The issues with the Bush administration are so surmounting it is almost at the point of parody. I can’t even for a moment imagine how one could claim to like him or defend him at this point unless you truly don’t pay attention to anything and vote based on the fact that your family is Republican. I want to preface by saying there is no better between Democrats and Republicans but when it comes to Bush, it’s amazing we don’t make a bigger deal out of him and his administration than we do.
Let’s begin with the obvious stuff:
- Iraq. It is heavily documented that they used 9/11 as a way to push through Cheney and Rumsfeld’s predetermined agenda to go to war with Iraq. They purposefully used intelligence they knew was false because of what they believed. WMDs?
- Afghanistan. In turn all their efforts in Afghanistan to find Bin Ladin were diverted. (The CIA Special Ops, who were the only ones there, had him cornered and requested back up from the military that was refused, and well, he got away).
- No Child Left Behind was a failure.
- Guantanamo Bay breaks international law, ignores the right of habeas corpus, and has changed our standing in the world.
- Attempting to falsely create a panic in regards to Social Security (that he claimed would occur in 2047 wtf?) in order to privatize it.
- The Patriot Act.
- The firing of Federal judges based solely on political differences.
- Katrina.
- The fact that the number of family’s that make under 10,000 a year has risen 36%.
- Leaking confidential CIA operatives to the press in retribution for exposing their false intelligence used in reports and making “Scooter” Libby the scapegoat for Rove and Cheney.
-Walter Reed
All this and the simple fact that he can’t speak and has, an as he put it, an “epileptic” reading list.
The only thing I have ever actually agreed with him on was repealing the Supreme Court’s decision to expand the rights of Eminent Domain to corporations to build Wal Marts, but he just talked about it, so far nothing has been changed. So with all this stuff that is so obvious it’s the little things that slip under the radar that are really unnerving and staggeringly idiotic. Bush caters to religious fundamentalist in our country while decrying others abroad. I just read this small blurb today and I would like to share its insanity with you:
From a press release issued by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility in December 2006: “Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geological age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees. Despite promising a prompt review of its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah’s flood rather than by geologic forces, more that three years later no review has ever been done and the book remains on sale at the park, according to documents released today. ‘In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is ‘no comment.’”
This is part of the Bush administrations attack on science which is reinforced by their commitment for FAITH BASED PARKS!?:
“Bush political appointees are taking our national parks in a new, dangerous direction... In a series of recent decisions, the National Park Service has approved the display of religious symbols and Bible verses, as well as the sale of creationist books giving a biblical explanation for the Grand Canyon and other natural wonders. These moves all emanate from top Park Service political appointees over the objections of park superintendents, agency lawyers, and scientists. A number of fundamentalist Christian and socially conservative groups are claiming credit for these actions and touting their new direct and personal access to Bush Administration officials.”
It is getting harder and harder for me to calmly reason with people about this nonsense. This is not only dumb it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. What is the benefit of repressing and hiding information that is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be true, to protect your belief? If you don’t like science then give back every single modern convenience and commodity you have ever owned. This is not only an attack on information it is an attack on rationality. In my opinion everyone has the right to believe what they want to, but it doesn’t mean you aren’t being stupid or stubborn when ignoring the facts. The Earth is NOT 6,000 years old. We have carbon dating! There are all kinds of animals down the street in the La Brea Tar Pits that are 40,000 years old! This information based on peer reviewed fact and research. It is not a science to date the earth based on the births of apostles. Evolution and Natural Selection are facts. The most ignorant argument I have ever heard is the Evolution is just a theory… so if fucking gravity!
