Article

2009-04-18 -Short Attention Span Theater-

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Spomoling Flealing1223 2009-04-18 00:00|| || Front Page|| [10 views ] Top

#1 Agree with the comment in there that Charles Johnson has become like Al Gore over the creationist issue. His argument is just like Al's regarding global warming: The is no room for discussion as everyone agrees on the facts. All of those people who don't agree on the facts, as Charles believes them to be true, are knuckle dragging kooks unworthy of a point of view.

Posted by Gluting Fillmore6653 2009-04-18 04:11|| 2009-04-18 04:11|| Front Page Top

#2 I don't know what's gotten into Johnson lately. He seems more interested in being devisive to his own side than fighting the enemy.

I used to read his blog every day, now he's not even Bookmarked.

Posted by Parabellum 2009-04-18 08:57|| 2009-04-18 08:57|| Front Page Top

#3 ditto Para.

This reminds me of Sully. I read him often after 9/11 until he became totally unhinged on the gay-marriage issue in 2004(?).

Posted by AlanC 2009-04-18 09:16|| 2009-04-18 09:16|| Front Page Top

#4 You know, I did the same thing with LGF. Used to be a go-to site but I deleted the bookmark about a week ago.

Posted by Hellfish 2009-04-18 09:20|| 2009-04-18 09:20|| Front Page Top

#5 >>All of those people who don't agree on the facts, as Charles believes them to be true, are knuckle dragging kooks unworthy of a point of view.

You can believe anything you want, but know this: a creationist will NOT be elected to the presidency. Period.

Posted by Mizzou Mafia 2009-04-18 09:33|| 2009-04-18 09:33|| Front Page Top

#6 I will defend Charles.

The evolution issue should be cut and dry: evolution is science, creationism/ID is faith. You can believe in one, or other, or both if you wish, and it's not my business to tell you what to believe. But you don't teach faith in science class at the local school, and that's been his main point.

Likewise, a key point for him lately is that the opposition to Bambi must be the loyal opposition. None of us are, or should be, unhinged like the morons on the Left. Look at that Garofalo Taco Queen as an example of how we should not be. We don't want Bambi to fail, we want the country to succeed, and to do that we think the country has to go in a different direction. We're not going to tear the country down just to gain a small political advantage. We're not going to defeat fanaticism with more fanaticism but with cold, careful reason. That's a point we make at the Burg on a daily basis.

Charles has done some very smart things. He's built a powerful website -- and he built it; he didn't use Blogger -- that he's turned into a web ecosystem. Fred has done that with Rantburg but LGF is an order of magnitude larger. People pay attention to what he says. He's an ordinary citizen who has become an influential citizen.

If Rantburg were the size of LGF, one could count on Fred being attacked the same way Charlie has been. That's life in the fast lanes.

Charles shares a key viewpoint with me: he's anti-idiot, anti-extremist, and anti-fanatic. That's me all-over.

Charles isn't perfect, of course. But overall I like his work and I check his site daily.

Posted by Steve White 2009-04-18 09:35|| 2009-04-18 09:35|| Front Page Top

#7 You can believe anything you want, but know this: a creationist will NOT be elected to the presidency. Period.

Huh. You think the current one believes in evolution, for real? Or just pays lip service to something he's convinced doesn't happen on normal time scales?

There's a lot of people out there who lie and tell you they believe evolution is true, that it's only those damn ignorant illiterate bible crackers that don't believe in the enightened word of Darwin, etc., and then turn around and try to run society based on Rousseau's religion of the Noble Savage... which is a faith-based doctrine if one EVER existed, and completely contradictory to what we know of evolution, which kinda sorta predicts that humans have _evolved_ to be nasty little sociopaths to anyone who isn't blood kin.

At the same time you have people like Richard Dawkins and others running around, saying basically that evolution has proved Rousseau (it hasn't) and therefore _scientifically disproved_ all those traditional human institutions that have actually gotten people to act as if non-blood relatives are human instead of descending into tribalism.

It's based on the logical fallacy that since Christianity (or Judaism, or to be fair, pre-tribalist phase Islam) is false therefore Rousseau must be true. They are always sure to leave their faith as being constantly implicit without ever being overtly explicit about it. That way they don't have to defend it.

If you want to know why there are creationists in Louisiana, look no further than all those assholes who are using evolution to a completely causality-free attempt to push their own modern nameless religion. It's a _reaction_ against the whole He-Man Deity-Hater's club thing that's been going on the past century and a half and has gotten worse the last forty years.

The same people who want to celebrate how _wrong_ William Bryan Jennings was about biology at the Scopes Monkey Trial, but ignore that ten years later that a social-darwinist cult in Germany, AGAIN, managed to rack up twenty million or so homicides JUST AS JENNINGS PREDICTED.

-----------------------------------------

(Oh, and the educational side of things really slays me. They say Kids Have To Learn Science, and that the Creationists are keeping kids from learning The Holy Science.

Well, wake up and smell the coffee:

* The kids DON'T learn math. They DON'T learn algebra.

* As a result, they DON'T learn chemistry, they don't have the algebra or math skills...

* They really DON'T learn physics.

* Oh, but they'd all be budding biochemists if not for those nasty creationists?

Bull puckey.

If they had actually taught evolution, or for that matter even tried teaching chemistry or physics or evolution the first time around, to these kids' parents, instead of simply mentioning evolution in passing before using it as a springboard for the modern nameless religion, they wouldn't have all those creationists to deal with.

To bring up Louisiana again, last time I checked the largest religion there was Catholicism, which doesn't include creationism or biblical literalism among its doctrines.

-------------------------------------

Put another way: tribes of chimps will go to war to kill and eat the children of competing tribes. But we still have a pseudo-religion based around the idea that humans are good and kind and gentle and noble until they're uniquely corrupted by European society and traditions.

