The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

Another organization endorses honest science teaching

Posted 2 November 2010 by Richard B. Hoppe

Voices for Evolution (large pdf) is NCSE's collection of statements from various bodies--scientific, religious, and educational--that endorse the teaching of honestly presented science in public schools. A new body, the Illinois Federation of Teachers, has just adopted a strong statement on teaching science titled Keep Supernaturalism Out of the Science Curriculum. No wishy-washy euphemisms there! I hope it is soon included in NCSE's collection. I was informed by The Skeptical Teacher a couple of weeks ago of the intent to introduce it. He/she posted a draft. I've reproduced the final resolution as adopted below the fold, but I'll put one powerful quotation from it here.
WHEREAS, attempts to subvert the validity or teaching of evolutionary theory are also attacks on all scientific inquiry and, therefore, also attacks on the validity of using reason and experimentation to understand the universe;
Nice! Resolution No. 11 - Keep Supernaturalism Out of the Science Curriculum Adopted at the 2010 Illinois Federation of Teachers Convention WHEREAS, science is a systematic method for investigating natural phenomena through experimentation, observation and measurement leading to falsifiable explanations that are open to continuous testing; and WHEREAS, science proceeds on the basis of methodological naturalism and assumes observed phenomena of the universe are real, nature is consistent and understandable, and nature is explainable in terms of laws and theories; and WHEREAS, a scientific theory is consistent with evidence from multiple and independent sources of evidence, explains many different facts and allows predictions of subsequent discoveries; and WHEREAS, the theory of evolution satisfies these criteria fully, is the foundation of biological science, is supported by a coherent body of integrated evidence from other disciplines in science and is consistent with theories from other scientific disciplines including anthropology, geology, physics, astronomy and chemistry; and WHEREAS, there have been attempts in some states to include supernaturalism in the science curriculum as an alternative to scientific explanations of nature, particularly as an alternative to evolutionary theory; and WHEREAS, arguments that invoke supernaturalism are grounded in religious or philosophical considerations outside the realm of science; and WHEREAS, attempts to subvert the validity or teaching of evolutionary theory are also attacks on all scientific inquiry and, therefore, also attacks on the validity of using reason and experimentation to understand the universe; and WHEREAS, legislation that conflates supernaturalism, or limits, or prohibits the teaching of any scientific theory negatively impacts our ability to make informed decisions; and WHEREAS, it is the responsibility of the Illinois Federation of Teachers to preserve the integrity of science in the classroom; therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Illinois Federation of Teachers affirm, through a positional statement on its website, the validity of science as a methodology for understanding the nature of the universe, and affirm the validity and foundational importance of organic evolution to science as a whole and biology, specifically; and be it further RESOLVED, that the IFT affirm, through a positional statement on its website, that supernaturalism is not a scientific endeavor and, therefore, is inappropriate for inclusion in the science curriculum; and be it further RESOLVED, that this resolution does not make it the official position of the IFT that there is no God and should not be interpreted as a statement either for or against religion or belief in God; and be it further RESOLVED, that the IFT call upon its members to assist those engaged in overseeing science education policy to understand the nature of science, the content of contemporary evolutionary theory and the inappropriateness of including non-science subjects (e.g., intelligent design and creationism) in our science curriculum; and be it further RESOLVED, that the IFT communicate to the local, regional and national public media, to educational authorities and to appropriate legislators its opposition to the inclusion of non-science approaches and subjects (e.g., creationism and intelligent design) into the science education curricula of our public school system; and be it finally RESOLVED, that the IFT members also promote these concerns and help resolve these issues in their home communities among educators, parents, school boards and students in appropriate public forums.

70 Comments

Alan B · 2 November 2010

You Americans do have a funny way of presenting things with all the "Whereas"s! We British would never do things like that!

(Just don't ask about "La Reyne le veult")

DS · 2 November 2010

Cue creationists complaining that, if there really is such a thing as the supernatural, you will never have a complete picture of reality.

Of course, the proper response to this is to point out that there is no evidence of anything supernatural and thus no need for supernatural explanations. Once someone provides evidence of the supernatural, then it might become science. Until then, everyone is free to investigate the supernatural by any and all means they find appropriate.

Henry J · 2 November 2010

Or better yet, forget the "natural" and "supernatural" labels, and go with whether a concept explains consistently observable patterns in the data.

Mike Elzinga · 2 November 2010

DS said: Cue creationists complaining that, if there really is such a thing as the supernatural, you will never have a complete picture of reality.
Given the thousands of religions in the world, it would seem unlikely that this gives a complete picture of reality. If reality is that there are thousands of versions of deities giving thousands of versions of reality to thousands of versions of deity spokespersons, we’re screwed.

eric · 2 November 2010

DS said: Cue creationists complaining that, if there really is such a thing as the supernatural, you will never have a complete picture of reality.
Who says complete is the only goal? Useful but limited (science) is far better than useless but complete (theology). What's more, science seems to be getting less limited over time, while the usefulness of theology does not seem to be increasing. If this were a horse race to explain the unexplained, I'd be betting on the horse thats, um, actually moving forward.

RBH · 2 November 2010

eric said: If this were a horse race to explain the unexplained, I'd be betting on the horse thats, um, actually moving forward alive.
Fixed it for you. :)

Matt Young · 2 November 2010

You Americans do have a funny way of presenting things with all the "Whereas"s!
What I object to is their punctuation. "Whereas" is a subordinate (subordinating) conjunction and should not be followed by a comma. The comma after "Resolved" seems to me to be equally shaky.

Mike · 2 November 2010

Yes, yes, I know we aren't to raise the spector of partician politics, but comeon! It's election day. Is there any reason to believe that the speaker apparent from Ohio isn't going to push creationism in public school science classes like he did eight years ago? Has he given any indication of changing his mind about applying politics to education?

Kevin B · 2 November 2010

RBH said:
eric said: If this were a horse race to explain the unexplained, I'd be betting on the horse thats, um, actually moving forward alive.
Fixed it for you. :)
I thought that Barbara Forrest had established that it was a Trojan Horse, which is apparently a sort of wedge.

RBH · 2 November 2010

Kevin B said: I thought that Barbara Forrest had established that it was a Trojan Horse, which is apparently a sort of wedge.
Philip Kitcher calls ID "dead science" and its proponents "resurrection men." :)

jasonmitchell · 2 November 2010

Yea Illinois!

eric · 2 November 2010

Kevin B said: I thought that Barbara Forrest had established that it was a Trojan Horse, which is apparently a sort of wedge.
Horse -> trojan horse -> is a horse made of wood -> wedges are also wood...coincidence? -> wood burns -> what else burns -> witches -> Forrest is a witch!