If you believe in Noah’s Arc then you aren’t using you head. The wealth of information that disproves it is astounding. The fact that well, dinosaurs weren’t part of this story (that’s because they didn’t know they existed yet so how could they write about them) or the fact that climate and food sources are determinate in the survival of all species. Now since it was flooding I guess he just dumped the giant squids and blue whales out but um, were they in an aquarium on the boat before this - they must have been frozen in carbonate to survive for so long if there weren’t aquariums on the ship? Or maybe just fish evolved and land animals were created, so why are blue whales and dolphins mammals? This is so confusing! And lets for a moment consider the size of a ship that would carry two of every species of animal (blue whales, elephants, rhinos, kitty cats, and tree frogs), that then would place each one of them in their natural habitat in every corner of the world, some in remote land locked areas. Judging by an animal’s natural instinct they must have been heavily sedated on the Ark. I also wonder how the blind mole rat or the polar bear survived this ordeal? Where were they all made?
Phil, you aren’t supposed to take the story so literally, it’s faith, it is what people believe. Okay then, so if that’s the case don’t try to use logic and reason to explain something that is magical and unbelievable. Creationist believe that dinos and humans were hanging out together (this is of course an ex post facto realization) - that humans were riding on their backs. FUCK YOU. You have to be kind of retarded to even consider that.
This is what our President believes, the President of the United States of America! How does one expect to get logic through to this man, to help change his policies? It’s obvious if you can’t convince someone the Grand Canyon wasn’t carved out by Noah’s sick wakes then you get anything through. So...
… Take Some Fucking Action. It’s the least you can do.
8 comments:
I expect better. Writing about our president is like fishing with dynamite, and to say that we aren't making a big enough deal is ridiculous. He is potentially the most ridiculed president we've ever had.
Furthermore, to argue that he personally believes the things that he supports is equally dumb. You're not taking into account his loyalty to his party. Bush supported stem cell research before his run for presidency, and all sorts of contradictory things. But when you're trying to win a race for popularity, you have to try and appeal to a clear majority, and to ensure your party stays in power, you have to continue to support things you might not necessarily espouse.
Just watch what happens to McCain, perhaps one of the most respected republicans because of both his allegiance to republicans and his ability to appeal to many democrats with his moderate politics. I guarantee we will see a different man emerge for the presidency.
One final note. For every action there is a reaction. Society vacillates between extremes all the time, and the beauty of our system is that we allow it to snap back and forth quickly. Eight years is but a trifle in time, and I would not worry that the world is going to hell in a hand basket
Ok. Let's see. I can't disagree with you more.
Firstly paragraph 1 and 2 contradict one another. To say that writing about the president is "fishing with dynamite" because he is "the most ridiculed president we've ever had." and then to say that he "ha[s] to try and appeal to a clear majority, and to ensure your party stays in power, you have to continue to support things you might not necessarily espouse.", is not only untrue (this president at the date of print has an approval rating in the 30 percentile) but these are things he not only believes but supports despite the majority.
Bush never supported embryonic stem-cell research. He only said he supported "stem cell lines that have already been created from previously destroyed human embryos". Then when the, at the time, Republican Senate voted to loosen the restriction for stem-cells in Sept. of 2006, by a 63-37 vote (quite the majority if you ask me), the President, for the very first fucking time in office used his power to veto on moral grounds. He is the President, on his second term, and at this point it has nothing to do with his allegiance to his party and his more to do with his allegiance to his core beliefs.
The entire point of my piece was that Bush, obviously one of the worst presidents of our time, is also systematically trying to change and weaken the separation of church and state which is what this country is founded on.
The Republican party, and more notably in this instance the conservative right, has been hijacked by the Christian Right. Barry Goldwater, the godfather of the conservative movement, believed in the right of abortion. You want to know why? Because he was a REPUBLICAN CONSERVATIVE. It has an ugly connotation today, as it did back when he ran for President because everyone was who was hip was a liberal hippy. He was considered a “hawk” (Ironically enough the obvious war hawk LBJ, Democrat, was the one to launch the famous ad campaign against Goldwater which unsubtly made the characterization that voting for Goldwater was voting for the apocalypse) but the defining principle of the Republican party was once, and is still supposed to be, limited government control, limited government spending, and free market economics. All these principles are now considered Libertarian and are the means to which you describe in your final note, that there is a natural fluctuation and that "Eight years is but a trifle in time". Yet in eight years time, Bush has done so much irrevocable harm to this country, and has attempted to literally redefine the entire infrastructure of the United States government, that it should be made a bigger deal.
