Mickey

Not really, you can't always just will whatever you want to whoever you want. Wills are subject to attack by distributees and potential distributees. There are lots of issues when there is a surviving spouse. Most states, for example, will not allow one to disinherit a spouse. This law is limited by its terms to political subdivisions of the state and the state itself. A private business, in theory, would not be effected. However, the model in business is legal marriage. Their benefit structure is based on a scheme that makes "legal marriage" important. By depriving gays of that status, you deprive them of that benefit. It really does make a difference. Especially that part about prohibiting anything identical or similar to marriage. The goes way beyond marriage. It would even prohibit other legal relationships that are "similar" to marriage. Civil unions come immediately to mind but that language is so incredibly broad that much more could be included. Christians aren't the only hypocrites in the world and I don't mean all christians. However, other groups are not claiming to be following the divine, justifying their politics by claiming its God's will and the like. I think maybe we would be right to expect more from christians than from your average schmoe.

I undertstand what you are trying to say, I just don't think any of this controversey has much to do with the manner, method and means of teaching science. The ID/creationists are trying to force a change in what is taught, not how it is taught. There is no way I am going to vouch for the teaching styles and procedures of science teachers everywhere. I have no idea how they are doing what they do, on the whole. I do know, however, that forcing this stuff into science class is ridiculous. I do know that it is a firebrand issue for the religious right and that they will not be giving up on this anytime soon. I think you agree on that point and the other stuff, teaching styles, is not really a political issue upon which I have a stance. Hence my relative and unusual silence for most of this thread.

Anybody seen that damn cat? It was here a minute ago.

The leak or the investigation called for by Frist and Hastert?

How is speaking well of someone else as CTM was doing, an act of self-aggrandizement?

Why do you think the administration was involved in leaking this information? After all, this could constitute treason, why would you think the members of this administration could ever do such a thing? Couldn't this have been done by someone at the agency or an idiot congressman (we have no shortage of those)?

I figured I'd do what every poster here does, including yourself, take a public position and debate those who disagree. In addition, I'll likely get something published on the issue in the local paper if the mood strikes me. In the meantime, why don't you contemplate the wisdom of mocking political discussion while you engage in a political discussion yourself. While you're doing that, I'll go make you a salad.

For goodness sakes, have a salad already.

I fully expect that it will be a Republican who leaked the info. I'm on record that the perp. should go to jail and I'm sticking to that as I am sure the others will who took the same stance, regardless of party affiliation or sympathy. I don't really understand why Trent Lott isn't in trouble for making a statement that essentially confirms the Washington Post story. If I divulge top secret information and you confirm that it is true, aren't we both screwed?

I think he is trying to say that part of the blame for people erroneously believing that evolution is a threat to religion is in part due to the manner, method and means employed in teaching science. I think the problem is far more caused by those who insist that evolution and atheism are the same. That point has been made so loudly and so often that preople who know little of evolution but cherish their faith repond negatively in polls about believing in evolution. They say "no" because they have been told that to do otherwise would be to deny the faith they hold dear. Really, the problem in our science classes are that we aren't teaching enough science, not that teachers are not adequately addressing related theistic issues. These kids, I fear, are lagging behind much of the rest of the world when it comes to science. That worries me, not whether or not christians understand that it is okay for them to believe in evolution.

Maaaan. How drunk do you have to be to complain and call the cops about naked cheerleaders having sex in the bathroom? I think every bar should have naked cheerleaders having sex in the bathroom. It should become our national freaking pastime. What is this world coming to?

