Campaign climate
Date: 2/4/2010
By:
Paul Barton
A paper published by a think tank last month warned that Sen. Blanche Lincoln's ascendancy to the Agriculture Committee chairmanship was a bad omen for passage of climate-change legislation in 2010 due to her close ties to agricultural producers and processors seen as major contributors of greenhouse gases.
/more/
|
|
|
Comments
Shades of John Scopes.
Posted by: Cato
|
May 8, 2007 02:18 PM
"he started it but then I think there's all kinds of scientific evidence that we've had evolution."
Ok Guv, be one of the first to draw the line: when did god step away and let e-forces take over?
_
Posted by: Lwood
|
May 8, 2007 02:45 PM
When public school kids can't read, write, and do math, I can't get too excited about whether they are taught evolution. I seriously doubt they will appreciate the nuances of scientific theories.
Posted by: Severus
|
May 8, 2007 02:49 PM
"when did god step away
and let e-forces take over?
Posted by: Lwood"
That would be the evening of the sixth day, give or take a few billion years.
Posted by: Spirit
|
May 8, 2007 02:58 PM
Amen, Severus.
Posted by: Lew
|
May 8, 2007 03:00 PM
Well, Severus, you are generalizing, of course, because a large portion of public school students can read and write and do math. But if one in Arkansas really wants to tackle the problem (rather than get caught up in the hiring and firing of high priced administrators) then he should start at the base of a major problem.
Click on cato.
Posted by: Cato
|
May 8, 2007 03:04 PM
I really don't believe the people of Arkansas are willing to pay for an adequate school system. If we need more qualified math and science teachers, we're going to have to pay for them. That means bonuses or pay supplements to attract people with the skills needed. This happens all the time in the world that responds to market forces. There's not enough money in the world to get me back into a classroom, but many people who have the knowledge and skills to teach math and science can be lured into (or back into) teaching if the price is right. That price might include a guarantee that they would never have to talk to parents who don't believe in evolution.
Posted by: Pavel
|
May 8, 2007 03:31 PM
Next questions:
1. Does candidate Huckabee believe in Santa Claus?
2. Why does Jesus go 'round with all them reiindeer?
3. Old Testament: fact or fiction?
4. If you went to Jupiter faster than the speed of light, when you got there, could you look back and see yourself coming?
(Depends on who you were traveling with???)
How 'bout politicians just stay the hell out of the science business?
Posted by: RickBaber
|
May 8, 2007 03:51 PM
Severus is still an idiot. Though I'm sure that he/she/it is just being all satiric and funny, funny, funny again, that generalization about public school students wasn't worth typing.
As a state, we want our kids to be able to do more than basic stuff. I am certainly hopeful that this state continues to produce doctors and scientists, mostly because medical care is a Good Thing. Along with the fact that having basic knowledge about the world is also a Good Thing (Severus being an example of what happens in the absence of such knowledge), I'm pretty sure that biology is a part of the high school curriculum for this very reason.
If you are going to learn biology, you have to learn evolutionary theory. Evolution is absolutely essential to any sort of deep or meaningful understanding of biology--one simply cannot understand living things without an understanding of evolution. If a bunch of religious fools want to keep my kid and other kids from learning basic biology, I'm pretty "excited" about it. Failing to teach biology does nothing more than forfeit the possibility of good jobs and technological advancement to regions of the country not overrun with Bible-thumping goons.
Posted by: Gaddis
|
May 8, 2007 04:06 PM
I wonder if Huckabuck not believing in evolution has anything to do with Arkansas not evolving up out of 49th place? If your leader is stuck in 1947, it might do a fair amount of holding ya back some.
I agree we need answer to far more serious questions than one on where Beebe stands on evolution. It's right up there with Paris or Brittany, who would you rather be stranded on an island with?
Someone should ask Huckablackberry if he prefers his hard drives crushed or roasted?
Posted by: Deathbyinches
|
May 8, 2007 04:14 PM
Cato, I hope the Blogg makes a separate thread out of your link. Well worth the read. Up nawth, we don't experience the problem like other counties do. Well some of the nawth districts do, over in Jesusland- Gravette, Decatur, Siloam Spgs where teachers salaries are at 1969 levels, or were at those levels until Lakeview case took over. A rookie policeman in Spdle was earning more than teachers in Jesusland.
_
Posted by: Lwood
|
May 8, 2007 04:21 PM
4. If you went to Jupiter faster than the speed of light, when you got there, could you look back and see yourself coming?<<
Rick you have me rolling over here!
But clearly, you are of the Trekkie generation, eh?