Bush has defied all these principles, for example according to MSNBC, “…the amount of money being spent in Iraq ranges from $255 million a day to more than $7 billion per month, with a final price tag expected to exceed $1 trillion.” I listed only some of the things he has done wrong, the Iraq War being obvious, but he is the first President to spend this amount of money, while lowering taxes, during a period of war. And guess who is paying for privatized, non-bid for contracts to Halliburton? We are. It also isn’t very Republican for an entire government to stop everything it’s doing and dedicate it’s time to getting in the middle of a guardianship case between a single family, and then attempt to pass a constitutional amendment in attempt to affect one case, as was the case with the Terri Shivo debacle, because of the far right’s pro-life stance. Let me also state that I view it as impossible to be pro-life and pro-capital punishment. Bush cannot say that the life of an embryo is cause for a moral uproar when under his governorship more than 131 people were executed under his watch. There have been many cases since that have been exonerated because of DNA evidence and many have stipulated that some of the 131 executed were probably innocent of their crimes and were also poorly represented public defenders, a staggering 1/3 of which were later disbarred.
To be fair Bush said this in regards to the executions here is a quote to an AP reporter, "If you’re asking me whether or not as to the innocence or guilt or if people have had adequate access to the courts in Texas, I believe they have."
In eight years time, Bush has done so much irrevocable harm to this country, and has attempted to literally redefine the entire infrastructure of the United States and that should be made into big deal. I thought Clinton, to a certain degree, was given more credit than he deserved as this great President (even leftist like Howard Zinn attest to that (read People‘s History of the United States of America)). I would kind of role my eyes when people defended him for lying about a blow job because look, you are the President, if you did it, you have enemies and people will find out. He was not only held accountable but he went through the IMPEACHMENT PROCESS for an affair. An affair? Now with everything that Bush has done that is not only proven to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL but also ILLEGAL, if he is still in power, then obviously people aren’t making a big enough deal about it. I was recently watching C-SPAN and Clinton was giving some sort of speech that was not only powerful but articulate and the realization came to me that this is what we are missing. A President who can speak as opposed to someone who snidely talks about how he is excited for the chow in every foreign country he visits.
McCain is just like the other Clinton, Mrs. Hillary, a political opportunist. I agree that we will see a different man emerge in his candidacy because being a great politician wasn’t good enough. You want to know why? I will explain:
In the republican primaries in 2000, McCain, after New Hampshire, was ahead by a long shot, the front runner in every poll imaginable. Bush was at this point either 3rd or 4th. Then they campaigned in the South. Bush all of the sudden sky rocketed to #1. Why is this? During the New Hampshire primaries, Bush’s architect, Karl Rove was doing some campaign work of his own. He went through very religious and probably racists areas all through the South and distributed pamphlets through churches and other means that claimed that John McCain had a “black love child”. This black love child that got the heartland all riled up was a young girl McCain and his wife adopted from a “Bangladeshi orphanage run by Mother Teresa.” This is a fact and this should be made into a big deal.
McCain used to revile maniacs like Jerry Fallwell but was recently on stage with him in a prayer session. To further prove he is a different man, I saw McCain on TBN the other night, talking about his newly founded relationship with Fallwell, while also subtly avoiding being pigeonholed as a part of the religious right. He is playing the game, and in the worst possible way, and with that stance he will most certainly lose. He is doing this because people like Karl Rove and Bush play ugly, but what McCain doesn’t have is Bush’s cowboy flair of sticking to his guns, which appeals to people who are set in their ways, and if you don’t like it you can just git out. Or as Bush puts it; "I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe — I believe what I believe is right.” So in his own words, he believes what he believes is right and it is not dumb for me to argue that he believes his beliefs to be - beliefs that is true.