Karen S. · 2 November 2010

Cue creationists complaining that, if there really is such a thing as the supernatural, you will never have a complete picture of reality.
That wouldn't matter since science is concerned solely with investigating the natural world.

harold · 2 November 2010

Is there any reason to believe that the speaker apparent from Ohio isn’t going to push creationism in public school science classes like he did eight years ago?
There is every reason to believe that we will see intense efforts to do exactly that, at state government levels and at the level of the House of Representatives, for at least the next two years. Given that creationism is strongly associated with one of the two major political parties, there is every reason to believe that sufficient success of that party at the level of senate and presidential elections, which would lead to success in selecting the supreme court, could eventually result in overturning of thirty years of precedent and usher in an era of legal preaching in public schools in place of science. I think it is very stupid to deny this threat. If all the orange farmers who want a tariff on oranges always vote for the same party, then when that party is elected, there is a high chance that a tariff on oranges will be extensively discussed and may become law. This is even more true if an orange farmer element has increasingly taken control of that party. If Sharron Angle defeats Harry Reid, for example, and it is a close race, for example, she will be a major "rising star". She is a public school teacher who openly (on the campaign trail) advocates teaching creationism. We do not have information on whether or not she violated the law by teaching it in the classroom, but now, if she wins, she will be helping to make the laws. Whether the laws that are made are constitutional or not is 100% at the discretion of the courts, ultimately the supreme court. The president appoints the members of the supreme court and the senate confirms them. Furthermore the constitution can be ammended by sufficient popular vote. The constitution is not an immovable bulwark against the bad policies of elected officials. Elect enough nuts often enough and a supreme court of reality denying nuts, appointed by a nut president and confirmed by nut senators, will tell you that the constitution says whatever Fox News wants it to say.

Kevin B · 2 November 2010

eric said:
Kevin B said: I thought that Barbara Forrest had established that it was a Trojan Horse, which is apparently a sort of wedge.
Horse -> trojan horse -> is a horse made of wood -> wedges are also wood...coincidence? -> wood burns -> what else burns -> witches -> Forrest is a witch!
Only if she changes her name to O'Donnell.

John Kwok · 2 November 2010

And so does her colleague biologist Paul R. Gross too:
Kevin B said:
RBH said:
eric said: If this were a horse race to explain the unexplained, I'd be betting on the horse thats, um, actually moving forward alive.
Fixed it for you. :)
I thought that Barbara Forrest had established that it was a Trojan Horse, which is apparently a sort of wedge.

John Kwok · 2 November 2010

Thanks for the link to Kitcher. I understand completely his rationale for referring to ID as "dead science", but, given the prosletyzing efforts of the Dishonesty Institute, I think a more apt appellation is "mendacious intellectual pornography":
RBH said:
Kevin B said: I thought that Barbara Forrest had established that it was a Trojan Horse, which is apparently a sort of wedge.
Philip Kitcher calls ID "dead science" and its proponents "resurrection men." :)

OgreMkV · 2 November 2010

DS said: Cue creationists complaining that, if there really is such a thing as the supernatural, you will never have a complete picture of reality. Of course, the proper response to this is to point out that there is no evidence of anything supernatural and thus no need for supernatural explanations. Once someone provides evidence of the supernatural, then it might become science. Until then, everyone is free to investigate the supernatural by any and all means they find appropriate.
C/IDists complaining that evolution and Atheism are religions and are unprovable, therefore 'supernatural' in 3... 2... 1...

Mike Elzinga · 3 November 2010

Mike said: Yes, yes, I know we aren't to raise the spector of partician politics, but comeon! It's election day. Is there any reason to believe that the speaker apparent from Ohio isn't going to push creationism in public school science classes like he did eight years ago? Has he given any indication of changing his mind about applying politics to education?
Given the rhetoric of this current crop of “Tea Baggers,” you can almost bet on it. There will very likely be enormous wastes of time with subpoenas of the White House, stacking the courts, attempts to repeal health care, continuation of DADT, blocking White House appointments, cutting the budgets to regulatory agencies, and all the right wing ideological agenda being pushed vigorously. The big risk in that approach, however, is that the Democrats might actually develop some backbone and fight back. The result will be a paralyzed Congress that not only will accomplish nothing, but will actually allow things to get worse. And that will really piss people off, because the “Tea Baggers” will be held accountable in the next election. That could guarantee a second term for Obama. Unfortunately I am too old to move to Canada when the shit hits the fan. It’s really nuts here.

John Kwok · 3 November 2010

I wouldn't bet on Obama having a second term. I predict Hillary Clinton will probably challenge him again the primaries. As for the Republicans I hope they don't dare think of having Sarah Palin on their presidential ticket:
Mike Elzinga said:
Mike said: Yes, yes, I know we aren't to raise the spector of partician politics, but comeon! It's election day. Is there any reason to believe that the speaker apparent from Ohio isn't going to push creationism in public school science classes like he did eight years ago? Has he given any indication of changing his mind about applying politics to education?
Given the rhetoric of this current crop of “Tea Baggers,” you can almost bet on it. There will very likely be enormous wastes of time with subpoenas of the White House, stacking the courts, attempts to repeal health care, continuation of DADT, blocking White House appointments, cutting the budgets to regulatory agencies, and all the right wing ideological agenda being pushed vigorously. The big risk in that approach, however, is that the Democrats might actually develop some backbone and fight back. The result will be a paralyzed Congress that not only will accomplish nothing, but will actually allow things to get worse. And that will really piss people off, because the “Tea Baggers” will be held accountable in the next election. That could guarantee a second term for Obama. Unfortunately I am too old to move to Canada when the shit hits the fan. It’s really nuts here.

SWT · 3 November 2010

John Kwok said: I wouldn't bet on Obama having a second term.
You're basing this on what? That similar losses in 1982 and 1994 left Reagan and Clinton as one-term presidents? That Obama's popularity now is significantly lower than that of Reagan and Clinton at similar points in their presidency? I wouldn't bet on a second term either, but only because 2012 is too far in the political future to call.

John Kwok · 3 November 2010

Exactly for the reasons you've stated:
SWT said:
John Kwok said: I wouldn't bet on Obama having a second term.
You're basing this on what? That similar losses in 1982 and 1994 left Reagan and Clinton as one-term presidents? That Obama's popularity now is significantly lower than that of Reagan and Clinton at similar points in their presidency? I wouldn't bet on a second term either, but only because 2012 is too far in the political future to call.
Obama and his Stuyvesant High School alumni advisors (Axelrod and Holder) are out of step with the American public. I'll be stunned if they follow the Clinton/Morris strategy of triangulation which allowed Clinton to have a reasonably successful second half for his first term. Why? Unlike Clinton and Morris they are ideologues, not pragmatists.

