"An intelligent approach to intelligent design"

Here's a great article from an Intelligent Design skeptic.
(here) A juicy excerpt:

"The polls show that scientists and science teachers have little to lose and everything to gain by bringing creationism into the classroom, where it can be critically debated and its merits compared to those of evolutionary theory."

While I disagree with a couple of the conclusions (e.g., he asserts "that directly and respectfully engaging with students' beliefs, rather than ignoring them as most science teachers are forced to do, could be a more effective way to teach evolution," but the presumption is each theory was given equal treatment in the presentation), I think he correctly observes how unscientific it is to ignore sincere and credible challenges to one's theory.

Rep. Cooper says "global warming" on YouTube!

Ostensibly Blue Dog Democrat Jim Cooper (D-TN) has made it to youtube with his endorsement of a book accusing "Republicans" of "war[ring]" with science. Yay, Jim!
YouTube - Cooper on Global Warming, Negroponte and the Dinner Party

This raises a couple of questions for me: First, I thought circumstances (read: data disproving doomsday predictions) had resulted in modifying the term from "global warming" to "global climate change," no?

Second, why is it so important to Liberals/Lefties/Democrats that a politician say the phrase "global warming"? Perhaps they're obsessed with it for the same reason Conservatives aren't eager to use the term: it connotes an entire religion of doomsdayism sacred to--as Phil Valentine calls them, the dirt people. "Global warming" also denotes--as mentioned above, a previous dire, big-gov't-inspiring and incorrect theory peddled from the Left side of the political spectrum.

Quote of the (other) day

Here's my quote of the (other) day for today:here
WH spokesman, Tony Snow, when asked if The president also had given his time to studying the anti-war protest:

"I don't think he really thought a lot about it," Snow said. "It's nice to see Jane Fonda in front of the camera again. There were a number of people who were here making statements, and that's perfectly appropriate."

"Political" Science on the Hill

I'm hearing a lot of late about how Religious Conservatives elevate a creed over reason or science or basic human goodness. The subject of human harvesting (aka embryonic stem cell research) is a splendid example of Left-wing hypocrisy.

Here's a great article on the subject Political Science on the Hill, and one more reason to question the "scientific" pronouncements of the Left.

Hillary on tape

Hillary2008! is going to be working overtime to dispel the truth that she knowingly supported the war in Iraq (indeed, she did so in Ioway over the weekend--here).

Unfortunately (for Hillary2008!) she is on tape saying otherwise in 2003. She makes a great case for acting on the Iraq problem, by the way.

Hat tip, Mark Rose.

Homosexual movement remix

Interesting report about new tack in the homosexual marriage movement: Media training for homosexual couples with children. Training helps gay families win hearts. From the article:

"'Family is something most people in the country can connect to,' [Program Trainer Jennifer] Chrisler said. 'We're at the point in the battle where we have to pull people emotionally into what our struggles are.'

That may require changing the way gay and lesbian people talk about the issue.

Instead of appealing for 'marriage equality,' parents should talk about what it means to be barred from marriage. The term 'discrimination' should be shelved and replaced with the more concrete idea of 'hurting,' Olson told the parents in San Francisco. And while there are more than 1,000 rights and legal benefits conferred with marriage, conversations about the emotional and social benefits are more persuasive, she said."

No question the whole, "marriage equality" line of argument hasn't worked out so well.

Litigate--rhymes with "intimidate"

Sen. Sam Brownback carrying the standard for ACLU-weary Americans--and certainly those tired of cowering to the Left-wing interpretation of the establishment clause. Senator Brownback Reintroduces Public Expressions of Religion Act.

Knee-jerk bushating

Memphis' Mick Wright disembowels a NYTimes "story" about recent troubling moves by the President to . . . er, be President. The funniest part is the roundup of knee-jerk Lefty blog posts on the matter.

Read the entire post here.

Slim Libby pickings

This Roger Aronoff & Cliff Kincaid report (here) accurately describes the Libby trial for what it is: Chapter Umpteen in the Media's persistent campaign to discredit the Bush Administration.

Here's a sample quote from the article:

All of this ["sensational developments" like talk of "sacrificial lambs"] is interesting but largely beside the point. What Libby and Rove and others were doing was rebutting Wilson's false charges, while passing along information about his wife working at the CIA and being behind his trip to Africa on behalf of the Agency. Numerous conversations were held with various journalists, and there was absolutely nothing wrong with any of this. It happens all the time. The difference was that this was a conservative administration dealing with a hostile liberal press. Cheney and Libby knew full well that Wilson's accusations, published in the New York Times, could affect public opinion. They had to fight back.

I encourage you to read the whole thing for an overview of the case.

Nagin: the buck doesn't stop here!

