected of all minorities. How much more do you need?
[i]And then, the elimination of all rights for every other citizen, except for a remnant of the power elite. [/i]
So your solution is to enact legislation such as "hate crime" laws that make any crime against a homosexual or other protected minority "worse" than against anyone else? Force hiring quotas on companies through affirmative action so that eventually just being a homosexual almost guarantees you whatever job/promotion you want but also guarantees that you cannot be fired no matter how poorly you do your job?
Is that is what you consider equality?
[i]We will no longer tolerate frivolous and mean-sprited arguments questioning whether or not gays can marry, whether or not they deserve equal status as human beings, and whether or not they shall go to heaven.[/i]
I have no idea if you will go to heaven or not. That's God's decision, not mine. I can tell you that homosexuality is a sin, but then again that just makes you a sinner. I'm a sinner too. Such it is with all men, so I can no more tell you that you can't go to heaven than I can be certain that I will end up there.
[i]Such debates hold no validity in any civilized nation, as they are founded on a premise that is blatantly erroneous from the start, for it flies in the face of common sense and compassion. Nor shall we ever again engage any discussion over partnerships termed and defined as something resembling marriage, but not ever equal to. In other words "separate but equal." (But if equal, why the necessity of coining a new term?) [/i]
Well I'm afraid your declaration that no debate holds validity is simply false. There are plenty of things about this issue that can spark a valid debate. Also, your "separate but equal" argument falls equally flat, as the term marriage is more than just a legal term, it is a term whos definition carries over into the realm of various religions as well. So what your truly asking for is that the State mandate to various religions what does and does not constitute a proper marriage. Sorry, but that is a direct violation of the First Amendment you quoted earlier.
[i]Marriage by any other name just doesn't cut it.[/i]
Then doesn't that make one wonder if what your looking for is actually equality under the law, or instead some sort of forced acceptance by the rest of society? One can be legislated, the other simply can't.
Just my 2 cents worth.
[i]Submitted by: Stepdad[/i]
|
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Al Sharpton for Sale, Inquire Within. |
| 12.09.04 (5:23 am) |
Well folks it looks like not all of John Kerry's campaign workers are still waiting for their checks.
[i]WASHINGTON - All of John Kerry one-time rivals in the Democratic presidential primary eventually lined up to support him as the nominee, but only one got paid for it — Al Sharpton.
The Democratic National Committee paid Sharpton $86,715 in travel and consulting fees to compensate for his campaigning for Kerry and other Democratic candidates, according to reports to the Federal Election Commission.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Sharpton said he was paid for travel and he didn't know how much he had been reimbursed.
"They asked me to travel to 20 or 30 cities to campaign, and I did that," Sharpton said. "What am I supposed to do, donate the cost of air fare?"
But records show that while most of the money was to reimburse travel expenses, Sharpton was paid $35,000 as a "political consulting fee" 15 days after the election. The consulting fee was first reported in this week's edition of the Village Voice.
Democratic National Committee spokesman Jano Cabrera said the party paid Sharpton at the request of the Kerry campaign. [/i]
So it looks like Al got his check cut. Sadly I suppose the rest of the people that worked on Kerry's campaign simply don't rate that type of treatment. Anyone willing to bet that if the rest of Kerry's campaign workers had the ear of the national press and could play the race card at will they would have gotten paid too?
[i]Submitted by: Stepdad[/i]
|
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| While the Bureaucrats talk... |
| 12.08.04 (12:51 pm) |
Ran across this today from Rueters
The United Nations is investigating reports that Rwandan soldiers carried out human rights abuses against civilians in Democratic Republic of Congo last month, a spokeswoman said on Wednesday.
The U.N. mission has said it is "almost certain" the Rwandan army was involved in attacks on Hutu rebels based in eastern Congo after Kigali repeatedly threatened to send soldiers over the border to carry out surgical strikes.
"Almost certain"? This would be hilarous if it weren't so tragic.
"There is an investigation into reports that human rights violations took place during these attacks," said Patricia Tome, spokeswoman for the U.N. mission in Congo.
"There were houses that were clearly burned. According to witnesses, these alleged Rwandans shot at people without knowing if they were rebels or not," she said.
In New York, a Congolese diplomat accused Rwandan forces of wide-ranging abuses that included massacres and inhuman and degrading treatment of civilians in eastern Congo.
"These soldiers, known for their legendary cruelty toward Congolese civilians, pursue a scorched-earth policy by completely destroying our villages and forcing a massive exodus of the population to escape these abuses and massacres," Congo envoy Nduku Booto told the U.N. Security Council.
A senior U.N. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said any evidence suggesting that war crimes had taken place during Rwandan incursions would "put an end to the idea that they just carried out surgical strikes."
Ok, honestly folks, can anyone really defend the UN here? It's taken them over a month to come to the conclusion that it is "almost certain" that human rights abuses took place in the Congo. Their remedy? None. Is this going to help anyone in Rwanda? Nope. Will it put a stop to further abuses, more slaughter in Africa? Nope.
But it goes even deeper than this. Who is ultimately responsible for this mess? The United States? Think again. Try Europe. Most African nations were European colonies at one time or another. We even have them to thank for Iraq, since it too was a European colony at one point. They made a real mess when the ultimately decided to pull out. Do you see them now stepping forward to take one iota of responsibility? Offers of assistance? Anything?
Nope. The UN will, as it always does, endlessly debate and the end result will help no one. Fingers will be pointed back and forth, resolutions will be passed and ignored, and people will ultimately die because of their inaction.
Sad, but true.
[i]Submitted by: Stepdad[/i]
|
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| John Kerry Looses Election and still fails to keep campaign promises |
| 12.08.04 (12:15 pm) |
Found another really great article on [url=http://www.captainsquartersbl...]Captain's Quarters[/url] today, I believe this quote was originally from the Washington Post:
There are rumblings that, despite a recent discovery of $15 million in leftover campaign money, some of the Kerry campaign advance team are having trouble getting paid for the last several weeks of the campaign. Worse, many of them have not seen a per diem check since the end of August, we're told, and they do not know when they're going to get paid.
Phone calls apparently don't get returned and, if they do, the mantra is "next week" or "you're on my list."
So it seems Kerry is possibly the first politician in history that managed to loose an election and still not keep his campaign promises. He promised to pay his campaign workers, and hasn't.