John Kwok · 3 November 2010

I am referring for Clinton of course (You're comparison with Reagan is ridiculous.). As for Dick Morris, he's the Stuyvesant High School alumnus whose political acumen I trust:
John Kwok said: Exactly for the reasons you've stated:
SWT said:
John Kwok said: I wouldn't bet on Obama having a second term.
You're basing this on what? That similar losses in 1982 and 1994 left Reagan and Clinton as one-term presidents? That Obama's popularity now is significantly lower than that of Reagan and Clinton at similar points in their presidency? I wouldn't bet on a second term either, but only because 2012 is too far in the political future to call.
Obama and his Stuyvesant High School alumni advisors (Axelrod and Holder) are out of step with the American public. I'll be stunned if they follow the Clinton/Morris strategy of triangulation which allowed Clinton to have a reasonably successful second half for his first term. Why? Unlike Clinton and Morris they are ideologues, not pragmatists.

jasonmitchell · 3 November 2010

John Kwok said: I wouldn't bet on Obama having a second term. I predict Hillary Clinton will probably challenge him again the primaries. As for the Republicans I hope they don't dare think of having Sarah Palin on their presidential ticket:
Mike Elzinga said:
Mike said: Yes, yes, I know we aren't to raise the spector of partician politics, but comeon! It's election day. Is there any reason to believe that the speaker apparent from Ohio isn't going to push creationism in public school science classes like he did eight years ago? Has he given any indication of changing his mind about applying politics to education?
Given the rhetoric of this current crop of “Tea Baggers,” you can almost bet on it. There will very likely be enormous wastes of time with subpoenas of the White House, stacking the courts, attempts to repeal health care, continuation of DADT, blocking White House appointments, cutting the budgets to regulatory agencies, and all the right wing ideological agenda being pushed vigorously. The big risk in that approach, however, is that the Democrats might actually develop some backbone and fight back. The result will be a paralyzed Congress that not only will accomplish nothing, but will actually allow things to get worse. And that will really piss people off, because the “Tea Baggers” will be held accountable in the next election. That could guarantee a second term for Obama. Unfortunately I am too old to move to Canada when the shit hits the fan. It’s really nuts here.
I wouldn't take that bet either - far too early but history has shown that incumbent Presidents DO get re-elected after shifts in control of congress (Clinton, LBJ, one other - someone w/ better google-fu can supply that, Reagan?) I would be surprised if there IS a primary contender in 2012 for the Dems. (again too early to tell) My (wild) predictions - The Republican lead House will get (most) of the tax cuts that they want but will waste an EPIC amount of time trying to repeal "Obama-care" (and fail) as well as pushing socially conservative issues but not enough fiscally conservative ones to hold onto moderates. The polarization inspired by teabaggers will drag the GOP further to the right (yes, that IS actually possible). The pendulum will swing back and the dems will retake the house (but the house will be nearly 50/50) in 2012. and IF Sara Palin is on (any) ticket in 2012 whoever she runs against will win. She seems incapable of saying anything intelligent that isn't scripted fr her.

Science Avenger · 3 November 2010

John Kwok said: Obama and his Stuyvesant High School alumni advisors (Axelrod and Holder)... As for Dick Morris, he's the Stuyvesant High School alumnus whose political acumen I trust
I'm sure those are the first things these men note on their resumes. Really John, didn't your mother teach you not to mastuyvate in public?

John Kwok · 3 November 2010

Both Morris and Holder have been active in alumni fundraising efforts on behalf of the school. Trust me, I know:
Science Avenger said:
John Kwok said: Obama and his Stuyvesant High School alumni advisors (Axelrod and Holder)... As for Dick Morris, he's the Stuyvesant High School alumnus whose political acumen I trust
I'm sure those are the first things these men note on their resumes. Really John, didn't your mother teach you not to mastuyvate in public?

John Kwok · 3 November 2010

But in all of those other instances, those who did governed pragmatically, often drawing support from their political opposition. There is nothing in Obama's record - past or present - demonstrating that he can forge any kind of political consensus with the Republicans. He didn't do this in the Illinois Senate, or the United States Senate, or now. What makes you think he'll start? I'll trust his actions, not his words, no matter how lofty and eloquent they may be:
jasonmitchell said:
John Kwok said: I wouldn't bet on Obama having a second term. I predict Hillary Clinton will probably challenge him again the primaries. As for the Republicans I hope they don't dare think of having Sarah Palin on their presidential ticket:
Mike Elzinga said:
Mike said: Yes, yes, I know we aren't to raise the spector of partician politics, but comeon! It's election day. Is there any reason to believe that the speaker apparent from Ohio isn't going to push creationism in public school science classes like he did eight years ago? Has he given any indication of changing his mind about applying politics to education?
Given the rhetoric of this current crop of “Tea Baggers,” you can almost bet on it. There will very likely be enormous wastes of time with subpoenas of the White House, stacking the courts, attempts to repeal health care, continuation of DADT, blocking White House appointments, cutting the budgets to regulatory agencies, and all the right wing ideological agenda being pushed vigorously. The big risk in that approach, however, is that the Democrats might actually develop some backbone and fight back. The result will be a paralyzed Congress that not only will accomplish nothing, but will actually allow things to get worse. And that will really piss people off, because the “Tea Baggers” will be held accountable in the next election. That could guarantee a second term for Obama. Unfortunately I am too old to move to Canada when the shit hits the fan. It’s really nuts here.
I wouldn't take that bet either - far too early but history has shown that incumbent Presidents DO get re-elected after shifts in control of congress (Clinton, LBJ, one other - someone w/ better google-fu can supply that, Reagan?) I would be surprised if there IS a primary contender in 2012 for the Dems. (again too early to tell) My (wild) predictions - The Republican lead House will get (most) of the tax cuts that they want but will waste an EPIC amount of time trying to repeal "Obama-care" (and fail) as well as pushing socially conservative issues but not enough fiscally conservative ones to hold onto moderates. The polarization inspired by teabaggers will drag the GOP further to the right (yes, that IS actually possible). The pendulum will swing back and the dems will retake the house (but the house will be nearly 50/50) in 2012. and IF Sara Palin is on (any) ticket in 2012 whoever she runs against will win. She seems incapable of saying anything intelligent that isn't scripted fr her.

Science Avenger · 3 November 2010

John Kwok said: Both Morris and Holder have been active in alumni fundraising efforts on behalf of the school. Trust me, I know:
Nobody gives a fuck. Trust me, I know. Relax RBH, I'm done. As for the Teatards and their GOP lackeys, I hope they have the courage of their convictions and pursue more Dovers as fast as their little thumbs can thump. The faster the average voter comes to grips with just how seriously crazy these people are, the better for all of us.