What point are you making then? If it is that there have been other conflicts with hostilities continuing after the coflict was supposedly over, it was a waste of time. I don't think anyone would disagree with that at all but that isn't really a relevant observation. That is why the numbers are important. A post conflict insurgency that is ineffective so that it results in relatively few casualties and has no impact on political developments and the daily lives of the people in the region is not something that would generate any concern. However, a post conflict insurgency that results in lots of civilian and military casualties; that inhibts political, economic and social development; that prolongs indefinitely the painful costs of conflict upon civilians in the region and the occupying power that wants dearly to stop being an occupying power is quite a different thing. I don't know what point you were seeking to make. It seemed to me that you were trying to say that there was a post conflict insurgency after world war two and that was a good war that was competently directed so that even though there is a post conflict insuregency in Iraq doesn't mean that this war was a mistake or that it has been incompetently run. We just don't think that is a valid analogy. On top of that, I have seen this tack taken often with regards to Iraq. Awhile back I think Rummy and Rice were using it. It was pretty quickly abandoned once research on the issue started popping up showing that that comparison was of the apples and oranges variety. The administration stopped using it as far as I know. However, conservative blogs still throw it around and it occasionally rears its head again such as in the case of your post. Be honest, is that something you remember from a history class or something as opposed to having heard it used by others in defense of the administration and the state of things in Iraq? Really, you never heard this argument made before?

You are taking them to task for not doing what in fact, they do. Scientist have looked at intelligent design/creationism, at length. Many scientists have taken the position that evolution has nothing to do with the existence of God. They haven't called these people "jerky losers", they have very patiently examined their postions and, as the science shows, the so called "scientific" claims of intelligent design/creationism simply don't stand up. What do you want them to do? I don't think a minister should have to mention science in church and I don't think a scientist should be going on about God in my kid's science class. There is little enough time to get physics taught without adding in a dose of theology. They aren't debating teaching and educational theories here. They are forcing religion into a science class. I think many christians fear evolution because it threatens their beliefs, especially if their beliefs include a very literal intepretation of scripture. For them, if evolution is true, then their beliefs are not. They seem to me to then make the assumption that since for them accepting evolution is atheism then all who accept it, scientists, must therefore be atheists. The constant painting of scientists as being anti-religion, dismissive of religion or disrespectful to people of faith is simply not supported by the facts. Most scientists are themselves people of faith. This isn't a contest between people who believe in God and people who don't. It is more a contest between people who believe in God and evolution and people who believe in God but not evolution. I have no studies to cite on all this, its strictly base on my own opinions and observations of an issue that I have followed very closely for some years now.

All they have to do is redefine science to include the unscientific. That makes as much sense as changing the definition of heterosexuality to include having sex with members of the same sex so that gay people could thenceforth be called "straight". Really, scientists relish nothing better than to overturn another scientists apple cart.

He has armies of pundits, blogs, friendly press, political operatives and a well oiled political machine to get his message out and they are trying. However, all the talking heads repeating all the talking points in the world aren't going to help with all these problems weighing him down. His PR army hasn't evaporated overnight. That hasn't changed. What has changed are interest rates, indictments, etc, etc. I think he could instantly repair the damage of the indictment of Libby by simply doing what he long ago said he would do, fire anyone involved. Fire Rove and he instantly becomes a man of his word, even when it hurts. Facts are the problem here, not a lack of PR.

I am certain that in some circumstances christians are not treated fairly by some but the tone of your post that anti-chritstianity is some sort of real problem is, at best, overstated. This is a christian nation because the vast, vast majority of people in it are in fact, christians. There are churches everywhere and far more christians ready to dictate to scientists about science than there are scientists ready to dictate to christians about christianity. Scientists are very much willing to examine themselves. Its called peer review. As soon as one scientist proposes a theory, armies of other scientists try to disprove/substantiate the theory. The scientifific literature is replete with scientists, often proponents of rival theories, having lively debates fueled by ever more clever experiments. If you want to compare that to religion, well, what self criticism do you see among christians? Rival thought is practically heresey. There is no critical examination in fact, faith is pretty much the direct opposite of critical examination. Religion's greatest tenet is science's greatest sin. Faith is belief without proof, science is belief only with proof. Funny how you seem to think the ideal candidate for the secular world is an atheist. How then do you explain that the winners in the school board elections in Dover, the pro-evolutionists, plan to include intelligent design/creationism in an elective comparative religion class where it may be taught until the cows come home, in school? Many, many scientists believe in God and see no problem with evolution. In fact, that is the position of the Catholic Church. Are they a bunch of atheists too? I wonder what the reaction would be of christians if a school board in Dover decided that they should "teach the controversey" by requiring that atheism be taught in school?