Ok, the guy has over 15 million bucks in donations that he hasn't used, and a multi-billionare for a wife, and supposedly he can't afford to cut a few per diem checks to folks that busted their butts trying to get him elected? That is just really, really sad.
But apparently this isn't the first instance where Kerry has skipped out on paying the check. The Captain also reports:
I see now how John Kerry planned on balancing the budget: he just wouldn't pay the bills. This is not Kerry's first time for leaving workers in the lurch, either. Last July, Kerry left an $847 bill unpaid for a small airport used by the Kerry airplane
So apparently Kerry, who supposedly is some champion of the little guy, has no problem spending government funds, i.e., other peoples money, to support the "little guy", he just won't spend any of his own for the same purpose.
Lol.. ok, seriously folks, is there anyone who can actually say their sorry this guy didn't get elected President?
[i]Submitted by: Stepdad[/i]
|
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Bad Kitty, Very Bad Kitty |
| 12.08.04 (10:44 am) |
Ran across this over at the [url=http://www.captainsquartersbl...]Captains Quarters[/url] this morning:
After a relationship of more than 30 years, Washingtonian magazine and writer Kitty Kelley are divorcing, and the terms are not amicable. Kelley is in a snit because the mag unceremoniously booted her from the masthead of its current issue, citing her controversial book "The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty." In an e-mail last week, Editor Jack Limpert lashed Kelley for what he called the book's partisan timing and its irresponsible reporting about President Bush:
"We are always willing to attack the policies, and the behavior, of the President," Limpert wrote to Kelley. "But it seems to us that the office deserves respect. We don't think we should attack a President personally -- his relations with his wife and family, his use of alcohol or other drugs, things like that -- without a very solid basis for doing so. . . . We felt strongly enough that we didn't want readers to feel that your appearance on the masthead meant we endorsed the book."
The captain seems to feel that Limpert should have informed Kelley. While I certainly see his point, I tend to think that anyone willing to display that much vitrol in a book as Kelley did, to step so far out of the bounds of good taste and proper journalistic ethics that she should simply expect this sort of thing.
No matter how long standing her relationship with The Washingtonian magazine or any other publication, Kitty's long standing tradition of writing hit piece's disguised as a biographies should have prompted this type of action years ago. The fact that Limpert didn't contact her before hand I think does show a certain lack of courage on his part.
However I don't think anyone really believes that contacting her beforehand would have changed anything. I'm sure, given her track record, she will simply cry and bemoan her fate loudly and publically, and I'm equally certain that some of the more militant factions of the left wing will probably generate yet another whacko conspiracy theory about how the Bush Administration is to blame for this, and it's an attempt by them to censure poor little Kitty Kelley.
But the truth is you reap what you sow. She's had ample opportunity over the years to stop this nonsense and reform her ways, but she continues to write "biographies" that are chock full of the most outlandish rumors all attributed to unnamed sources, none of which can be checked or verified.
So I feel no pitty for the poor little Kitty, if she wants to spend all of her time in the litterbox she can hardly complain when the smell comes back to haunt her.
[i]Submitted by: Stepdad[/i]
|
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| New Comment System Trial |
| 12.08.04 (10:21 am) |
Were trying out a new comment system called Haloscan, it gives us some additional capabilities such as trackback that we have been wanting to implement but Tblog doesn't currently support.
To avoid any confusion with tblogs internal commenting, we have disabled that feature for now. We'll be trying to go back and add previous comments as time permits, as well as adding the ability to comment to previous posts, however this does require editing each entry manually and it may take some time. We hope you'll be patient as we complete the changeover.
In the meantime let us know what you think of the new comments section. As usual any questions, comments or suggestions are always welcome.
Submitted By: Stepdad
|
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Just when you thought it couldn't get sillier... |
| 12.08.04 (7:29 am) |
UNITED NATIONS - Secretary-General Kofi Annan opened the first U.N. seminar on confronting Islamophobia with a plea not to judge Muslims by the acts of extremists who target and kill civilians.
Ok, so we need a UN summit on this? Anyone want to place any bets on how long it will be before the UN addresses the widespread denigration of the Christian religion both here and abroad. Anyone holding there breath waiting for that summit? I hope not.. lol..
"And we must make the re-establishment of trust among people of different faiths and cultures our highest priority," Annan added, saying that failure to do this threatens world peace and development.
Hmm.. how about re-establishing some trust in the UN by cleaning house over there, and getting rid of all of those who were bribed by an evil, corrupt dictator like Hussien and who allowed his regime to flourish while his people starved. You might also want to get rid of anyone who was indirectly responsible, say any worthless and incompetent bureaucrat who could allow this huge injustice to take place right under his nose and be supposedly completely oblivious to it. That might go a long way towards "re-establishing trust".
But hey, why bother with any of that. I mean, you guys can't even get an agreement through your incredibly corrupt, inept and useless organization that states that the wholesale slaughter of non-Muslims in Rwanda and Somalia is wrong or should be considered an atrocity, much less get off your butts and institute any sort of action to stop it.
Instead your going to spend your time having a touchy feely summit about how some people might confuse Muslims who are non-violent with the whacko nut jobs who are killing and slaughtering in the name of Islam.
But I guess what is really over the top is where Kofi suggests that it is up to other Muslims to condemn those committing these violent acts.
Say, Kofi, when was the last time the UN said word one about Palestine or the massive corruption, state sponsored terrorism and huge human rights abuses that took place under Yassir and his corrupt government? You guys rushed in every chance you got to condemn Isreal, haven't said word one about Palestine.
Sorry Kofi, but whatever moral high horse your trying to preach from has been gone for years, if not decades. Your a silly, corrupt or incompetent little man in charge of a corrupt, hypocritical organization that serves no real purpose and has done nothing but shield terrible dictators from the consequences of their actions and tried to legitimize their actions and the actions of terrorists world wide. You have no right to preach anything to anyone.
[i]Submitted by: Stepdad[/i]
|
|
|
1 Comments
|
| |
| Intelligent Design Redux |
| 12.03.04 (8:47 am) |
Ok, so we've discussed the basics of Evolutionary Theory and some of the basic problems with Evolution, at least when one assumes the only mechanisms driving evolution are random mutation and natural selection.
But what about Intelligent design? First it's important not to confuse Intelligent design theory with Creation Science, the two are almost completely seperate points of view. Creation Science, at least it's modern version, is founded in religious fundamentalism more than science, and assumes that creation took place exactly, literally as it is told in the book of Genesis.