RBH · 3 November 2010

Science Avenger said: Nobody gives a fuck. Trust me, I know. Relax RBH, I'm done.
Thank you. :)

John Kwok · 3 November 2010

Well Science Wimp, I opted to write what I did about Axelrod, Holder and Morris merely to see whether you'd chime in. Sure enough, you did. Maybe next time, why don't you shut the f**k up (Sorry RBH, I had to do this):
Science Avenger said:
John Kwok said: Both Morris and Holder have been active in alumni fundraising efforts on behalf of the school. Trust me, I know:
Nobody gives a fuck. Trust me, I know. Relax RBH, I'm done. As for the Teatards and their GOP lackeys, I hope they have the courage of their convictions and pursue more Dovers as fast as their little thumbs can thump. The faster the average voter comes to grips with just how seriously crazy these people are, the better for all of us.

John Kwok · 3 November 2010

It's funny, but I could have sworn you had stopped by over at RBH's post on the Disco Tute's "bait and switch" with BioLogos's Darrel Falk. I didn't think so, and that was my rationale for mentioning those prominent alumni of my high school. Too bad you didn't add anything insightful there.

So I opted to conduct a little test, and you came, as I predicted. Don't waste your time on me, but on those far more deserving of harsh criticism: the Dishonesty Institute and those like Falk willing to give some at the DI a "pass" simply for being fellow "Brothers in Christ".

harold · 3 November 2010

Mike Elzinga said -
Unfortunately I am too old to move to Canada when the shit hits the fan. It’s really nuts here.
As a dual citizen who lives in the US, I can tell you that... 1) The Canadian economy is heavily dependent on a somewhat healthy US economy. If the US goes down the drain, Canada will to a large extent be pulled down with it. 2) Canada doesn't have the racial issues that the US has, because it never had an equivalent history of slavery or post-slavery segregation. It has plenty of racism - at least as much, in the area I grew up in - but the hysteria isn't as intense. That is the primary reason that Canada is somewhat less crazy on average. A lesser but still imporant factor is that, as a much smaller (in population) country, Canada does not have to deal with as much temptation to start wars for no reason (the absolute number of Americans killed and maimed in Iraq would be a much higher proportion of the Canadian population, and the cost of Iraq would be a very high proportion of the Canadian GDP, for example). Canada has a cultural tradition of very vigorously supporting the UK or the US when those countries start wars (although they have managed to stay out of some of the most absurd ones), rather than starting its own wars. However, the craziness can be very infectious, and Canadians are very susceptible to that infection, especially when it moves up into the states that are near the Canadian border, where people who strongly resemble Canadians in many ways tend to live, or into states like California, that have a huge cultural influence on Canada.

Mike Elzinga · 3 November 2010

harold said: However, the craziness can be very infectious, and Canadians are very susceptible to that infection, especially when it moves up into the states that are near the Canadian border, where people who strongly resemble Canadians in many ways tend to live, or into states like California, that have a huge cultural influence on Canada.
I have some familiarity with Canada. I have first cousins and other relatives there, and many of my ancestors - some of them quite interesting (and also including a pirate) – come from there. And, yes, I know that some of the same craziness exists in Canada also. Some of my relatives probably fall into that same category, as near as I can gather from some of my contacts with them.

harold · 3 November 2010

When I saw the word "pirate" I thought you might share some Nova Scotian ancestry :)

faith4flipper · 3 November 2010

"RESOLVED, that the Illinois Federation of Teachers affirm, through a positional statement on its website, the validity of science as a methodology for understanding the nature of the universe, and affirm the validity and foundational importance of organic evolution to science as a whole and biology, specifically; and be it further

RESOLVED, that the IFT affirm, through a positional statement on its website, that supernaturalism is not a scientific endeavor and, therefore, is inappropriate for inclusion in the science curriculum; and be it further

RESOLVED, that this resolution does not make it the official position of the IFT that there is no God and should not be interpreted as a statement either for or against religion or belief in God; and be it further

RESOLVED, that the IFT call upon its members to assist those engaged in overseeing science education policy to understand the nature of science, the content of contemporary evolutionary theory and the inappropriateness of including non-science subjects (e.g., intelligent design and creationism) in our science curriculum; and be it further

RESOLVED, that the IFT communicate to the local, regional and national public media, to educational authorities and to appropriate legislators its opposition to the inclusion of non-science approaches and subjects (e.g., creationism and intelligent design) into the science education curricula of our public school system; and be it finally

RESOLVED, that the IFT members also promote these concerns and help resolve these issues in their home communities among educators, parents, school boards and students in appropriate public forums."

Wow, how wonderful. And they sure did a wonderful job refuting all of those arguments from the *expletive* design movement too.

I just wonder...did they have to go to court to get this resolved as well?

John Kwok · 3 November 2010

harold, I have some familiarity with Canadian history and culture too, since I have relatives who have lived on the Pacific Coast and others who still live in the Toronto area. To their credit, I think Canada did a much better job incorporating the Afro-American Loyalists (those who fought on the side of Great Britain during the American Revolution) as well as escaped American slaves than what has transpired here in the United States. Probably the biggest reason for that is Canada's smaller size, but I would also like to think that another was the British Empire's decision to end its involvement in the slave trade early in the 19th Century as a result of its successful anti-slavery movement (some of whom included both the Darwins and Wedgewoods):
harold said: Mike Elzinga said -
Unfortunately I am too old to move to Canada when the shit hits the fan. It’s really nuts here.
As a dual citizen who lives in the US, I can tell you that... 1) The Canadian economy is heavily dependent on a somewhat healthy US economy. If the US goes down the drain, Canada will to a large extent be pulled down with it. 2) Canada doesn't have the racial issues that the US has, because it never had an equivalent history of slavery or post-slavery segregation. It has plenty of racism - at least as much, in the area I grew up in - but the hysteria isn't as intense. That is the primary reason that Canada is somewhat less crazy on average. A lesser but still imporant factor is that, as a much smaller (in population) country, Canada does not have to deal with as much temptation to start wars for no reason (the absolute number of Americans killed and maimed in Iraq would be a much higher proportion of the Canadian population, and the cost of Iraq would be a very high proportion of the Canadian GDP, for example). Canada has a cultural tradition of very vigorously supporting the UK or the US when those countries start wars (although they have managed to stay out of some of the most absurd ones), rather than starting its own wars. However, the craziness can be very infectious, and Canadians are very susceptible to that infection, especially when it moves up into the states that are near the Canadian border, where people who strongly resemble Canadians in many ways tend to live, or into states like California, that have a huge cultural influence on Canada.

harold · 3 November 2010

John Kwok -

Yes, it would be a grave mistake to underestimate the amount of racism in Nova Scotia history (I won't get into it now but there have been some shameful episodes), but both of those factors played a role. I will note that slavery ended in British-controlled areas about thirty years before the actual nation of Canada was even founded. In fact, slavery had even ended in the US before Canada was founded.