I am saying all of this to your reply, but the main point of my piece wasn’t directly about Bush, but about the people he appoints to push his religious agenda and curb teaching people the geological facts behind the Grand Canyon, Evolution, and the Christian Right’s agenda of chipping away at the scientific establishment and if you don’t see a problem with that then there is even a bigger problem at foot.
I'm sorry, but I don't believe the doomsday proclamations you make.
I just can't say that he is doing "irrevocable harm". I feel like using that kind of term to signify the devastating effects of his existence is mostly hyperbole. This country has been through a massive depression that affected the entire world, world wars, etc. Your comparisons are a joke when put into historical context.
There were worse presidents. Andrew Jackson was easily borderline retarded and he heads a long list. Presidents used to win elections through forcing people to vote, buying them, or getting people drunk and voting twice. The illegalities that people point out today are a joke in comparison to what used to happen. There truly is media magnification without appreciation for the past. I don't think that should justify his actions or the actions of his party, but I think it gives perspective.
You get off the point when you simply point out the stupid things Bush has done. I'm not arguing that. I'm not trying to defend the president so much as say that your righteousness is out character and misplaced.
Polls didn't seem to mean so much during his first term, as he was re-elected. Discrepancies aside, it was not a landslide by any stretch of the imagination. To be honest, the Democrats should probably still be worried about the Republicans taking the presidency for a third term. Everyone loved old Bill Clinton, but the Democrats didn't get the presidency afterward. Weird.
I personally think your approach is too emotionally loaded and it will cloud judgment. Just because the guy sucks doesn't mean you have to hate him. If I don't like chocolate ice cream, I don't make campaigns against its infiltration into our schools. I understand were comparing two very different things, but just because you think you are right, doesn't mean someone on the other end of the spectrum doesn't believe equally they are as well. You have to respect that, or you become grandiose. I think you have to back up and realize that this country allows an open forum, and it is ridiculous to hate the other end.
By the way, the separation of church and state is not in the constitution. It's a letter written by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, it's where we get the term. The constitution promotes the free expression of religion, so while I don't agree with peddling books saying the world was created 6,000 years ago, constitutionally, we should uphold it. If we try and hold back religious expression, thats when you worry.
And to try and pick apart writing like you did for my first and second paragraph, without simply taking the gist of what I said and responding to it, doesn't really further conversation. Even though I will point out they are not contradictory: to say that he is the most ridiculed president ever, and yet is still trying to remain popular, are not mutually exclusive.
Non of this addresses the validity of the points being made, nor am I making doomsday predictions by any means, I am just stating facts as they are. Choosing to be apathetic or indifferent about things because of a historical context only means something retroactively since I did not live in the year 1829. What I am talking about is based in and around facts. The one discrepancy you point out is something I am aware of but it is also something of a myth as the separation of church and state is in the constitution (The separation of church and state is a term used, just like the right to a fair trail or the right to privacy, which are also not written in the Constitution, in that way instead of stating entire passages of the Constitution. Rights given within the Amendments are shorted to summarize their meaning.) The First Amendment of the Constitution, although it does state that it promotes the freedom of religion, you cannot leave out the other key element which is: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” That is very explicit in it’s meaning, Congress cannot favor an establishment of religion and give them the right to change our national parks to faith based parks.
If we allow that then we should allow the Morons to make signs on Indian Burial Grounds that say, Here Lives The Lost Tribe of Israel. This is favoritism by the government, by Bush, who is personally responsible for his “Faith Based Initiatives” which is why this is going on. Yes Jackson was bad but we have evolved since the days of Jackson. The reason “the illegalities that people point out today are a joke in comparison to what used to happen” is because we have raised our standards as people and a country. For example woman can vote now, we no longer have slavery or child labor, and the country is a dramatically different place and in our modern times we have the ability to hold people accountable for their actions.