Creation Science has holes in it that are much, much larger than Evolution. First in order to support it one has to deny the entire fossilized record and assume that fossils of such things like dinosaurs are all faked. Having never been one much for consipracy theories I'm afraid I simply cannot accept this notion. Also, one has to assume that the age of the earth is much, much younger than the 4 1/2 billion years as geological and other scientific evidence suggests. Again it requires a denial of scientific fact to support, and again it simply doesn't lend itself well to known evidence. But then I've never been one for a literal reading of the scriptures in this fashion. The first difficulty I run into is the definition of the word day. The Bible may state that God created the earth in 7 days, but no one really knows how long a day is to God. Creation scientists assume that by day the Bible refers to a 24 hour day as we experience them here on earth, the time it takes for the earth to revolve around the sun. But why would God use this as a unit of measuring time, if the earth wasn't even created on the first day? It just doesn't make a lot of sense. It's also important to note that the world originally used that is now translated into most English versions of the Old Testamant as day is actually translated from the ancient Hebrew word jolm. There are a lot of translations for the word jolm, including an epoch (which would indicate any period of time 1,000 years or greater).
My own view of the scriptures is that Gensis, while true, cannot be taken literally because one has to consider the audience. The Word may have come from God, but it was recorded by man, and any explanation of the world origins would have to be put in a fashion that man would understand. If we are designed by a Creator (and I believe that we are), then certainly that Creator if he choose to explain to us our origins would not attempt to explain the inner workings of such things as DNA to a society that had little to no scientific understanding whatsoever.
Try explaning something that complex, like say astrophysics or nuclear physics, to your average first grader and have them record it in their own words, and then read it back. You'll find that what they recorded, while essentially true, probably left a great deal out of the explanation and probably oversimplified things even more than you did to try and get them to comprehend the topic at hand. There understanding, while not wrong on untrue, is going to be very basic and is going to be missing a lot of information that would make things much clearer to a more advanced reader.
Looking at Genesis with this in mind, it actually turns out to be a fairly good explanation of something like evolution, God started with the simplier life forms and gradually created the more complex, culminating in his final and most advanced creation of Man. So really when considered critically there isn't anything in this account that really is at odds with current scientific understanding, it is simply that our understanding of certain mechanisms now is far better and that the account in question was recorded by a society that had virtual no grasp of scientific principles whatsoever. Small wonder the vocbulary and understanding found in the Bible is so different than what we use today. This of course is my own opinion on the subject.
The nature of Intelligent design theory is somewhat different, however, it does not state that any particular creation story or religion is correct, it merely states that as a matter of scientific evidence that there must have been some manner of intelligence that influenced the design of life here on earth.
There is a multitude of evidence to point to this, but I think the most compelling is the combination of amino acids into proteins. All living cells are based on protiens. Without them life as we know it could not exist. Protiens are actually a combination of amino acids, the amino acids combine to form chains. These chains must be in a certain order and combine in a certain way to form protiens.
If it helps you can think of it as a combination lock, much like that of a bank vault. You have to enter the correct combination in the correct order to get the door to open (your desired result). Much the same is true of protiens. If you want to form cells you have to first form specific protiens, and if you want to form protiens you need to first get the proper sequence of amino acids to combine in the correct order to "open the door" or create the protien in question.
Under the notion of intelligent design this is childs play to explain. If you have an intelligent designer he either already knows these combinations or he experiments to find them. He enters the proper combination in the proper order and viola, the bank vault opens, the proteins needed form and life begins.
The problem is the flip side of the coin, the notion that there is no intelligence at work and that life forms as a function of random chance. With no intelligence at work, you more or less have to keep trying different combinations randomly until you find one that works.
Lets use our combination lock again to illustrate by example. Lets say we have an extremely simple lock, one that only has numbers from 0-9 (10 different possibilities) and that it only requires one number to open. Now, opening this sort of lock is going to be pretty easy, all you need to do is find which of the 10 numbers you need to open the lock. You have a 1 in 10 chance of finding that particular number on your first try. Lets say we want to be methodical about this and we begin with number 1. That doesn't open the lock. So we try #2 instead. Our odds that this is the correct combination increase from 1 in 10 to 2 in 10, because we already know that #1 is not the correct combination. We tried it once and it didn't work. As you can see it won't take long for us to open a lock like this, our odds decrease with each attempt. Eventually we will find the right combination.
However, this method requires a guiding intelligence. It is the guiding intelligence that realizes that #1 is not the correct combination, discards it and doesn't try the same number again. Without that guiding intelligence, what happens? We are reduced to simply spinning the wheel on the lock and selecting the numbers at random. We might try the combination of 1 dozens of times over and over again until we finally get a random occurance of the correct combination (lets say in this case the #7.) Each attempt does not improve our odds of success, our odds of success remain at 1 in 10 for each try. Suddenly opening this lock is a lot more difficult and the time it will take us increases dramatically.
Now lets throw another problem into the mix, let us assume that our number of chances at finding the correct combination is limited, as it would be if one is using a pool of amino acids. You only have so many amino acids in the pool, and once they are used up on incorrect combinations they are no longer available to form correct ones. So lets give ourselves only three spins at the combination lock.
With only a 1 in 10 chance of finding the correct combination with each spin, our odds of opening the lock suddenly decrease even more dramatically, as we only have 3 random attempts to get it right. As you can see this has a drastic effect on a successful outcome only using a single combination with 10 possible variations.
Now imagine if you were using amino acids instead of a combination lock, and your number of combinations and variations increased dramatically. Your odds of success, even to form the most basic protien, get astronomical very, very quickly.
This is were we must begin our discussion of Statistical Impossiblity. According to the French mathematician Emile Borel, any occurence whose odds are worse than about 1 chance out of 10^50 power (10 followed by 50 zeros) the odds of such an occurence are so low that one can reasonable conclude that it is a statistical impossibility. It simply will never happen. When one considers that 10^50 power is about equal to the number of atoms that make up our entire planet, I'd say Borel's hypothesis is probably pretty reasonable. Imagine the odds of having someone pick out a single atom from the entire earth and having you properly guess which one it happens to be, and I think you'll agree with me that what your looking at is pretty much impossible.
So, once we exceed the odds of 1 chance in 10^50 it's reasonable to assume that our task of combining amino acids into usable protiens pretty much becomes an impossible one.