In general, Canada just didn't have the slavery-segregation-hard won civil rights sequence, and whatever impact that has on US politics is relatively absent.

John Kwok · 3 November 2010

harold, Great Britain ended its involvement in the slave trade in 1807 if I'm not mistaken. For decades after, one of the important ongoing missions of the Royal Navy was to stop those ships carrying such human "cargo". I believe slavery was officially abolished in the British Empire sometime around 1830. As for Nova Scotia, if you have any excellent resources to recommend, I'd be interested in reading about that sordid chapter. It's the first time I have heard of this. Aside from the Maritimes, I was aware that there were substantial Afro-Canadian communities in Ontario (which I suppose makes ample sense since these communities were the final desinations of many escaped slaves on the "Underground Railroad"):
harold said: John Kwok - Yes, it would be a grave mistake to underestimate the amount of racism in Nova Scotia history (I won't get into it now but there have been some shameful episodes), but both of those factors played a role. I will note that slavery ended in British-controlled areas about thirty years before the actual nation of Canada was even founded. In fact, slavery had even ended in the US before Canada was founded. In general, Canada just didn't have the slavery-segregation-hard won civil rights sequence, and whatever impact that has on US politics is relatively absent.

Dave Luckett · 3 November 2010

Britain abolished the slave trade in 1807, but not slavery itself until 1833, and even then not throughout its entire possessions. Exceptions were made for territory controlled by the East India Company, for instance.

The Royal Navy did, however, begin seriously policing slave traffic from West Africa from 1807 onwards. Ships were boarded, searched and confiscated if slaves or slaver equipment were found. The difficulty was flag-of-convenience vessels or genuine neutrals. The trade was not fully suppressed in the nineteenth century. In fact, it never has been to this day, depending on precisely how "slavery" is defined.

Robert Byers · 4 November 2010

First. yes it does matter what people think should be done in the schools on origin issues. YET its not just a few teachers or whoever they are. Its the people. everybody. Not just some of the people that one likes. like the recent election what teachers want and voters want can be two different things.
By the way. a line of reasoning. if the people can't constitutionally decide about origins in schools then how can these teachers decide? if its beyond the peoples right to decide then its beyond the peoples right or need to discuss it!!!. Yet there they are. HMMMMM

Second.
This is a unjust way to define the contention.
Its not about supernaturalism. Its about truth. This statement is just saying that God and gEnesis are not true and its settled and to be censored despite the peoples opinion and will.
if conclusions are being made in the schools on origins with results of denying God and gEnesis are true then they have introduced supernaturalism. they just are saying its false.
Well thats their opinion and if the state does it its a state opinion and illegal by the law used to censor creationism.
By the way. i've never found teachers to be the top people or the successful people in society.
Those who can't do TEACH.

Dale Husband · 4 November 2010

When the hell are Americans going to wake up and realize that nothing will really change for the better unless and until we overthrow BOTH major political parties, including President Obama, and have then ALL replaced by new parties and a whole new way of doing things?
jasonmitchell said:
John Kwok said: I wouldn't bet on Obama having a second term. I predict Hillary Clinton will probably challenge him again the primaries. As for the Republicans I hope they don't dare think of having Sarah Palin on their presidential ticket:
Mike Elzinga said:
Mike said: Yes, yes, I know we aren't to raise the spector of partician politics, but comeon! It's election day. Is there any reason to believe that the speaker apparent from Ohio isn't going to push creationism in public school science classes like he did eight years ago? Has he given any indication of changing his mind about applying politics to education?
Given the rhetoric of this current crop of “Tea Baggers,” you can almost bet on it. There will very likely be enormous wastes of time with subpoenas of the White House, stacking the courts, attempts to repeal health care, continuation of DADT, blocking White House appointments, cutting the budgets to regulatory agencies, and all the right wing ideological agenda being pushed vigorously. The big risk in that approach, however, is that the Democrats might actually develop some backbone and fight back. The result will be a paralyzed Congress that not only will accomplish nothing, but will actually allow things to get worse. And that will really piss people off, because the “Tea Baggers” will be held accountable in the next election. That could guarantee a second term for Obama. Unfortunately I am too old to move to Canada when the shit hits the fan. It’s really nuts here.
I wouldn't take that bet either - far too early but history has shown that incumbent Presidents DO get re-elected after shifts in control of congress (Clinton, LBJ, one other - someone w/ better google-fu can supply that, Reagan?) I would be surprised if there IS a primary contender in 2012 for the Dems. (again too early to tell) My (wild) predictions - The Republican lead House will get (most) of the tax cuts that they want but will waste an EPIC amount of time trying to repeal "Obama-care" (and fail) as well as pushing socially conservative issues but not enough fiscally conservative ones to hold onto moderates. The polarization inspired by teabaggers will drag the GOP further to the right (yes, that IS actually possible). The pendulum will swing back and the dems will retake the house (but the house will be nearly 50/50) in 2012. and IF Sara Palin is on (any) ticket in 2012 whoever she runs against will win. She seems incapable of saying anything intelligent that isn't scripted fr her.

Dale Husband · 4 November 2010

Byers, shut your ass! This is indeed about truth and you don't have it! You and your Creationist dogmas are frauds.
Robert Byers said: First. yes it does matter what people think should be done in the schools on origin issues. YET its not just a few teachers or whoever they are. Its the people. everybody. Not just some of the people that one likes. like the recent election what teachers want and voters want can be two different things. By the way. a line of reasoning. if the people can't constitutionally decide about origins in schools then how can these teachers decide? if its beyond the peoples right to decide then its beyond the peoples right or need to discuss it!!!. Yet there they are. HMMMMM Second. This is a unjust way to define the contention. Its not about supernaturalism. Its about truth. This statement is just saying that God and gEnesis are not true and its settled and to be censored despite the peoples opinion and will. if conclusions are being made in the schools on origins with results of denying God and gEnesis are true then they have introduced supernaturalism. they just are saying its false. Well thats their opinion and if the state does it its a state opinion and illegal by the law used to censor creationism. By the way. i've never found teachers to be the top people or the successful people in society. Those who can't do TEACH.

didymos · 4 November 2010

Robert Byers should have said: Those who can't do reality TEACH creationism.
There. That's better.

Ichthyic · 4 November 2010

didn’t your mother teach you not to mastuyvate in public?

heh.