In the continuing saga that is post-Katrina New Orleans, Mayor Ray Nagin is complaining (here) that not enough money has been flowing to aid the recovery of his city. Fair enough, but

He sorta kinda blames spending on Iraq . . . he sorta kinda blames racism . . . he sorta kind blames class prejudice . . . he sorta kinda blames the fact that noone knew about how poor N.O. was prior to the storm (surely HE was aware of it?) and he definitely questions if America has the will to "fix" the "ugly underbelly" of poverty among the area's black population. Rather, the question is whether Ray Nagin or Kathleen Blanco has the will to solve problems that pirogue-loads of money won't "fix."

Sorry, but stories like this (about likely bushating-inspired misreporting) and this (about the massive challenge of getting money flowing more quickly to the demonstrably corrupt, dysfunctional and incompetent NO and LA gov'ts) trump finger-pointing from people like Nagin and Blanco.

Hillary knows evil and bad men

The story about Sen. Hillary Clinton's attempt at humor (here) is interesting to me because I think it reflects her dearth of self-awareness . . . probably the result of living one's life in the company of sycophants and I propensity to dismiss criticism as the product of a vast partisan conspiracy.

The one-liner came in response to a question shouted at the former first lady from the audience asking whether she had the mettle and experience to deal with evil and rotten men - like terrorist Osama bin Laden and the tyrants of North Korea and Iran.

Clinton grabbed the mike and told the audience that the questioner wanted to know "what in my background equips me to deal with evil and bad men." She then smiled, raised her eyebrows and nodded knowingly at the questioner.

I think she was thinking about Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rove, men whom any intellectually honest American knows are the real threat to our national interest.

Updates: After watching video footage of the event and of the press conference following the event, I'm of the opinion that Sen. Clinton was not telling a joke, was not trying to be funny and merely paused too long after repeating the audience-member's question . . .

Also, it is ironic that the day of the above event was the 15th anniversary of her infamous "not-some-Tammy-Wynette" comment on 60 Minutes (Hat tip: Caucus Cooler Blog)

NY Times rally bias

While skimming some headlines today I noticed some bias in the NY Times, that is worth noting (surely FoxNews invented slanted news coverage!).

The underwhelming phrase "thousands . . . rally" caught my attention (here) in the NY Times article about the 34th annual March for Life in D.C. I hate to say it, but I've come to expect downplaying coverage of political events by Liberal journals, but "thousands" was too biased to be believed. As I dug a little, even the Washington Post reported that "tens of thousands" attended. (here)

Next was the phrase "marched . . . to show disapproval," and I like how the writer polished off her intro with a direct (but unnecessary) quote of Bush's comments that included a malapropism. Nice job, Sarah.

Curious, I looked at the Times' treatment of the Anti-Iraq War rally this past Saturday, "tens of thousands" gathered there, we're told. And they weren't "disapprov[ing]"--like the judgmental pro-lifers, they were "opposi[ng]."

A little digging turned up this survey (here) of most of the reporting on the 2007 March for Life--newsflash: there were 20,000 abortion opponents at the spin-off rally in San Francisco.

Here's a shot of the mere "thousands" at the DC rally.

Huckabee's strengths and weaknesses

This Weekly Standard article (here) about the Sunday shows reveals some of Mike Huckabee's political skills, and it has this tongue-in-cheek observation

Two things might hurt the governor with Republicans: He's the second man from Hope to hold serious aspirations for the presidency (the first was, of course, Bill Clinton). The other? He's the official Republican pick of the Daily Kos.

And don't forget that Sharon Cobb has said some kind things about him.

Also, Bill Hobbs (over at elephantbiz.com) has a great commentary on criticisms (from some Conservative quarters) of Mike Huckabee's decision to raise a gas tax to pay for road improvements in Arkansas. Obviously, some taxes are necessary; providing roads and defense are the two most legitimate governmental services; and it is very desirable and Conservative--in my estimation, to designate tax revenues for a specific purpose. Characterizing Huckabee as a taxandspendthrift on this basis? That dog won't hunt.

Well said, Will

George Will gave an intriguing illustration (here) on ABC's This Week about the difference between Conservatism and Liberalism in the context of the President's healthcare proposals:

"The conservative view is that the way you reduce the supply of government is to reduce the demand for it. The way you reduce the demand for government is to empower people to make them feel socially competent," said Will. "This would be a step in that direction. Look at the two reasons, aside from the fact that Bush favors it, that Democrats oppose it. . . . By empowering people through the tax code, to buy their own health insurance, you are reducing the number of people dependent on government, and modern liberalism exists to promote equality understood as the equal dependence on government for more things."

I don't agree with the last sentence (about why Liberalism exists) . . . rather, I think Liberals just don't concern themselves with Economic principles.

Huckabee is exploring

It appears that former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) is forming an exploratory committee (here) to consider a run for president.

Frankly, I think that conventional wisdom is often wrong, and that a fresh/unknown face with substance can rise to the top tier in such a large field whose "front-runners" have mainly "soft support" (read: support based on name ID) in general, and only tepid support from the GOP base.