Protiens are made of amino acids, and science shows us that there are approximately 20 different amino acids that are used to build protiens. These amino acids form themselves into chains (or polymers) that combine to form proteins. The simpilest protein is made of a chain of 5 such amino acids. So to form the simplest protien assuming that all 20 amino acids were available in the "priomordial soup" from which life supposedly sprang would require a probability of 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20, or one possibility in 3,200,000. Imagine spinning 5 seperate combination dials numbers 0-19 each randomly until you come up with the correct combination, and that will give you a good feel for just how complicated this combination occuring randomly would be. But still odds that are approximately 1 in 3 million are still well within the bounds of statitistical probability, assuming you don't run out of amino acids. But the protien we just formed isn't complex enough to support life. Not yet. To do that we need a protein that is at least 50 amino acid chains, with the more complex protiens such as those found in the human body numbering in the neighborhood of 1,000 protien chains. Imagine spinning 50 dials randomly, all numbered 1-20, in the hopes of finding the correct combination. That's just what you need to build the most simplistic protien needed. To get up to the more complex ones your spinning as many as 1,000 dials, all numbered 1-20, hoping to hit just exactly the right combination.
But lets look at just the simpiliest one we need. We need to hit the right combination of 1 in 20 fifty times in order to get our desired result. The odds? one chance out of 10^65, well above the level of a statistical impossiblity already, and we haven't even discussed the size of our amino acid pool or the formation of more complex protiens that would require you to spin 1000 dials all numbered 1-20 in the hopes of hitting just the correct combination. Your odds? So far beyond even astronomical that you'd have a better chance of winning the lottery, not just once but 100 times in a row.
So couldn't these protiens "evolve"? Nope. These aren't living organisms, at least not yet. There just combinations of amino acids that do not grow, reproduce, adapt or evolve. If you can't get the correct sequence together for the protein, you can't even begin to create a living cell. There is not evolution, no life, nothing but a lot of amino acid chains combined in the wrong sequence that do you no good whatsoever.
These are the odds of life evolving as a function of random chance, the result of a lightning strike in a pool of amino acids. To even get your odds to the point where they are even beyond ludicrious you need to use an amino acid pool larger than the size of the Earth itself. They are far beyond the realm of statistical impossiblity when you look at even the formation of the most basic protien required to support life. When you look at the myriad number of protiens that would have had to be created as a function of random chance your odds increase to the point where you go beyond simply statistical impossibility. You get to the point where it would have required an amino acid pool larger than the size of our galaxy and so many failed combinations that to hit on the correct combination would probably take far longer than 15 billion years, which is older than the age of our known cosmos.
I simply see no way one can justify a theory of random chance design given the statistical probabilitys involved. It is simply impossible, many times over, for life to have simply began as a function of random chance. Some guiding force must have taken a hand in our creation. The only real debate is what form and manner that Creator or Creators takes, but that of course is a matter of faith rather than a matter of science.
[i]Submitted by Stepdad[/i]
|
|
|
22 Comments
|
| |
| Evolution Vrs Intelligent Design, By Request (no kidding) |
| 12.03.04 (6:02 am) |
We've been having a bit of a discussion about the theory of evolution vrs the theory of intelligent design. This posting will address that topic, as well as a few of the more common misconceptions about these theories and some of the more commonly held viewpoints about the creation of our world and the life-forms that currently inhabit it.
To begin with we will state the theory of Intelligent Design. The theory itself is very simple, it merely states that some form of intelligence to a role into our creation. That's it, nothing more, nothing less. The theory does not speak to the processes or procedures that intelligence may or may not have used to create such life, nor does it speak to the manner or nature of that intelligence. It simply states that some form of intelligence took a hand in our creation.
Now, despite common belief this theory is not incompatible with the theory of evolution, as the theory of evolution simply addresses itself to postulating the manner or process in which life might have evolved on this planet. The Theory of Evolution, as stated by Darwin, does not rule out the notion that a intelligence, or a creator, might have been involved in this process. However the Theory of Evolution is more often that not misrepresented particularly when being taught in the grade school and high school levels to rule out the possibility of intelligent design. It is this misconception that causes so many of the problems between proponents of the Theory of Evolution and proponents of Intelligent design.
That having been said, it is important to realize that the Theory of Evolution is far from perfect, in fact it has holes in it large enough to drive several semi trucks through. The first a most glaring problem with the Theory itself is the lack of fossil support.
Fossilized bones of animal species have provided us with a rather rich history of life here on earth. We have discovered fossils of dinosaurs and other species that have been extinct for thousands, even millions of years. However despite the thousands of different species we have discovered as part of the fossilized record, to date we haven't found a single fossil of a transitory species.
If the Theory of Evolution is true, it means that at some point a species would "evolve" into another species, or two species would have a common ancestor. To date nothing in our fossil record really supports this notion. While we have found a few promising prospects, most, on further examination, have proven not to be transitory species at all. So the question becomes, with the thousands of different species we have discovered in the fossilized record, if evolution is indeed true why have we never discovered a fossil that supports it? This is a troubling question indeed.
But this is by no means the biggest hole in the Theory. The biggest hole in evolutionary theory is our own species, Homo Sapiens. Strictly speaking, as species go, our evolutionary design is terrible. We are physically the weakest species on the planet, because we walk erect. From an evolutionary design standpoint, it is a terrible design. All of our vital organs are exposed as a result, and all of our muscle groups must work against each other to hold us erect, making the energy available for lifting, grasping, running, etc far less than other designs.
Pound for pound there isn't a monkey or gorilla out there that doesn't far exceed us in the categories of physical strength and endurance, speed or dexterity. Many proponents state that our ability to stand erect is a result of our origins in the Savannah, where the ability to stand erect allowed us to sense danger more readily. as we could see much further this way. That would make a certain amount of sense, I suppose, if not for the fact that the predators we most likely would be trying to sense would not be standing erect, and as such our ability to see over the top of the grass would not be all that useful in spotting predators hiding in that same grass. It is also interesting to note that if this were indeed a desirable trait it is not a trait that man alone possesses. There are several other species that can stand erect when the situation calls for it, such as bears or even many species of ape.
So from an evolutionary standpoint, our ability to walk erect is actually a step backwards. The only reason we have survived as a species is thanks to our cognitive abilities. If, as evolution suggests, that man and ape had a common ancestor, it would have made far more sense from an evolutionary standpoint that the dominant species on this planet would have been far more akin to the ape in physicality but more intelligent. He would have walked only semi-erect, maintaining the lower profile and protecting his vital organs from attack as well as maintaining the superior strength and speed benefits.