Ichthyic · 4 November 2010

Kwok quacks:

Don’t waste your time on me,

QFT

John Kwok · 4 November 2010

Agreed, and you get a ringing endorsement from me:
didymos said:
Robert Byers should have said: Those who can't do reality TEACH creationism.
There. That's better.

Mike · 4 November 2010

Haven't been able to find much about Speaker Boehner's state of mind on science education, but what I have heard is naive. (No, I'm not name dropping damn it, but) I happened to have a minute yesterday to ask Ken Miller if he heard anything (thinking that he must be plugged into news about this sort of thing) and got a response that Boehner and the Republicans will have bigger fish to fry. But they always do. This attitude totally ignores that the holy warriors aren't going to be distracted, and will have more money than they had previously to lobby their buddy's office. It's naive to believe that they won't be busy, and greatly encouraged to introduce federal, as well as state, equal time/fairness legislation. Boehner doesn't even have to read what his office is going to be handed by the Discovery Institute. The Texas BOE, and red state legislatures are going to go nuts (more nuts).

I understand there are some good Republicans reading here. Is there any hope of countering the inevitable increase in fundamentalists' lobbying? Are there Republicans acting against the Republican war on science, or just Republicans denying there's a war on science?

John Kwok · 4 November 2010

I agree with Ken that my fellow Republicans will have bigger fish to fry. However, it is disheartening to know that, of all the major Conservative radio talk show hosts I know of, only John Batchelor recognizes the scientific validity of biological evolution. He has invited Carl Zimmer and, now, lately, Sean B. Carroll, onto his radio program. Unfortunately, Batchelor is a global warming skeptic (In stark contrast, Glenn Beck isn't, believe it or not.):
Mike said: Haven't been able to find much about Speaker Boehner's state of mind on science education, but what I have heard is naive. (No, I'm not name dropping damn it, but) I happened to have a minute yesterday to ask Ken Miller if he heard anything (thinking that he must be plugged into news about this sort of thing) and got a response that Boehner and the Republicans will have bigger fish to fry. But they always do. This attitude totally ignores that the holy warriors aren't going to be distracted, and will have more money than they had previously to lobby their buddy's office. It's naive to believe that they won't be busy, and greatly encouraged to introduce federal, as well as state, equal time/fairness legislation. Boehner doesn't even have to read what his office is going to be handed by the Discovery Institute. The Texas BOE, and red state legislatures are going to go nuts (more nuts). I understand there are some good Republicans reading here. Is there any hope of countering the inevitable increase in fundamentalists' lobbying? Are there Republicans acting against the Republican war on science, or just Republicans denying there's a war on science?
I am always busy trying to engage with my fellow Republicans who remain skeptical of the scientific validity of evolution. I point to the facts that there are prominent conservative thinkers such as Batchelor, Rolling Stone's P. J. O'Rourke (He also writes for The Weekly Standard), National Review's John Derbyshire, and the Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer and George Will, who recognize the scientific validity of biological evolution. I refer them to Michael Shermer's "Why Darwin Matters" as an excellent tome explaining why Conservatives should accept the validity of the Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection (especially when Darwin was inspired by Adam Smith's thinking, transforming it into his conception of the "economy of nature".). I also emphasize "Creationism's Trojan Horse", co-written by philosopher and historian of science Barbara Forrest and by biologist - and fellow Conservative - Paul R. Gross. And last, but not least, there is that great legal ruling by a fellow Conservative, Federal Judge John Jones, in favor of the plaintiffs at the end of the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial. As long as my fellow Conservatives and Republicans remain focused primarily on overturning Obama's agenda, especially with regards to both healthcare reform and the economic stimulus, then I don't think you need to worry about Republican mischief with regards to science. I agree that there are reasons for concern in the state legislatures, but, with the sole exception of Louisiana, there hasn't been any legislation that has been passed and signed by the state governor which is inimical toward the teaching of sound scientific education. That in itself gives me some hope for optimism in this regard.

Dr. Jerry Lyell · 5 November 2010

Magnificent. Everyone, all of this conversation has been truly edifying to the public knowledge. Why not, we need look above at the post above mine here to actually detail the level of education that our Scientists are teaching today :). Now thats good honest Science.

My organization also endorses honest science teaching at the most prestigious peer reviewed journal in the world - http://thepeerreviewedjournalbible.blogspot.com/2010/11/evolution-in-action-scientific-evidence.html

We are composed of some of the most prominent Scientists in the world, but none greater than our founder, Dr. Steven Siegal, whom has 4 PHDs in unrelated Science fields and has worked with some of the top government agencies in the world. Our research we hope will show you what true Science is all about and solidify within the minds of everyone open to honest Science what true Evolution is all about.

Mike Elzinga · 5 November 2010

Weird.

RBH · 5 November 2010

Mike Elzinga said: Weird.
That's an understatement.

John Kwok · 5 November 2010

Agreed. It's definitely an understatement:
RBH said:
Mike Elzinga said: Weird.
That's an understatement.

henry · 6 November 2010

Did you vote for Reagan in '80 and '84?
John Kwok said: I wouldn't bet on Obama having a second term. I predict Hillary Clinton will probably challenge him again the primaries. As for the Republicans I hope they don't dare think of having Sarah Palin on their presidential ticket:
Mike Elzinga said:
Mike said: Yes, yes, I know we aren't to raise the spector of partician politics, but comeon! It's election day. Is there any reason to believe that the speaker apparent from Ohio isn't going to push creationism in public school science classes like he did eight years ago? Has he given any indication of changing his mind about applying politics to education?
Given the rhetoric of this current crop of “Tea Baggers,” you can almost bet on it. There will very likely be enormous wastes of time with subpoenas of the White House, stacking the courts, attempts to repeal health care, continuation of DADT, blocking White House appointments, cutting the budgets to regulatory agencies, and all the right wing ideological agenda being pushed vigorously. The big risk in that approach, however, is that the Democrats might actually develop some backbone and fight back. The result will be a paralyzed Congress that not only will accomplish nothing, but will actually allow things to get worse. And that will really piss people off, because the “Tea Baggers” will be held accountable in the next election. That could guarantee a second term for Obama. Unfortunately I am too old to move to Canada when the shit hits the fan. It’s really nuts here.

Dave Luckett · 6 November 2010

"Dr Jerry Lyall", who appears also to be Dr Dr Dr Dr Steven Siegal, appears to be one of the noms-de-net of a person who apparently runs a blog called The Peer Reviewed Journal Bible.

I have to use the words "appears" and "apparently" in making this statement, because it is quite impossible to know whether anything the gentleman says is ironic sarcasm for polemic effect, or reverse irony for the same effect. It can't be anything he actually believes, unless he is clinically insane. It can't be anything he thinks anyone else believes, unless he thinks they are.