A big part of the controversey is that misuse of the word "theory". What it means in science and what it means in general conversation are two entirely different things. In the Dover trial, even the intelligent desing advocates had to admit that the ID/creationists have conflated the scientific and general uses of the word "theory". "Theory", in general usage, refers to something conjectural, something uncertain, something postulated, an unverified concept. Not so in science where it refers to a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge, etc. The frequent taling point you hear from creationists is that "evolution is theory not fact" as if the two were opposites, which they are if you use the unscientific definition of theory. Using that definition, no scientist would call evolution a "theory" but that is clearly not what they mean when they use the word. In that miasma, you really do have people who are pro and anti evolution. Kind of like being pro or anti-gravity. Silly but that is precisely what is going on and now it is back in Kansas.

Not that comparing the aftermath of a world war involving millions of troops in Europe ca. 1945 with what is going on in Iraq in 2005 involving 150,000 of our troops makes any sense whatsoever. This is a consistent conservative talking point that keeps popping up no matter how screamingly inapplicable the comparison is so don't even bother. Its like trying to convince a flesh eating zombie to try a salad once in awhile. Really, 44 died? What are we up to in Iraq now? Over 2,000? How many civilians? 50,000? 100,000? They see a valid direct comparison with world war two but see no resemblance at all to Viet Nam.

None of that is true in my school district which, by the way, is a city school district. I haven't surveyed the issue but I think the tendency here is to make unjustified extrapolations form anecdotal information. Thus, everytime some silly issue over a christmas song at school or some such, it gets tons of publicity and everyone concludes that it is a nationwide, every school, every day problem. All I can say for sure is that I haven't seen any of that as a problem in any public school district I have had anything to do with.

The democratic candidates for the Dover Pa. school board, in a clean sweep, ousted the republican incumbents who had been forcing intelligent design/creationism into science classes resulting in a lawsuit and tons of unwanted publicity. The democratic candidates, all pro-evolution, have stated that intelligent desing/creationism will in fact be taught in school, just not in science class. It will be part of an elective course on comparative religions. Intelligent Design Proponents Ousted

You are changing the argument to whether or not the President should get credit/blame for these things, thats not my point. The fact is, things are not so hot right now. Budget madness; a long, bloody and divisive struggle in Iraq; a top aide getting indicted; high interest rates; skyrocketing gasoline prices; likely drastic increase in home heating costs; the embarassment over the WMD's not being there; the Miers misstep; Katrina, etc, etc. These are real problems, not PR problems. You aren't going to solve them with better press. What is needed are better policies. Not that they would magically solve all these things, they wouldn't but a President has to do what he can. History's harshest judments have been reserved for Presidents who did nothing. Really, imagine the effect of the President making a public statement along the lines of "My fellow Americans, please don't blame me for these bad things because the truth is, I am powerless to do anything about any of the worst problems faced by our nation." I think such an announcment of Presidential powerlessness would be quickly followed by a drop in poll numbers so severe, Bush would long for the heady, halcyon days when he was in the high 30's. What is he, the "can't-do" President?

For any of you interested, here is a link to tons of info on the Dover Monkey Trial in Pa. It includes transcripts. Check out the ones where the Judge started asking questions of the School Board witnesses. These people are dedicated christians who first tried to get creationism taught and then switched to "Intelligent Design" which is basically the same thing. They are the ones who pushed for the Intelligent Design statement that led to the law suit. Anyway, they lied like crazy on the stand and the Judge finally had enough of it and started to ask questions himself. His questioning of a guy named Bonsell (day 18) and some woman named Geesey (day 17) was interesting to read. He nailed them both, on the record. Just look where it says "examination by the court". Dover Monkey Trial

Look at the bright side, less competition for good "science jobs" for our kids. I think MIT should have a question on its admission application: "Are you now or have you ever been a public school student in the state of Kansas?" Their Senator is going to run for President. I'm scared. Hold me.

Secrecy is the enemy of democracy but secrecy is needed in wartime. It is an old and timeworn dilemma. Damned if I know the answer.

That is not an independent investigation. It will have members of both parties but one more Republican so that they will carry every vote. Such an investigation can be politically controlled. I don't want a whitewash, I want an independent investigation and let the indictments fall where they may.