This should come as no surprise: Cornell’s head Rawlings said that teaching intelligent design as science is dangerous. Major universities have to see ID as a curse, setting students back by a couple of years in science classes. Don’t be surprised to see Remedial Science become one of the hottest classes in universities, as students struggle to catch back up with what they weren’t taught in high school.
Declaring the question a cultural issue and not a scientific one, Rawlings noted religious groups have disputed the theory of evolution since Charles Darwin published “The Origin of Species” in 1859. He urged Cornell’s staff to object to any blurring of the line between religion and science.
Now, in the interest of fairness, I’ll actually quote someone trying to defend intelligent design’s position:
John West, a fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle — a leader in the intelligent design movement — told the Times he’s concerned Rawlings is “fanning the flames of intolerance.”
Ummm… so in other words, West cannot come up with anything to rebut Rawling’s statements, so instead he suggests that Rawlings is being “intolerant.”
I shouldn’t have expected more, actually.
Technorati tags: intelligent design, evolution, schools
Leave it to the geniusus at The Onion to come up with the Big Scoop: The Onion knows who Bush’s next Supreme Court nominee is!
After Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination for the Supreme Court Thursday, President Bush announced that he will nominate the next person who walks through his door.
Technorati tags: humor, bush, supreme court
As the noose tightens around Tom DeLay is apparently starting to crack, and he finally admits that he did something wrong:
DeLay, who’s been indicted for conspiracy and money laundering, said about $21,000 contributed in 2000 and 2001 was not reported anywhere.
Another $17,000 was included in the fund’s quarterly report but not in DeLay’s 2000 annual financial disclosure report. Other donations were under-reported by about $1,700.
Of course, this would seem to be a minor infraction. But it’s proof that Mr. Holier-Than-Jesus DeLay actually has had some ethical gaffes. And lends more credence to DeLay’s possible guilt.
Technorati tags: Delay
Here’s a quick heads-up to Air Force head football coach Fisher DeBerry: Your red neck is showing!
“It just seems to be that way, that Afro-American kids can run very, very well. That doesn’t mean that Caucasian kids and other descents can’t run, but it’s very obvious to me they run extremely well,” DeBerry said in remarks broadcast Tuesday night.
As bad as the stereotypes and latent racism behind Fisher’s remarks are, what’s even worse is that he used the term Afro-American. Afro? Fisher, why don’t you wake up and join the 21st Centure!
Technorati tags: embarrassment
Anyone wo still believes that Harriet Miers can be impartial on abortion issues if appointed to the Supreme Court needs to take a look at this:
Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers pledged unflagging opposition to abortion as a candidate for the Dallas City Council in 1989, according to documents released Tuesday. She backed a constitutional amendment to ban the procedure in most cases and promised to appear at “pro-life rallies and special events.”
Asked in a Texans United for Life questionnaire whether she would support legislation restricting abortions if the Supreme Court allowed it, Miers indicated she would. Her reply was the same when asked, “Will you oppose the use of city funds or facilities” to promote abortions?
Impartial? Unbiased? There’s no way she will be! It’s obvious that, back in ‘89, Miers was staunchly Anti-Choice. Why should we believe she’s changed since then?
Technorati tags: bush, adoption, Supreme Court
I have some very solid, verifiable reasons to vote for referenda C and D, including fixing the problems in TABOR (Colorado’s TAx payer’s Bill Of Rights) and funding some very important programs. But there are also some intangible reasons why I’ll vote on C & D.
And the main one that I can think of is honesty in advertising. In my humble opinion, it’s never good to back someone or something that would choose to mislead people. And that is exactly what the No on C&D folks are doing. They are purposefully, willfully misleading people.
Examples? The No folks continue to say, “They are going to steal your tax refund!” The No folks even have a commercial out, depicting a politician stealing a tax refund check and a child’s ice cream cone. Yet this is patently false. People’s tax refunds are safe. If you overpay taxes in a year, you get the excess back. What Referendum C is asking is to keep the TABOR rebate - something that we Colorado residents haven’t received in three years.