I also would like to say that I feel like your response doesn’t really touch on any of the information I am presenting and that is the point of it. It is difficult for me to understand how indifferent one can be towards this, historical ex post facto context aside. I doubt that all of the people that have perished in this conflict have the ability to share your sentiments on how the devastating impact of the Bush Administration’s war are hyperbolic. Estimates are beginning to come out that show that almost as many Iraqi civilians have died during the war as did under Saddam.
Speaking of numbers Bush’s poll number during his first term did not matter in the re-election is because he didn’t dip into the 20 percentile until his second term. He never really dipped below a 45% during his first term, which still is pretty bad when one compares that to his almost 90% approval rating after 9/11. This compounded with the fact that ¼ o f the people who voted, voted based on moral grounds and not the issues at hand. And both elections have been heavily contested but that is a whole other issue.
I am all for an open form, that is why I am here talking about it. I know that people have reverent beliefs based on what they believe to be right (I will not quote Bush again although I do find it tempting) - I will not take a step back to realize something that is already apparent. Religious expression is not curbed by proving creationists wrong and not letting them cloud scientific fact based on magical stories. I am no longer going to hold my composure because people are working within the government against reason to dumb down information and put doubt in science. Even the Catholic church views Evolution as fact and they are obviously still religious. The reason that I say that religious expression will not be curbed by not letting Creationist have their way with science is because Creationism, claims, not to be a religion, but a legitimate science. So hold it to scientific scrutiny. There is nothing in the Bible that indicates that the world was created 6,000 years ago, there isn’t even a consensus among creationist as there are many different sects (like Christianity itself) that believe various versions - for example some have floods, some don’t.
I too agree they should have every right to believe, publish, release, and sell books pertaining to their belief in Noah’s flood carving the Canyon. They should be able to have them sold in what ever stores that accept them, but the government should not force, and by the constitution cannot force religious beliefs in state sanctioned government parks. The law on the books for Grand Canyon State Park in regards to this issue is as follows:
8.4.2 Historical and Scientific Research. Superintendents, historians, scientists, and interpretive staff are responsible for ensuring that park interpretive and educational programs and media are accurate and reflect current scholarship…Questions often arise round the presentation of geological, biological, and evolutionary processes. The interpretive and educational treatment used to explain the natural processes and history of the Earth must be based on the best scientific evidence available, as found in scholarly sources that have stood the test of scientific peer review and criticism. The facts, theories, and interpretations to be used will reflect the thinking of the scientific community in such fields as biology, geology, physics, astronomy, chemistry, and paleontology. Interpretive and educational programs must refrain from appearing to endorse religious beliefs explaining natural processes. Programs, however, may acknowledge or explain other explanations of natural processes and events.
Creationism or Intelligent Design masks itself as a science, which is it’s way to infiltrate places like state parks and schools and it’s totally 100 % bullshit.
The whole reason I wrote the reply before this one was to point out the error in thinking that it is dumb of me to argue that Bush believes in everything he supports. He only supports what he believes. I wish that what I was saying in terms of the information I presented was addressed as opposed to whether or not it matters in the context of history. I live here today and what effects my life and my government is what is going to matter to me.
As for the contradiction - Bush is one of the most ridiculed Presidents so to say that he is doing things to remain popular, he is obviously doing a bad job when Republicans voted Republicans out of office and gave the Senate and the House to Democrats, while maintaining an approval rating that dips between the high twenties to the mid to high 30s, that to me is not a President who is making choices to remain in the popular majority. I am not trying to be difficult but I didn’t get the gist because that isn’t representative of the facts but I apologize if it came off as me picking it apart.
I will leave us with a final quote by Bush about making popular decisions, this is not a Bushism as the others have been:
In the 2004 Presidential Debate: “…And so, what I'm telling you is, is that sometimes in this world you make unpopular decisions because you think they're right.”
Sorry for the late reply, but away we go.
"stating facts as they are" is never as innocent as that sounds. Everyone has an agenda, and facts can be presented in whichever light one wants them. I'm not saying your facts are wrong, but the way in which they are presented makes a big difference. In terms of the doomsday scenario, you use specific words like 'infiltrating', 'systematically', along with capitalizing specific words for effect. The implication is that if we don't act now, all is lost.