Such a species would have been far more adaptable and survivable, and as such would have easily replaced us according to evolutionary theory. The only evolutionary advantage we have is our superior intelligence, and had both we and the ape evolved from a common ancestor as evolution suggests the natural evolutionary result would have been a creature that moves and carries itself like an ape and thinks like a man. Had we truly evolved from a common ancestor there is little doubt that our evolutionary path would have ended in a much different result, if the only guiding force in evolution was that of natural selection.
There are other problems with evolution as well, certain structures in the human body simply make little to no sense if the only guiding force in our species development was random mutation and natural selection. Our heart, for example, contains a lining that has perhaps the lowest coefficient of friction of any substance known to mankind. This allows our heart to be extremely efficient.
But this efficiency really doesn't translate into an evolutionary advantage persee. Simply making the heart larger or making the hear muscles more powerful or making our bodies smaller all would have accomplished the same evolutionary goal, this particular function of our design really doesn't lend itself to explanation through natural selection.
Then you have structures such as the human eye. The eye is pretty much an all or nothing type of affair. In order to function all of the parts have to be there and they all have to be in working order and in the right proportions. How does something like this "evolve"? Why aren't the vast majority of species on this planet blind, and if we are looking at a process of natural selection (blind creatures have a disadvantage and as such went extinct) why aren't there thousands of species of blind creatures in our fossil record? How is it that a structure as complex as the eye, one that would lend no evolutionary advantage until it was complete (requiring vast amounts of time and random mutations), evolve? Sure, it's technically possible, but it would require a vast number of random mutations to explain, and most of these mutations would have no evolutionary advantage until the structure was complete. So, if random mutation and natural selection are the process by which we evolve, why did all of these random mutations that had no real evolutionary advantage survive and reproduce as opposed to those more numerous, non-mutated members of the species that had all the same evolutionary advantages until the eye structure was complete enough and complex enough to lend an advantage? Furthermore where is the fossilized record of all of these blind species that must have existed prior to the evolution of the eye? It really just makes no sense, if random chance and natural selection are the only means by which life progressed, that the eye would develop as a result. It would be far more likely that our world would be populated by species that are mostly blind, and only a few or even one would have achieved sight through evolution.
These of course are just a few examples, there are others. This should serve as sufficient evidence that by itself the theory of evolution does have some major problems that cannot adequately be addressed at this time. It lacks a proper amount of scientific evidence to be taught as fact, and as a theory there are some obvious problems that show that the theory itself, at least in its current form, is probably either incorrect or at the very least incomplete.
So I don't really object to the theory itself being taught in the grade school/high school levels, however I do object to the manner in which the theory is most often presented. The theory is most often presented more as fact than theory, and it is most often presented incorrectly as scientific fact that proves there is no Creator. I've had some rather direct experience in this regard, both of my older children attended public school for a time and their textbooks and their teachers presented the Theory of Evolution in this fashion. When approached on the topic, the teachers and the school administration got extremely defensive almost from the get go, and I was informed very quickly that as far as they were concerned this curriculum was mandated by the Constitution and various court decisions, it was not open to discussion or interpretation.
Welcome to the current state of affairs in our public schools. The Theory of Evolution is now being taught as scientific fact and being misrepresented to give the students the impression that there can be no God, no Supreme Being, no Creator. Sad but true.
This post is getting somewhat lengthy, so I think I will stop here for now and put the more in-depth discussion of Intelligent Design, as a theory, in the next posting.
Submitted by: Stepdad
|
|
|
50 Comments
|
| |
| Doesn't go your way? Blame the Religious Right |
| 12.02.04 (12:39 pm) |
I'm not normally in the habit of posting responses to other blogs on my own blog, but ever once in a while I find one so outlandish or noteworthy I find that an adequate response can only be made by doing exactly that. So I'll beg your indulgence, as I ran across one today that I really think warrants a proper response, something a bit more in-depth than could be managed by a simple comment. I’m also not in the habit of discussing religious beliefs, however I thought since I was violating one long standing tradition of the blog I might as well go for broke and throw in my analysis of Homosexuality from a Christian perspective as well, in the hopes that it might provide some insight to those who are not Christian or perhaps some that are and still profess a belief that homosexuality is not a sin. Again this is not my normal practice, but considering the subject at hand I thought it might prove useful to some.
From Dr. Forbush's blog:
Networks Buckle to the Religious Right The Religious right has made an inroad to eroding the First Amendment. No, this doesn’t have to do with school prayer or mentioning God in the constitution. Instead it has to do with the right for a church to advertise on TV. The United Church of Christ wanted to run an ad on CBS and NBC advertising the fact that they are open and accepting people of all lifestyles. This means that they accept gays in their Church and they don’t call homosexuality a sin. In fact, you can get married in the United Church of Christ if you are a gay couple. The marriage may not have legal standing, but it does stand up in the eyes of God, and that’s what many people want.
But, apparently CBS and NBC don’t see it that way. Instead they don’t want to take United Church of Christ’s money for the advertisement. They don’t want to offend their audience. In other words, the religious right has managed to deny free speech to the United Church of Christ by using fear tactics. The religious right has become so powerful that the Networks shudder at the thought of offending these people. All I have to say is that the Networks need to get a spine and stand up to these extremists.
Lol.. ok, not even certain where to begin here. I think the quotation that struck me hardest was this one, "In fact, you can get married in the United Church of Christ if you are a gay couple. The marriage may not have legal standing, but it does stand up in the eyes of God, and that’s what many people want. " Now I don't presume to know the mind of God, nor would I presume to speak for Him on any subject, particular on a subject like this. But I found it rather presumptive of the good Doctor to do precisely that. He has no idea how valid or invalid such a "marriage" would be to God, only God knows that. But while I may not know the mind of God, I do have a rather good instruction manual for proper behavior that He gave to us all, the Bible. God saw fit to specifically state in the Old Testament that homosexuality is a sin, and I would have to say it's a pretty specific condemnation that doesn't leave much doubt on the topic:
Leviticus 18:22: ""'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
In fact Leviticus 18:7-23 is more or less a laundry list of sexual no-no's, everything from incest to bestiality is specifically condemened in these passages. So I think if one truly wishes to proclaim themselves as a Christian Church it's a little hard to do so when you decide to pick and choose what portions of the Bible you wish to follow. I think you'd also have a hard time making the case that Homosexuality is anything other than sinful in the eyes of God, at least the God worshiped by Christian's, since it would seem he specifically went out of his way to condemn it in the Old Testament of the Bible.