Another example: The No folks say that the referenda would allow politicians to spend money with no accountability. Which is also patently false. Not only does the official Yes on C & D website list exactly where the taxpayer’s money will be spent, there is a portion of the referenda that specifically requires an annual audit of money spent.
One more? The Yes folks actively publish their supporters and campaign donors. The No folks won’t do this. The No folks are actually suing to keep their contribution lists private. They claim that they are not a political organization, but are an “educational” institution, and their lie-filled commercials are produced to educate Colorado voters. Rumors are that the No folks are heavily funded by outside-Colorado groups who won’t have to live in this state if C & D are voted down. But who can tell? The Yes folks are proud to list their donors and sponsors. Why are the No people fighting to hide the names of their donors and sponsors?
Honesty in advertising. That’s a big thing. The Yes folks are doing a good job of honestly presenting the facts. The No folks are deliberately misleading folks, trying to either appeal to people’s greed or to scare them about supposed costs (which the No folks are apparently making up out of thin air).
Which group would you rather support?
Well, if you’ve gotta embarrass yourself, might as well embarrass yourself on a satellite feed:
The White House had painted the event as an impromptu conversation with the troops, but video from the satellite feed before the event gave lie to those claims. The ten US soldiers and one Iraqi were coached in their answers before the event by Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary Allison Barber. She stood at the White House podium where Bush would later stand, she read part of his opening remarks and then proceeded to outline the questions Bush would ask.
This story has been getting some pretty good press. From respondents laughing about it on CNN to the local reporters here in Denver actually mentioning this on the morning news (national events almost never make a dent) to the Decatur Daily writing an editorial saying, “The event was almost comical in its presentation, not unlike a poorly produced high school drama production. In a way, the conversation was similar to a young child reciting the pledge of allegiance by rote or reading a prayer from a book,” this story has made the rounds.
Maybe it’s just one more possible event to wake up mainstream America to the true Bush administration.
Technorati tags: Bush, embarrassment, staged
How pathetic is William Bennett? He still can’t take ownership of his horrible comments that aborting all black babies would reduce the crime rate in America. Instead, he is continuing to insist that his comments were taken out of context. His new tack is that he was using these statements to make a “bad argument” which he could then dispute. Which is total bullcrap!
Let us not forget exactly what he said:
Bennett told a caller on his radio show, “But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.”
He went on to call that “an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.”
Emphasis mine, to point out something very important here: Bennett not only made that racist comment, but he then went back and restated that same argument! If he wasn’t endorsing it, if he didn’t believe it, then why restate it? And why restate it with such certainty? If you haven’t listened to the full clip of his show on Media Matters, go back and do so. Listen to the whole two minutes plus, so you can’t be accused of taking the comments out of context. And then listen to the certainty in Bennett’s voice as he re-states that the crime rate would go down.
Bennett needs to quit trying to make excuses, quit trying to blame everyone else, and say, “yes, I made these statements.” He could follow up with, “I should not have, they are extremely racist. I apologize to all Americans, regardless of race, that I offeneded,” but that isn’t necessary. We live in a free country, and if Bennett wants to be a racist prick, he can be. But he should have the courage to own up to what he said.
I now no longer have a doubt that James Dobson is out of his friggin’ mind. Aside from waiting for god to tell him whether or not Miers is a good nominee for the Supreme Court Dobson is now making a “prophecy” that gay marriage will lead to beastiality:
James C. Dobson predicted on his radio program that allowing same-sex marriage in the United States would lead to “group marriage,” “marriage between daddies and little girls,” or “marriage between a man and his donkey.” Dobson called this vision of the future “more or less a prophecy,”
What the hell is wrong with anti-gay marriage people? How does it follow that marriage between two consenting adults would lead to marriage between a consenting adult and someone/something who can’t give consent (such as a child or an animal)? This is not brain surgery. It’s basic, fundamental logic: two consenting adults does not equal one consenting adult.