By appreciating a historical context, I'm not being indifferent or apathetic. Those would require a lack of understanding and thought, or a choice not to engage in those intellectual pursuits. Stepping back and saying "Maybe this isn't that big of a deal" is simply appreciating things for what they are. I understand that you and me live in this currently modern age of higher levels of accountability and understanding, and therefore it is more immediate. However, it is interesting to look back and look on forward progress. Despite awful things happening, when people thought during their age that the world was going to hell, we seem to be consistently better off throughout the years.
I still don't believe that Bush only supports things he believes in 100%, and that being in his position, there isn't enough time to really be 100% behind many decisions that have to be made. Of course the major ones are a big deal that he is intimately involved with, but I'm guessing that the relatively trivial ones are not really of his doing.
As for my lack of specifically calling out your factual exploits, I think I'm arguing philosophical generalities while your talking specifics. I'm talking about an approach to the information more than a specific opinion. I could be wrong, and although I've read both yours and my own arguments multiple times, my opinion isn't very specific.
In terms of people who are personally touched by this war, I'm not ignoring that idea. I'm removing myself from the emotionality of that equation to argue on a broader level. The fact that people are suffering is a daily reality for not just Iraq, but many other countries including our own. Putting it into context is useful, and doesn't mean one is callous. I understand that people personally effected in a direct or secondary fashion aren't going to appreciate being talked about objectively.
You are welcome to do what you like, but it is my opinion that those who lose their composure when talking about such things end up looking bad and losing credibility. No level headed rational person appreciates a zealot.
I think I stated this before, but polls are not very accurate, and I find it hard to believe that they have the reach and scope to really have a good sample of the US opinion. Alabama, for instance, has very high opinions of Bush, the current regime, and their decisions. While it's easy to dismiss Alabama for being Alabama, it gives insight. The major cities of America are not representative by any means.
In terms of the government forcing it's citizens to choke down something they wouldn't otherwise, it's done all the time. You know from Stossel that our country's citizens manipulate what are otherwise well meaning government institutions for their own self interest. People get hyped up when it is about religion because they don't want someone like the pope or something like the church directing day to day affairs. Thats also why you conversely get fears of a 'zionist' conspiracy from rightist lunatics, as this idea is something that people innately fear. Again, I'm not justifying this, much less approving it. However, it's a reality of our lives, and until it interferes on a level that people find it repugnant, it will continue.
As far as intelligent design goes, I would not compare it to creationism, as I think that is pejorative. Creationism implies a literal interpretation of Genesis, and as far as I have read, Intelligent Design simply implies that 'design requires a designer' and that our world presents such an idea. While I'm sure there are people in the camp with a much more ugly goal, Intelligent Design on its own does not seem so unreasonable if you take it upon its broad ideal. That is, as long as you believe in god. I don't mean to say god is like an old wise man tinkering in his shop, but that if you consider god the context of greatness, then it becomes more understandable.
Please realize that in constructing these arguments, I do like to play devils advocate. Mostly because if you get into the nitty gritty of an idea, you lose the forest from the trees. Playing on the opposite side allows one to step back and look at the playing field, without being in the midst of the chaos of action. That tends to be why I criticize your passion, as I think you can easily lose the forest from the trees in such a mindset.
I must be brief in my response as if I jump into this again I will never make a new post - Although I think these exchanges, to a certain extent are a bit more interesting then the initial post I make.
Firstly, I am still not saying it is the end of the world but I can’t help to think of what Bill Maher said which I will paraphrase here, he said something along the lines of we can’t keep pretending to be #1 anymore if we aren‘t going to act like it. I agree with that being 26th in the world when it comes to education, being in serious debt with various countries, and not making our leaders accountable. We were once #1 but everyone is silently watching as we slowly fall from grace. Yes I am using emphasis but I don’t have a political agenda, I just want to point things out and I am using the information at hand to do so, I am not trying to be biased or one sided but it truly is hard to find much positive about the Administration.