Posted by: Lwood
|
May 8, 2007 04:28 PM
If one does not believe in evolution then one must believe God created Gays etc. etc.
No wonder I have to reach across the ocean in order to find articles that even mention athiests protesting in Little Rock.
link at my name
Posted by: Eureka Springs, AR
|
May 8, 2007 04:33 PM
Good story Eureka
excerpt:
"The atheists still have a mountain to climb. In a Republican presidential debate last week, candidates mentioned their faith 16 times, and three said that they did not believe in evolution."
One thing I've always noticed about the faithful, those who put ALL their faith in in a All-Knowing god, 99.5% have a ton of guns and want the U.S. military to have more. It only goes to show you that god indeed wanted us to have guns, A-Bombs,and nuclear-tipped bullets. It's the way of Christ, prince of peace.
_
Posted by: Lwood
|
May 8, 2007 05:33 PM
Lwood,
Not really. I mean, maybe, age-wise. But I never got into Shatner (sp?) until the "Airplane" movies. More from the Tommy Chong generation, I guess. That question is more along the lines of "What if D.O.G. really spelled cat?"
Posted by: RickBaber
|
May 8, 2007 05:36 PM
I don't like calling myself an atheist cause it kinda makes it sound like not believing is some kind of big deal to me. I'm not interested in leading or joining a crusade to Stamp Out Christ! I don't give a flip if my money says we trust in God. Lots of blanket statements are made everyday that aren't true.
I am upset when people try to paint their God on other people. Or stick it in our government or schools or laws. It's not right, it's not the American way. We have freedom of religion AND we ought to have freedom from religion.
Especially since those who want to insert their religion into everything have such hateful methods and reasons for doing so.
I'm a nice guy. I'll help anyone. I don't touch what isn't mine. I mind my own business and what you do in your house is sure enough none of my business. I don't care what color you are or where you came from, just be nice and we'll all be happy. I don't think I'm special....I think I'm normal....I think a lot of people are just like me.
I don't want a bunch of labels to divide us all up. I don't want to force you to watch my home movies and I don't want to hear your religion beliefs.....it's boring...very boring.
Usually there isn't any difference between Republicans or Democrats, it's just names to divide up the sides. At the moment all the bad guys are Republicans, but give the Democrats 12 years of being in power and they'll screw up too. (cain't imagine them screwing up as bad as Bush & Co., they're an aberration.)
But except for the guy in California, you can bet everyone of the D's & R's profess a deep personal love and relationship with Jesus. What if all 535 people in Congress were all white or all black. What if they all drove a Dodge? What if everyone of them said they believed Martians live among us?
Loving Jesus seems to be the only uniform thing we require of our elected officials. And I find it a little scary. These people handle our money, make laws about our bodies, decide to go to war or not and at the same time say they're arm and arm with a ghost that hasn't been seen in over 2000 years. And they can't get elected unless they swear they're Christians.
Think of all the Bush criminals we know about...Christians every one. OK...Abramoff is Jewish, but supposedly a devout one. Let's start a list of every atheist who has or is hurting our country and go from there.
I think we'd be a darn site better off with an atheist in office.....no weirdo baggage, you understand. He or she could worry about right and wrong and skip the many agendas being muscled in today.
Remember....as elevated as we might think we are...there is a half black, half white man running for President and because of the threats he's got, early secret service security has to surround him just to keep him alive.
Blogs are having to cut off comments on him because they're so racist and scary. If 71% of Americans proclaim they're Christian.....whose threatening Obama's life? I'm betting it's not atheists.
Posted by: Deathbyinches
|
May 8, 2007 06:33 PM
It's a sad thing that our elected officials have to confirm in public that they believe in the basic facts of science. Perhaps we should be asking which ones believe in gravity, or the germ theory of disease, or whether electrons are liable to get you if you whiz on an electric fence.
Posted by: Archaeopteryx
|
May 8, 2007 06:55 PM
>>It's a sad thing that our elected officials have to confirm in public that they believe in the basic facts of science. <,
That's what Rovia politics brought us.
It's like do you believe in math, or physics..well better not arouse the flat earth society..Rove got the ignorant all riled up cause no matter what, that brilliant phyicists who retired on my street a few years ago has one vote , just like the holy roller preacher who proudly exclaims preachers don't need no education. It's America and we're ranked number 17 in education among the developed nations.
_
Posted by: Lwood
|
May 8, 2007 07:03 PM
Evolution and God or creationism are in direct contradiction to each other.
Genesis 1:27-28 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Evolution is a theory, I don't have a problem with teaching it in school as long as it is taught as a theory.