However if one wishes to proclaim themselves a follower of Christ I think it is also important to take note of how Christ dealt with sin, and with sinners. While he condemned the sin, he did not condemn the sinner. He spoke of how we needed to love each other as we love ourselves, and how we also need to be mindful of the fact that we are all sinners in God's eyes. So really I hold no ill will in this regard, the only real question for me is one of repentance. You can't really be forgiven of a sin unless you renounce it as sin and repent. So while I feel compassion towards my brothers and sisters who are lost to this sin, in truth there is little I can do for them as long as they refuse to acknowledge their actions as sinful. Nor can I really, as a Christian, tell them that which they so desperately wish to hear, that what they are doing isn't a sin. Just my own personal viewpoint as a Christian, you understand, take it for what you will.
So much for the religious aspect, now moving back to the secular world. I find it rather interesting to note that the good Doctor somehow equates the networks decision not to run these ads as an attack on the First Amendments protection of free speech. This seems to be a very common mistake made by many of those who are decidely liberal in their politics, they seem to feel that the First Amendment gaurantees some right of acceptance or the right of access to major media of some sort. It doesn't, nor has it ever done so. The First Amendent is quite clear that it merely protects your right of Freedom of Expression from government intervention.
It says nothing about a broadcaster having to run advertisements that it finds offensive or out of character with their viewing audience. That is a marketing decision that is left to the broadcaster alone, and much like a resteraunt they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. Your right of free speech might mean that the Government can't step in and tell you that it is illegal to speak about homosexuality, it in no way gaurantees you that other people will want to listen to you or grant you access to a venue that will publicize your viewpoint widely. I'm quite certain the good Doctor would be the first to protest if a network decided to run paid infomercials for the KKK - and I would happily pick up a sign and join him to prevent that kind of nonsense from being put on the air.
The fact that while homosexuality might be a darling cause the left in no way means that it is popular with the country at large, and it is only good business for the networks to deny this type of advertisment, an ad which might endear them to the social elite but would likely cost them dearly in viewership in most of the rest of the nation. Nothing about that violates this groups right of free speech.
The other quote that I found so amusing in this statement was this one "The religious right has become so powerful that the Networks shudder at the thought of offending these people." Ahh, if only it were true. Sadly, however, I'm afraid the good doctor truly missed the boat on his analysis here. If the "religious right" were truly that powerful you wouldn't see the kind of morally bankrupt swill that gluts our airwaves on nearly every network. I could cite numerous examples, but I think everyone who has ever watched any prime time TV on any station can attest to the fact that the Religious Right obviously has almost no control over what makes it on network TV.
Submitted by Stepdad
|
|
|
8 Comments
|
| |
| Issues Archive : The Culture War |
| 12.02.04 (8:54 am) |
Our issues archives allow you to quickly and easily access all of the blog entries related to a particular issue. Just click on the titles below to read the various blog entries related to the ongoing Culture War in the United States.
[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Doesn't go your way? Blame the Religious Right..[/url]
[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Protect our Prisoners, but not our kids...[/url]
[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]The Declaration of Independence Declared Unconstitutional?[/url]
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Protect our Prisoners, but not our kids... |
| 12.02.04 (8:32 am) |
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. - Missouri's most violent criminals can no longer play video games that simulate murders, carjackings and the killing of police officers, a decision reached after prison officials were told about the content.
"We didn't closely review these," Dave Dormire, superintendent of the Jefferson City Correctional Center, told The Kansas City Star. "We were told these games had more like cartoon violence."
The Star reported Thursday the state's new maximum-security prison pulled dozens of violent Sony PlayStation 2 (news - web sites) games from its recreation center on Wednesday, after officials were alerted to their content by a reporter. Inmates had been using them for months.
In fact, the prison's PlayStation offerings included one of the most violent games on the market, "Hitman: Contracts," in which players use everything from meat hooks to silencer-equipped pistols to carry out brutal contract killings.
In all, 35 of the facility's more than 80 games were removed. Others remain, including science fiction and sports games.
The games were paid for from inmates' purchases — mostly of snacks — at the prison canteen. The canteen generates up to $20,000 monthly and a committee of corrections officials, prison staffers and several inmates decides how to spend it.
Much of the cash is used for weightlifting and exercise equipment. Video games are a new purchase in Jefferson City; prison officials say other facilities have done the same, though it doesn't appear to be the norm.
"It has a good effect on helping us run the prison and make sure they're busy and not trying to work on ways to escape or harm others," Dormire said. "That's kind of our bottom line — public safety."
Some corrections experts were shocked that violent games would be allowed in the hands of violent prisoners.
Jacqueline Helfgott, a professor at Seattle University who has studied the effects of violent movies and video games on criminal behavior, said such media can have a negative effect on inmates.
"You get people in a maximum-security prison who have already gone over the line," she said. "They're not afraid to engage in violence, unlike the nerd sitting in front of his computer."
Jim Houston, a professor of criminal justice at Grand Valley State University in Grand Rapids, Mich., agreed.
"These kinds of games reinforce a criminal lifestyle that caused them to get into prison in the first place," Houston said.
Mary Still, a spokeswoman for Gov. Bob Holden, said the governor believes violent games are inappropriate for prisoners. The governor does not oppose nonviolent video games for inmates, but says they should not come at taxpayer expense.
The $128 million Jefferson City Correctional Center opened in September to replace the 170-year-old Missouri State Penitentiary. It has 1,996 beds.
Funny isn't it, the fact that no one seems to disagree that such violent games are bad for prisoners but how everyone bends over backwards to market this sludge to children?
The irony here is that our inmates are now better protected than our children in many regards. To bad that as a society we worry more about convicted felons than innocent children.
What is even more ironic is that even while posting this I'm fairly certain I'll get a long 'free speech" diatribe from someone on the left, claiming that my desire is to "censor" these types of games because I'm some manner of "fascist". Funny, no one on the left seemed all that upset when Camel was forced to stop using a cartoon of a camel in it's cigarette advertising because that might appeal to children. No one on the left seems to care much at all about censorship like that, but they get awfully upset whenever anyone has the temerity to suggest that violent video games or music lyrics are likely to be every bit as harmful, if not more so, to children than smoking.