I too think it is interesting to look back and consider history contextually but that by no means should absolve someone for their wrong doings.
I can’t stress enough how the Bush Administration believes in everything they are doing. I have attempted to pin a lot of things on the administration as Cheney, Rove, and others are the key figures in this thing and yes Bush is more of a figure head than anything but when I comes to the decisions they made, they had an all republican house and senate that did not impede on a single decision the administration made and like I said he only vetoed one bill his entire time in office and that was for something he specifically and religiously believed in. What is truly good for the country is not factored in when you believe Jesus is in control of everything. That’s not a jab either, it’s his core beliefs. In regards to what I am writing about, it is his trivial “Faith Based Initiatives” that are the reason, what I was writing
about is going on.
(If you can’t tell I am trying to go point by point as tersely as possible.)
That’s why I kept digging, because nothing was specific and I was wondering why information like that doesn’t seep into people.
I agree that it is good to emotionally distance yourself from things, especially when arguing, but the purpose of bringing that that up to you was because you were making blanket statements like “I feel like using that kind of term to signify the devastating effects of his existence is mostly hyperbole” And I think people directly effected by the Bush administrations actions would beg to differ and find that rather insulting, or if it somehow directly effected you, god forbid, you wouldn‘t think so lightly about it. I agree that there is suffering everywhere, all over the world, even worse than Iraq. But that still doesn’t matter in the context because the reason this war happened is because of the Bush Administration, period. This is their war, they chose this, and these are the results. East Timor or Darfur for example are continuing to happen because of our apathy which is, in a sense, just as bad, but these conflicts were not brought on by us and that is why what you are saying doesn‘t apply to this context. We are looked to as the patriarchal father to the world to help in these conflicts, which is very different from the Iraq War, and if we don’t help we will continue to loose our standing in the international community.
Numbers are a fucked up game. It only takes a bit of reading to see how biased the cooking of numbers are and what special interest groups are behind it. That is why in the poll numbers I gave for Bush’s approval ratings I took the average number from the entire pool of numbers to come up with the single most accurate representation available. These polls are from both the left and right side of the fence. Bush is loosing a lot of people, even those in Alabama. I may be mildly misanthropic but people wise up to shit and that’s why the country made a dramatic decision to vote the Democrats into the majority. So that’s why the people of Alabama, as you put it, are being represented - the 27-39 % who are still behind him.
I also disagree with you about my composure. I am just being direct about information because it is important to know these things, especially when people have all these opinions which end there, that they are just opinions.
Intelligent Design is not a science. It is creationism with a new name. It is like calling the estate tax the death tax (as the Bush Administration changed the name to make is sound more menacing). It is spearheaded by a group called the Discovery Institute which is a conservative think tank special interest group who’s goal is to “reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic conviction” Not uphold scientific principles.” I have to quote this passage as it sums it up ID briefly and well (as many articles about ID are massive fact by fact, scientific indictments that are never scientifically refuted or addressed);
“The scientific community states unequivocally that intelligent design is not science; many scientists and at least one major organization of science teachers have also termed it pseudoscience, and some have termed it junk science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design ‘and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life’ are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.”
In a nut shell it is a cop out, if something does not have a explanation or something just seems so unreal, the only answer is god. Well, that’s not science. It is not unreasonable if you believe in god to believe such a thing, but there is no scientific evidence, zero, none, if you can find one shred tell it to me, one tiny piece, that intelligent design has any merit as a science other than attempting to answer things with, God did that. Now if they pursued the idea scenically they would also prove the existence of God and I say go for it and good luck. Until then, it’s an idea, like I wish I could stop time kind of idea.