It requires the same amount of belief as creationsim does.
Posted by: The Citizens Journal
|
May 8, 2007 07:51 PM
"Evolution and God or creationism are in direct contradiction to each other."
No, they're not.
The Bible and evolution are in direct contradiction to each other, as you show.
But God ain't the Bible. A lot of people wish He were, because it makes things so simple, but unfortunately He won't fit into a book.
Posted by: Crazy Horse
|
May 8, 2007 09:23 PM
"Evolution is a theory, I don't have a problem with teaching it in school as long as it is taught as a theory.
It requires the same amount of belief as creationsim does." - CJ
This is the kind of reasoning that gets creationists into trouble. By their logic, since the theory that the earth is the center of the solar system should be taught in school. Hey, it's ok to teach it as long as you label it a theory.
What separates evolution from creationism is that the former relies on evidence and scientific method while the latter relies on "belief."
Funny....in the scriptural verses cited by CJ, not a one of them contradicts evolution. It is safe to assume that CJ is a literalist and not an allegorist when it comes to interpreting the Bible. Every word, punctuation mark, unintended copying error, mistranslation from the original Hebrew or Greek, every omission due to dogmatic difference must be Divinely inspired.
At worst I will be accused of mocking a belief. It's nowhere as heretical as mocking science and truth. Some people need myths and magic to explain the world. It makes for great storytelling and entertainment. Others need something more mature and rational to explain the wonders of the universe, whether its the microcosmic or the macrocosmic.
"Most people are bothered by those passages of Scripture they do not understand, but the passages that bother me are those I do understand."
Mark Twain
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination."
Mark Twain
"One of the most irrational of all the conventions of modern society is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected. ...[This] convention protects them, and so they proceed with their blather unwhipped and almost unmolested, to the great damage of common sense and common decency. that they should have this immunity is an outrage. There is nothing in religious ideas, as a class, to lift them above other ideas. On the contrary, they are always dubious and often quite silly. Nor is there any visible intellectual dignity in theologians. Few of them know anything that is worth knowing, and not many of them are even honest."
H. L. Mencken
"The gods offer no rewards for intellect. There was never one yet that showed any interest in it."
Mark Twain
And the most damning quote:
"You can't preach the Bible without preaching hatred." - Rev Fred Phelps
Posted by: Jake da Snake
|
May 8, 2007 10:25 PM
Citizen's Journal,
I find that evolution requires that you look all around you and see the evidence. Creationism requires you to discount all you see.
I looked for a quote from Galileo but could not find it.
Paraphrased - Men wave old books and deny what they see with their own eyes.
Posted by: Citizen home
|
May 8, 2007 10:59 PM
>>Every word, punctuation mark, unintended copying error, mistranslation from the original Hebrew or Greek, every omission due to dogmatic difference must be Divinely inspired.<< by Jake
BEST POST OF THE YEAR AWARD!
Posted by: Lwood
|
May 9, 2007 12:39 AM
This has been a problem for a long time:
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.... Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion." (Augustine, On the Literal Meaning of Genesis, A.D. 408).
Posted by: Archaeopteryx
|
May 9, 2007 07:41 AM
Well done, Ancient One with Wings. Thanks.
Posted by: widj
|
May 9, 2007 08:14 AM
Thanks Lwood but I think the real honor goes to Arch. Mine was mostly rant seasoned with some reason; Arch's was one of the best quotes I've ever read on the topic and even had the cachet of a noted Saint as the author of such words of wisdom.
Christianity would greatly benefit from the steadying hand of such a saint now. Alas, great thinkers and fundamentalists seem to be a separate breed. The strength of Christianity has always been its message of love, tolerance, and concern for the downtrodden. Its weakness has been the medium distorting this message for their own agenda of hatred, intolerance, and selfishness. That medium has been the humans who prefer the easy but dangerous path of literal interpretation. It removes the challenge of thinking, denying its adherents the use of the most astounding talent people have: their intelligence.
The fringes of this argument always finds these two camps who do battle: true believers and the skeptics. Despite the wide difference in their beliefs, they are basically similar. Each is passionate and firmly believes the other to be absolutely wrong.
In another million years or so, when we have vanished from this world, perhaps a wiser race of intelligent beings will have a better answer to the understanding of this universe and the notion of a soul.
Possibly some noted archeologist of that faraway time will unearth a famous piece of music which explains our way of religion. I'm betting it will be "I'm a soul man!!"
Posted by: Jake da Snake
|
May 9, 2007 02:48 PM