But then I guess the left never runs out of double standards.
|
|
|
5 Comments
|
| |
| Photo Caption Contest Time |
| 12.02.04 (8:06 am) |
Yes folks, our critically acclaimed photo caption contest is back. This weeks picture is that of retiring news anchor Dan Rather:
[image]stepdad_290602986.jpg[/image]
As usual enter as often as you like, no purchase necessary, void where prohibited :)
|
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Adding to Clintons Legacy |
| 12.02.04 (6:44 am) |
This in from ABC News:
Dec. 1, 2004 — Former American fugitive Marc Rich was a middleman for several of Iraq's suspect oil deals in February 2001, just one month after his pardon from President Clinton, according to oil industry shipping records obtained by ABC News.
And a U.S. criminal investigation is looking into whether Rich, as well as several other prominent oil traders, made illegal payments to Iraq in order to obtain the lucrative oil contracts.
"Without that kind of middleman, the system would not work because the major oil companies did not want to deal with Iraq because there was a mandated kickback," said human rights investigator John Fawcett.
Another broker was New York oil trader Ben Pollner, head of Taurus Oil, who investigators say handled several billion dollars worth of the transactions now under investigation.
Pollner told ABC News he paid no bribes or kickbacks to the Iraqi regime.
Rich is still living in Switzerland and unavailable for comment.
The roles of several American oil companies, including ChevronTexaco and ExxonMobil, are also under investigation. ChevronTexaco received subpoenas requesting information for two separate grand jury proceedings, and said they were cooperating fully with both investigations.
The U.N. oil-for-food corruption scandal only continues to grow in scope. Today, Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., who is leading the congressional investigation into the program, said that U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan should resign because the scandal occurred on his watch.
"I think there's a terrible stain on the credibility and the reputation of the United Nations, there's no doubt about that," said Coleman. "If we're ever to get to the bottom, how can you get there if the guy who was in charge during the course of this fraud and corruption is the guy now who is supposed to be ferreting it out?"
Top officials of the United Nations, including Annan, are accused of looking the other way as some $21 billion meant for humanitarian aid was stolen by the Saddam Hussein regime.
Uncovered in the federal criminal investigation were previously undisclosed payments to Annan's son, Kojo, from his employer Cotecna. The Swiss company had been specifically hired to monitor the oil-for-food program.
So we have Marc Rich getting copious kick backs from Sadaam Hussien and using some of the proceeds to buy a pardon for some of his other nefarious activities from then President Bill Clinton. Seems that Denise Rich, Marc’s ex-wife, most generously donated over 1 million dollars to the Democratic Party and to Clinton’s presidential library. Entirely a coincidence, I’m sure.. lol..
But hey, to be fair Marc Rich wasn’t the only person pardoned by Clinton, just one of the high profile pardons he dolled out in his last days as President. I thought it might be interesting to look at a few of the other pardons Clinton gave away:
Dorothy Rivers pled guilty in April 1997 to a 40-count theft and tax evasion indictment. Rivers pocketed $1.3 million in federal HUD grants and moneys from the Illinois and Chicago governments. Officials entrusted Rivers with these funds to shelter homeless families and assist pregnant teenage girls. Instead, Rivers used these taxpayer dollars to bankroll her opulent lifestyle.
Rivers' chauffeur drove her to Neiman Marcus where she dropped $800 on a purse and $35,000 on a sable coat. She underwrote her son's Mercedes-Benz. As Bob Port of the New York Daily News reported, Rivers spent $250,000 to launch Chi-Sounds, a record company with Carl Davis, the producer of the doo-wop hit "Duke of Earl." Fittingly, one local boutique owner nicknamed the extravagant Rivers "Duchess."
Rivers also assigned a costumed Santa Claus to cruise Chicago in a limousine and hand-deliver invitations to her Christmas bash. Guests received glasses of champagne along with their party announcements. The soiree itself featured sparkling wine cascading from a six-foot-high glass. All paid for by money meant to go to homeless families. Makes one wonder why she received a pardon.
Apparently it was thanks, at least in part, to a letter written by Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., who wrote in a letter to then President Clinton, "Dorothy has been a loyal and hard-working member of the Democratic Party . . ."
It seems Dorothy also took time out of her busy social schedule to host Democratic fund-raisers as well as serve on the Management Oversight Committee of Jesse Jackson's Operation PUSH.
According to at least one federal officer close to the case, “There's no way, given the extent and nature of her crimes, that any one ever would find her qualified for clemency, She never has expressed any remorse. Ever since her sentence, she has tried to undo her guilty plea."
I guess its ok to rip off the homeless, as long as you vote democrat.
How about Carlos Vignali? This wonderful citizen won a commutation after serving six years of a 15-year sentence for distributing 800 pounds of cocaine from California to Minnesota, where it was sold as crack. Apparently Vignali's father, Horacio, is a generous political donor. Since his son's autumn 1994 trial, the elder Vignali has made $160,000 in political donations, some to Republicans but most to Democratic campaign committees and elected officials including Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., one of several Democratic lawmakers who wrote the White House on Vignali's behalf.
President Clinton also pardoned Charles Wilfred Morgan III, an Arkansan who spent three years in jail for cocaine distribution in the 1980s. Morgan's lawyer was former Clinton White House counsel William Kennedy III. Morgan's stepfather, George Billingsley, donated $42,200 to Democrats in the 1990s. Did these contributions facilitate the pardon? Billingsley told the Wall Street Journal, "You'd like to think . . . that it had some influence."
Palm Beach attorney Arnold Paul Prosperi evaded taxes on $3 million he embezzled from clients. President Clinton commuted his three-year sentence before Prosperi, free on bond, spent even a night in the slammer. Clinton's old college pal donated $45,000 to the preservationist White House Historical Association. Prosperi is suspected of embezzling this sum, too.
Manhattan attorney Harvey Weinig pleaded guilty in September 1995 to laundering $100 million in cash for the Cali cocaine cartel. In 1994, the Daily News' Greg B. Smith reports, Weinig was involved in the kidnapping of a businessman who owed money to the drug ring. President Clinton commuted Weinig's 11-year, three month sentence, springing him 5½ years early.