Parsing his output is like watching someone stroll down a hall of mirrors, without knowing which is image, which is image of image, but, unlike a mirror-image, there is no necessity for anything real to be there at all. It could all be false.

The death of satire occurs when the cause in which it is deployed is no longer discernable. "Dr Lyall" was last seen slinking away from the scene, covered with hyperbole and carrying a very large, blunt irony. He should only be approached with extreme caution.

John Vanko · 6 November 2010

It's FLIPPER.

Banned to the bathroom by Matt (see thread under the Pelican photo), emergent with a new nom-de-net.

Same two photos of badger & dolphin.

Same tone.

Richard, does banishment on one thread carry across to others?

John Kwok · 6 November 2010

Don't see how relevant that is. But I was a young conservative back then who had more in common with the Fundamentalist Protestant Christians I befriended in college except of course with their abysmal understanding of science. So what? I thought I was right to vote for him back then, and I think in light of subsequent events like the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Empire, I was still absolutely right (And yes, I know that these occurred really under George H. W. Bush's watch, but ultimately it was due to Reagan's military and foreign policies as well as Gorbachev's.):
henry said: Did you vote for Reagan in '80 and '84?
John Kwok said: I wouldn't bet on Obama having a second term. I predict Hillary Clinton will probably challenge him again the primaries. As for the Republicans I hope they don't dare think of having Sarah Palin on their presidential ticket:
Mike Elzinga said:
Mike said: Yes, yes, I know we aren't to raise the spector of partician politics, but comeon! It's election day. Is there any reason to believe that the speaker apparent from Ohio isn't going to push creationism in public school science classes like he did eight years ago? Has he given any indication of changing his mind about applying politics to education?
Given the rhetoric of this current crop of “Tea Baggers,” you can almost bet on it. There will very likely be enormous wastes of time with subpoenas of the White House, stacking the courts, attempts to repeal health care, continuation of DADT, blocking White House appointments, cutting the budgets to regulatory agencies, and all the right wing ideological agenda being pushed vigorously. The big risk in that approach, however, is that the Democrats might actually develop some backbone and fight back. The result will be a paralyzed Congress that not only will accomplish nothing, but will actually allow things to get worse. And that will really piss people off, because the “Tea Baggers” will be held accountable in the next election. That could guarantee a second term for Obama. Unfortunately I am too old to move to Canada when the shit hits the fan. It’s really nuts here.
I think it is an open question as to whether or not Obama will be as pragmatic as Clinton (And in Clinton's case it took him almost a year as well as listening carefully to advice from his principal political strategist Dick Morris, who devised Clinton's strategy of triangulation. In stark contrast to his fellow high school alumnus Dick Morris, David Axelrod doesn't have the substantial political expertise, acumen or pragmatism which Morris displayed back then.). There is nothing in Obama's prior political record that demonstrates that he could be as pragmatic as Clinton was, but instead, a longstanding history of adhering to his favorite ideologies, and it is that history which leads me to believe that Obama will most likely be a one term president.

John Kwok · 6 November 2010

Did you notice that he created his blog back in November 2010? Sounds more like a sick prank that some twisted version of Keith Olbermann, Dennis Miller or Jon Stewart might concoct:
Dave Luckett said: "Dr Jerry Lyall", who appears also to be Dr Dr Dr Dr Steven Siegal, appears to be one of the noms-de-net of a person who apparently runs a blog called The Peer Reviewed Journal Bible. I have to use the words "appears" and "apparently" in making this statement, because it is quite impossible to know whether anything the gentleman says is ironic sarcasm for polemic effect, or reverse irony for the same effect. It can't be anything he actually believes, unless he is clinically insane. It can't be anything he thinks anyone else believes, unless he thinks they are. Parsing his output is like watching someone stroll down a hall of mirrors, without knowing which is image, which is image of image, but, unlike a mirror-image, there is no necessity for anything real to be there at all. It could all be false. The death of satire occurs when the cause in which it is deployed is no longer discernable. "Dr Lyall" was last seen slinking away from the scene, covered with hyperbole and carrying a very large, blunt irony. He should only be approached with extreme caution.

John Kwok · 6 November 2010

He does admit that one of his "agents", FLIPPER, has posted here at PT. I think you've stumbled upon the truth:
John Vanko said: It's FLIPPER. Banned to the bathroom by Matt (see thread under the Pelican photo), emergent with a new nom-de-net. Same two photos of badger & dolphin. Same tone. Richard, does banishment on one thread carry across to others?

John Kwok · 6 November 2010

I think he has the "hots" for Genie Scott. He has praised her for being a "science goddess". He also rates this website, Pharyngula and NCSE's as among his favorites.

David Fickett-Wilbar · 6 November 2010

John Kwok said: (some of whom included both the Darwins and Wedgewoods):
My Wedgwood collecting wife would smack you down for that middle "e."

RBH · 6 November 2010

John Vanko said: It's FLIPPER. Banned to the bathroom by Matt (see thread under the Pelican photo), emergent with a new nom-de-net. Same two photos of badger & dolphin. Same tone. Richard, does banishment on one thread carry across to others?
We're pretty anarchic about stuff like that. :)

John Kwok · 6 November 2010

In some ways that is good, since I know one New Atheist PT contributor refuses to let me post, especially when I have something meaningful to say:
RBH said:
John Vanko said: It's FLIPPER. Banned to the bathroom by Matt (see thread under the Pelican photo), emergent with a new nom-de-net. Same two photos of badger & dolphin. Same tone. Richard, does banishment on one thread carry across to others?
We're pretty anarchic about stuff like that. :)
But we could do with a lot less of FLIPPER and FL IMHO.

John Kwok · 6 November 2010

And so she should:
David Fickett-Wilbar said:
John Kwok said: (some of whom included both the Darwins and Wedgewoods):
My Wedgwood collecting wife would smack you down for that middle "e."
Thanks for the correction David. I should have known better.

W. H. Heydt · 7 November 2010

henry said:
Dave Luckett said: Britain abolished the slave trade in 1807, but not slavery itself until 1833, and even then not throughout its entire possessions. Exceptions were made for territory controlled by the East India Company, for instance. The Royal Navy did, however, begin seriously policing slave traffic from West Africa from 1807 onwards. Ships were boarded, searched and confiscated if slaves or slaver equipment were found. The difficulty was flag-of-convenience vessels or genuine neutrals. The trade was not fully suppressed in the nineteenth century. In fact, it never has been to this day, depending on precisely how "slavery" is defined.
The key figure in ending the slave trade and slavery in Britain was William Wilberforce, an evangelical Christian. http://www.brycchancarey.com/abolition/wilberforce.htm
Father of Soapy Sam, wasn't he? --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

henry · 7 November 2010

Dave Luckett said: Britain abolished the slave trade in 1807, but not slavery itself until 1833, and even then not throughout its entire possessions. Exceptions were made for territory controlled by the East India Company, for instance. The Royal Navy did, however, begin seriously policing slave traffic from West Africa from 1807 onwards. Ships were boarded, searched and confiscated if slaves or slaver equipment were found. The difficulty was flag-of-convenience vessels or genuine neutrals. The trade was not fully suppressed in the nineteenth century. In fact, it never has been to this day, depending on precisely how "slavery" is defined.
The key figure in ending the slave trade and slavery in Britain was William Wilberforce, an evangelical Christian. http://www.brycchancarey.com/abolition/wilberforce.htm

Dave Luckett · 7 November 2010

That is actually true. The Quakers were in on it, too. No argument, henry, about that. But there's another side to it.