Immoderate rhetoric

This picture is likely to inspire some virtual vitriol . . . I had the pleasure of attending a reception with former Federal Judge and Special Prosecutor (and current Pepperdine Law school Dean) Ken Starr last evening. From all that I hear (excluding attacks from Democrat Hit men) and all I have observed, Starr is exceedingly talented, conscientious and gracious.

The Starr event, coupled with my recent post about Justice Clarence Thomas and stuff that commenters have been posting about impeaching Bush, gittin' Libby, etc., I've been mulling over the utter immoderation of accusations in America and the ramifications of political "war rooms" or political prosecutions.

I heard this a.m. that some thirty-odd percent of Americans believe(d) that 9/11 was an "inside job." (report here) How is that possible?

But as I contemplated all the wild-eyed references in the context of the Libby trial and the Iraq war and the Plame affair and "the 16 words!" and impeachment rallies, I realized how effectively Bush's opponents have spun their tales. And the impact on our "body politic" is rather predictable.

In my opinion, if it takes a 122-minute movie of flawed syllogisms to make your case that "Bush lied," you're having to try too hard. When I hear them (Bush accusers) out and consider their proof, I repeatedly find there's no "there" there. But I guess there is some truth to the old saw, if you repeat a lie often enough, people will start to believe it. And it is probably inevitable that lazy readers or disengaged people or Liberal conspiracy types (even some Conservative conspiracy types have joined in) will begin to think that a given group of accused persons is capable of anything.

I think Bill Clinton was a lecherous, unprincipled charmer, but I don't think he killed Vince Foster. And I think Judge Starr was just doing his job. But I guess I wish we had never found out that Clinton lied under oath. The impeachment only endeared him to Dem faithful and proved little more than any honest observer had already concluded.

How un-GQ of Sen. Coburn

Jay Bush links to a great article (here) from GQ about Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK). After reading that excerpt, can someone please give me a counter-argument to Term Limits?

Kudos to Corker

I haven't looked around much to see if anyone else has said this, but Sen. Bob Corker deserves a lot of credit for his committee vote (here) on the Democrats' Non-surge Resolution.

First, it is a non-binding resolution, and will have very little impact on the President's execution of the war. Liberals and Democrats' have already tried a 24/7 roast over the past six years so trying to vilify him toward doing what you want him to do isn't likely to work, right? Republican Senators Lugar and Coleman offer examples of "loyal opposition" during time of war, I'd say.

On the other hand, passage of this resolution will certainly embolden our enemies, particularly in Iraq. It is certainly arguable that there are better ways to wage the GWOT, and debate is certainly a touchstone of democratic republics, but hopefully you can forgive Bush for perhaps missing those earnest suggestions over the "War Criminal" chorus. And if you know ANYthing about history, you'll appreciate that a loss of 3,000+ soldiers in pursuit of a worthy objective is far from extraordinary. Losing a thousand soldiers per year would probably not be acceptable if one couldn't foresee a breaking point in this global struggle, but I'm not sure that is the perspective held by most critics of the war.

Straight A's and a clean bill of health in every pot!

While cruising Volunteer Voters at the end of the day yesterday, I saw ACK's post (here) concerning Sen. Jim Webb's SOTU response. According to ACK, Webb asserted that though economic indicators are good, people are still struggling and Republicans/Bush--the obvious implication, don't care. Then ACK, who is a self-identified paleo-conservative writes:

It is important for those struggling in the working and middle class to know that someone in a position of power is aware of their plight. It is comforting to at least receive an acknowledgment that a diagnosis has been accurately made.

Now, whether the Democratic party has the prescription that is an open question. Personally, I have my doubts but we shall see.

I perceive that ACK is commenting on the political/Communications value of making these points, but the post also begs the question of how does the gov't solve this problem?

Sure, I would like for all children to get straight A's and for us to not have disease in America, but that's not possible and it's not responsible, in my opinion, for an intelligent adult to promise such things or pretend that s/he can deliver on such things.

Katherine surely would like to weigh in on this, given her recent post at "Just Another Pretty Farce"(here) about government and freedom, and government's (read: politicians') desire to help us or protect us from ourselves. Why are higher ed costs sky-rocketing? Why do most Americans have no control whatsoever over their healthcare costs? How long does it take--absent efforts toward economic redistribution, for unprecedented prosperity at the top of organizational structures to work its way down?

I have my opinion about the answer to these questions, but I think it's more important that those who raise the questions in the first place (in SOTU responses or in press conferences) or those who promulgate the notion that there is a problem that gov't can actively fix tell us what they think are the solutions.

Hatin' on Justice Thomas

Since it has been conceded by the Left that even proven sexual harasser tendencies do not disqualify someone from public service, I came across this insightful article here dispelling the criticisms of Justice Clarence Thomas' haters.