That’s some legacy alright.. lol. Amazing that so many in the Democratic party want this man’s wife to run for President in 2008.
|
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| UN = Useless Ninnies? |
| 12.02.04 (6:14 am) |
Ran across this on Reuters today:
VIENNA (Reuters) - Inspectors from the U.N. nuclear watchdog would like to visit a secret military site in Iran that an exile group said was a nuclear weapons site, but they lack the legal authority to go there, U.N. diplomats told Reuters.
....
"The IAEA simply has no authority to go to sites that are not declared nuclear sites," a diplomat close to the IAEA inspection process told Reuters. He said that the IAEA had not asked to inspect Lavizan II, although they would like to.
So the much vaunted UN nuclear watchdogs are only allowed to go to those sites that Iran says they can visit?
Lol.. I suppose this would be rather funny if it were not so pathetic. Supposedly the purpose of the UN, at least according to their own charter, is to prevent future holocausts like the one that took place in Nazi Germany in the late 30's and early 40's. That was their original purpose, at any rate.
But it seems they have become completely useless for this particular mission, they can't even agree that what is happening in Somalia is a holocaust, much less do anything to stop it. Strike 1.
They couldn't do anything about the massive human rights violations in Iraq either while Sadaam was in power. Of course I suppose the billons of dollars Sadaam paid them in bribes via the Oil for Food scam might have had some influence there. Strike 2.
So what else does the UN do? Well, supposedly they are also tasked with monitoring nuclear weapons development and putting a stop to nations, particularly unstable nations, that wish to gain this technology.
Whoops, strike 3, you are outta here. Can anyone give me a single good reason why we are paying huge amounts of our taxpayer dollars to this bumbling, inept and corrupt organization that accomplishes nothing?
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Portrait of a Patriot |
| 12.02.04 (4:50 am) |
I recieved an email this morning with some pictures of a semi truck. Normally of course this would be a rather odd happenstance to say the least, but this particular truck is something rather special. It is owned and operated by John Holgrem of Shafer, MN.
[image]stepdad_668414614.jpg[/image]
The truck has the names of every single victim of the 9/11 attacks painted on the side.
[image]stepdad_129449382.jpg[/image]
Apparently the trucker in question is often pulled over by state troopers, not so that they can give him a ticket but rather so than can get their pictures taken with the truck.
[image]stepdad_787679393.jpg[/image]
We salute Mr. John Holgrem of Shafer, MN for this tribute to the victims of 9/11, and we thank this honorable and patrotic man for reminding us all what it truly means to be an American.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| The Declaration of Independence Declared Unconstitutional? |
| 12.01.04 (11:52 am) |
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A California teacher has been barred by his school from giving students documents from American history that refer to God -- including the Declaration of Independence.
Amazing, isn't it? Apparently the Principle of Stevens Creek School in Cupertino ( a suburb of San Francisco ) has decided that teaching the Declaration of Independence is now forbidden, since it contains references to a creator.
Makes one wonder just how far the left is going to go with this historical and cultural purge of our nation. If left unfettered, will we eventually remove any and all such references so that we are only allowed to discuss historical figures who also happened to be atheists? Which leads to an interesting side question, can anyone name a historical figure of note in our nation’s history that was an atheist?
Is it really any wonder why those on the left are having such a difficult time selling their ideology to the vast majority of the American people, when stories like this one are more and more prevalent each day?
I hope that you will all take a moment and join me in sending an email to Principle Patricia Vidmar of Stevens creek Elementary, and tell her that we hold at least one truth to be self evident. That we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, one of them being the right to express our extreme displeasure to a person like herself who is payed with tax payer funds, in other words our money, and is placing her own misanthropic political agenda above the welfare of her own students.
You can send an email to Principle Vidmar in care of Stevens Elementary using the email below:
block_leann@Cupertino.k12.ca.us
I did a bit of investigation myself, and found a news release published by the Cupertino School District on the subject, which reads as follows:
November 30, 2004 – Cupertino, CA.— The federal lawsuit filed by Stephen Williams against representatives of the Cupertino Union School District has raised a number of questions about District curriculum. The Cupertino Union School District will continue to educate its fifth grade students about America’s founding era leaders and the political, religious, social and economic ideas and beliefs that led to the birth of our great nation. The Declaration of Independence, sections of the United States Constitution, and other historical documents are re-printed in our textbooks, displayed in some of our school buildings, and taught in our social studies curriculum and lessons. There has been no ban of such documents or their underlying principles in the Cupertino Union School District.
The Constitution requires the District to uphold the First Amendment which mandates the separation between Church and State. Courts have repeatedly held that public schools have the right and the duty to review instructional materials to ensure compliance with this constitutional obligation. The District’s conduct in this matter has been consistent with its obligations. The Cupertino Union School District’s principals and other instructional leaders play a crucial role in working with teachers to ensure that constitutional mandates are met, and that all instructional materials are appropriate and consistent with the State framework and applicable State curriculum standards. The District will continue to act in accordance with its legal obligations and educational objectives.
So while they are apparently willing to reprint certain portions of the Declaration of Independence in the textbooks and use this material, the full Declaration, at least in their view, is Unconstitutional because it contains references to God.
One really has to wonder if perhaps the people in charge of this school district are not the same folks that are lobbying so hard for the "medical" use of marijuana, and if they haven't started indulging in it themselves. You would really have to be on drugs to even say something like this with a straight face.
For those of you who would also like the opportunity to give the Cupertino Board of Education a reality check for this rather bizarre interpretation of our Constitution, you can reach them via email here:
board@cupertino.k12.ca.us
I for one intend on writing them a rather lengthy email, and would encourage others to do the same. It would be nice if these folks would begin to realize that their attempts to revise history will not go unheeded, or unchallenged.
Editors Note: It was noted in a comment left by Dr. Forbush that Cupertino is actually a suburb of San Jose, rather than San Francisco as was originally reported by other news agencies. We double checked this information and it turns out Dr. Forbush was indeed correct, Cupertino is indeed a suburb of San Jose, not San Francisco as was originally reported. We've sent Dr. Forbush 25 tbucks for spotting this factual error.
|
|
28 Comments
|
| |
| Back on the Air |
| 12.01.04 (9:09 am) |
|
Hello again folks!
Well, were back on the air again after a not so brief hiatus. I'm still searching for another blog host but with the pressing demands of real life and the time it will take to setup the new blog our best estimates are that it will take several more months to complete a changeover to a new host, assuming all goes well.
In the meantime will continue to make use of the facilities here on tblog, we still have quite a bit of time left on our subscription :)
|
|
5 Comments
|
| |
|
|
|