I will end this with saying that, I don’t mind devil’s advocate arguments, as long as I know that is what is being made, otherwise it, to an extent, negates the purpose of having this discourse, and although I agree that it generates some excitement, as like I said earlier these exchanges are a bit more interesting than the post, I think the arguments that are being made get lost and unaddressed. I think passion is okay, you argue and make points because you care about them, I care about these things, not because I got this grand agenda but because the information that is out there is very unsettling and based on emotional concepts but facts. I kind of see what you might be saying if we were having the same argument.
Nice and brief, goddamnit I tried!
I'll be extremely brief so you can get back to posting, and simply clear up some things that might've been misunderstood.
While I like to play devils advocate, I do believe in what I argue. I'm not just 'fucking with you'. Playing devils advocate, in my opinion, allow you to distance yourself. It allows you to consider the validity of another argument. Usually when I argue these concepts with people in person, I try to make people understand that they don't know anything about the subject. Not in a condescending way, but really I don't either. I may know 'about' politics, but I've never been involved. I don't claim to know how to carve out cancer, and even if I had read a mountain of books on the ordeal, I couldn't claim personal experience.
The problem with a lot of political discourse is it leaves out the fact that neither of us know anything except for tertiary facts. It's unrealistic to think that being on the outside of politics that we can really know how things work. You may have a really good idea, but being in the midst of things is totally different. You can read about flying a plane, but no one would hire even the most educated 'pilot who never flew'.
Again, this is not to say that we can't criticize a politician or his policies, as they affect us. However, like most things I've tried to argue so far, it is humbling and gives perspective.
The Intelligent Design idea isn't science, and shouldn't be taught as a science. Period. It's an interesting concept for people who believe in god, and therefore is best left for spiritual discourse, not academic rigor. However, the concept is significantly different than creationism, read up on the differences, not on the underhanded ideas that might bely it.
I too enjoy these arguments, not least of which is because it allows you to get to know someone better. Not on simple content alone, but on how they respond to arguments and opposing viewpoints. Thats why I would personally consider them better than the inciting post.
I just wish Blogger wouldn't make the comments so skinny, these need more width.
I concur about the width.
I have read up and am extremely well versed in both Creationism and ID. ID is the political strategy version of Creationism, most people are dropping Creationism for ID, and mainly it is just a change in the language sans a few facts dropped here and there. The name is a linguist’s dream. Analyze Intelligent Design for a second as a term and look at the mountain of implications it makes just by stating that it is not only intelligent (boom, that's means smart) but a design (takes time to design something, like 6 days I think). ID is worse than Creationism because it is a calculated political move, Like I said, read into the christian think tank the Discovery Institute - ID began there as a way, to change the language and stigma that Creationism carried, and now uses a more careful "scientific" language to explain similar points, just more carefully, that is why it reads differently. I do admit that IDer's have strayed from cave people riding on the backs of dinos (which many creationist believe) but they kind of ignore that whole dino thing anyhow.
I don't disagree with you theoretically on the basis that making arguments outside yourself is a way to possibly be more clear and distance yourself from being subjective. I also agree that one can't know what it is like to be a politician unless one is one, but in our modern times, maybe sans Nixon, there isn't a President with a more obvious negative track record.
The reason I bring this up is we are able to make distinctions between Presidents, no we do not know what it is like to be Bush, or anyone else for that matter, but we know based on the track record of everyone else, hell you don't even really need to compare, to know that this administration is bad news.
The US government is supposed to be the people's government and that is why it is important to stand your ground. I would agree with you that it might be humbling if I did not speak better than the president. I don't need to quote him as I have done but it is an embarrassment to be represented by someone who seems to be amused by his own poor diction. I am not picking on him, he represents our country and our citizens and if our highest elected official can't get a grasp on grammar then what does that say for the rest of us? I might forgive him on that if he were a brilliant politician, but…
During the election the question I heard posed a lot was; Who would you most like to go get a beer with? Huh? You mean that is the basis of choice? I'd like the person who is the most competent for the job, not the guy hugging me at the end of the night saying, "...no your the best man, I mean it..." That is why I don't view it as humbling in this case, even though it should be.
Post a Comment