Evangelical Christians were also preaching the Word that slavery was in the Bible (which is undoubtedly also true) and that therefore it was an institution specifically ordained by God; and anyway the Negro was thus brought to the true faith, so it was all good.

The Southern Baptist Convention was organised in 1844 by a slaveowning Baptist pastor specifically to repudiate northern abolitionism and to affirm the right of Christians to keep slaves. Only the forced abolition of slavery by the Union changed its constitution, and it has effectively stayed segregated to this day. And this is the largest evangelical Church in America.

It's not that religion in general or Christianity specifically are always wrong, henry. It's that their record of right and wrong is about average for the human species; and this is a datum that conduces me to believe that religion is a human artefact, and not divine at all.

John Kwok · 7 November 2010

Yes, William Wilberforce's son was none other than "Soapy Sam" Samuel Wilberforce, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who publicly objected to the Darwin/Wallace Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection:
W. H. Heydt said:
henry said:
Dave Luckett said: Britain abolished the slave trade in 1807, but not slavery itself until 1833, and even then not throughout its entire possessions. Exceptions were made for territory controlled by the East India Company, for instance. The Royal Navy did, however, begin seriously policing slave traffic from West Africa from 1807 onwards. Ships were boarded, searched and confiscated if slaves or slaver equipment were found. The difficulty was flag-of-convenience vessels or genuine neutrals. The trade was not fully suppressed in the nineteenth century. In fact, it never has been to this day, depending on precisely how "slavery" is defined.
The key figure in ending the slave trade and slavery in Britain was William Wilberforce, an evangelical Christian. http://www.brycchancarey.com/abolition/wilberforce.htm
Father of Soapy Sam, wasn't he? --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

John Kwok · 7 November 2010

Evangelical Protestant Christian churches in the northern and western (now Midwest) United States were among those, along with the Quakers, most active in the American abolitionist movement. One of the most notorious Evangelical Christians in the mid 19th Century was the zealous John Brown:
Dave Luckett said: That is actually true. The Quakers were in on it, too. No argument, henry, about that. But there's another side to it. Evangelical Christians were also preaching the Word that slavery was in the Bible (which is undoubtedly also true) and that therefore it was an institution specifically ordained by God; and anyway the Negro was thus brought to the true faith, so it was all good. The Southern Baptist Convention was organised in 1844 by a slaveowning Baptist pastor specifically to repudiate northern abolitionism and to affirm the right of Christians to keep slaves. Only the forced abolition of slavery by the Union changed its constitution, and it has effectively stayed segregated to this day. And this is the largest evangelical Church in America. It's not that religion in general or Christianity specifically are always wrong, henry. It's that their record of right and wrong is about average for the human species; and this is a datum that conduces me to believe that religion is a human artefact, and not divine at all.

henry · 7 November 2010

Reagan, like Palin, was hated by the mainstream media and the Republican establishment. He was ridiculed by the media, just like Palin. When Reagan lost in the primary to Ford, he didn't sit around for 4 years; he met the people, just like Palin is doing now and she's drawing large, enthusiastic crowds. We never hear about gaffes by Democrats because the media just ignores them, giving them a pass. I'm sure you must have heard about Obama's "57 states" or "my Moslem faith" statements, but the media totally ignores them, but continually highlights misstatements by conservatives. I didn't expect to see the fall of the Soviet Union in my lifetime but I did. When Obama's policies were first passed, I didn't expect to see a complete rejection of them, but I'm glad it happened. Palin took on the corruption in the Republican party in Alaska and won. I hope she does the same as President.
John Kwok said: Don't see how relevant that is. But I was a young conservative back then who had more in common with the Fundamentalist Protestant Christians I befriended in college except of course with their abysmal understanding of science. So what? I thought I was right to vote for him back then, and I think in light of subsequent events like the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Empire, I was still absolutely right (And yes, I know that these occurred really under George H. W. Bush's watch, but ultimately it was due to Reagan's military and foreign policies as well as Gorbachev's.):
henry said: Did you vote for Reagan in '80 and '84?
John Kwok said: I wouldn't bet on Obama having a second term. I predict Hillary Clinton will probably challenge him again the primaries. As for the Republicans I hope they don't dare think of having Sarah Palin on their presidential ticket:
Mike Elzinga said:
Mike said: Yes, yes, I know we aren't to raise the spector of partician politics, but comeon! It's election day. Is there any reason to believe that the speaker apparent from Ohio isn't going to push creationism in public school science classes like he did eight years ago? Has he given any indication of changing his mind about applying politics to education?
Given the rhetoric of this current crop of “Tea Baggers,” you can almost bet on it. There will very likely be enormous wastes of time with subpoenas of the White House, stacking the courts, attempts to repeal health care, continuation of DADT, blocking White House appointments, cutting the budgets to regulatory agencies, and all the right wing ideological agenda being pushed vigorously. The big risk in that approach, however, is that the Democrats might actually develop some backbone and fight back. The result will be a paralyzed Congress that not only will accomplish nothing, but will actually allow things to get worse. And that will really piss people off, because the “Tea Baggers” will be held accountable in the next election. That could guarantee a second term for Obama. Unfortunately I am too old to move to Canada when the shit hits the fan. It’s really nuts here.
I think it is an open question as to whether or not Obama will be as pragmatic as Clinton (And in Clinton's case it took him almost a year as well as listening carefully to advice from his principal political strategist Dick Morris, who devised Clinton's strategy of triangulation. In stark contrast to his fellow high school alumnus Dick Morris, David Axelrod doesn't have the substantial political expertise, acumen or pragmatism which Morris displayed back then.). There is nothing in Obama's prior political record that demonstrates that he could be as pragmatic as Clinton was, but instead, a longstanding history of adhering to his favorite ideologies, and it is that history which leads me to believe that Obama will most likely be a one term president.

RBH · 7 November 2010

This thread seems to have run its course on the topic of the OP, so I've closed comments.