THAT VIEWPOINT CLAIMS TO MESH WITH EVOLUTION, BUT IT'S REALLY A CREATIONIST VIEWPOINT.

IF EVOLUTION CONFIRMS ANY SOCIAL VIEWPOINT, IT'S NOT ROUSSEAU, BUT HOBBES. WE EVOLVED TO HAVE LIVES THAT ARE NASTY, BRUTISH AND SHORT. AND TO BE NASTY, BRUTISH, AND SHORT OURSELVES.

(Rather like Calvin instead of Hobbes, now that I think about it. But I digress).

More later, I have to go wash dishes.

But consider the point that although the President isn't a young-earth, 6000 year creationist, that he doesn't necessarily not have a dumbass religion of his own or think of evolution as anything but something that happened to turtles on a bunch of tropical islands in the distant past.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2009-04-18 10:18|| 2009-04-18 10:18|| Front Page Top

#8 Put another way, to BHO and all the other leftists, evolution _exists_, but other than falsely claiming it supports their social viewpoints (which it doesn't, any more than it really supported that Germans were ubermenchen and everyone else Untermenchen) they are about as interested in it as they are the fine structure constant and the spectra of distant Quasars.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2009-04-18 10:31|| 2009-04-18 10:31|| Front Page Top

#9 I'm with Charles. Folks can believe in Creationism if they want, but it's not science and has no place in a public classroom.

Posted by Scooter McGruder 2009-04-18 10:35|| 2009-04-18 10:35|| Front Page Top

#10 Thing, you're throwing a lot of points up there, and I don't have time to answer them point by point. I actually agree with you on several things.

But I stand by my statement. Any Republican who runs for president cannot be painted with a creationist tar brush. Talk about shooting a duck in a barrel. Such as candidate would be a dead man walking by the time they got to the convention. Palin had it easy last time compared to such a candidate.

I gave been in two graduate programs, and I realize how distorted even real science can be by human bias. For example, I had a professor who did a lot of research on the dangers of second-hand smoke. You think she even found that the threat is really, really small? Of course not. That way lies the end of her grants. The same is true with global warming, IMO. Reading Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" was a real eye-opener to me in terms of how even the hard sciences, not the mushy humanities ones, are subject to human bias.

That is still not an argument for trying to set standards.

Creationism/ID/whatever you want to call it is faith-based, non-testable, non-provable, and does even belong in the conversation with evolutionary theory.

And any presidential candidate (I'm looking in your direction, Jindal) who tries to say differently is political road kill.

And that's a hypothesis I don't want to see tested.

Posted by Mizzou Mafia 2009-04-18 10:51|| 2009-04-18 10:51|| Front Page Top

#11 There's a big difference between someone who is vaguely aware the evolution is Scientific, and therefore Good -- and thinks about the subject exactly with those capital letters -- and those who feel strongly about the subject one way or the other. Mizzou Mafia is correct that a presidential candidate who believes strongly and openly that the Creationist hypothesis is a matter of science and not faith will not be elected to office; there are too many who believe equally strongly that Creationism is not science, and will vote against one who holds those views. Someone who holds to Creationism as a private matter and does not trumpet his views abroad will be just fine. Sarah Palin aside, for the most part Americans don't fuss about personal views that are not imposed on others.

Little Green Footballs is a nice little blog, much like the Instapundit. His posters get to be a bit much, mostly writing the same inconsequentialities just to put in their two cents (First!!!!) rather than adding useful information as happens at the more serious war blogs. But then, LGF is very much a hobbyist's blog gone big time, and needs to be understood as such, not as a primary source except for the occasional bit like Mr. Johnson's very clever demonstration that the putative G.W. Bush memo couldn't possibly be other than a very recent forgery. Post-9/11 I found the community at LGF very comforting, although I never registered as a poster -- it was so important to know that I was not alone in what I saw as the parameters of the situation. LGF is a decent gateway to the more serious warblogs for those with the interest to dig deeper. For those who want nothing more than a quick overview, gorgeous photos and exposure to new music, LGF will do nicely. His dramatic little tiffs are being given a great deal more attention than they merit, in my opinion, along with Lindsey Lohan's latest adventure, whatever it may be. But perhaps I lack the proper big picture perspective to understand the situation.

Posted by trailing wife in Buffalo 2009-04-18 11:10|| 2009-04-18 11:10|| Front Page Top

#12 I think you are missing the point. It isn't that Charles believes that creationism should not be taught in the classroom that is making people unlink him. It is that Charles is obsessed with the issue to the point of being a real drag anytime he's in the room. It's his blog and he can talk about whatever he wants to. No one is saying that Charles didn't build a great blog or that he hasn't done some great work. It is just that he's become like Al Gore or Andrew Sullivan on the issue. He has become a mean spirited bore.

I challenge anyone to tell me, with absolute certainty, how the universe was created and I'll show you someone with an unquestioning mind. The big bang theory can't adequately explain where the spark came from. And evolution is a science that is far from being complete. What is annoying to those of us who don't have an unquestioning religious faith in the Big Bang theory or have questions as to specifics in the evolution find Charles to be just like Al Gore on the global warming on the issue.

Those with a scientific mind find the idea that all the facts are in to be unscientific. And demonizing those who disagree with it as kooks and knuckle draggers means you just can't handle the discussion.

Posted by Gluting Fillmore6653 2009-04-18 11:18|| 2009-04-18 11:18|| Front Page Top

#13 All the facts are never in. It's just that newly discovered facts tend to modify existing scientific theory, rather than overthrow it completely. Einstein's work did not overthrow Newton's, but rather refined it, adding a new level of understanding. Perhaps someday we will have the ability to see before the moment of the big bang, and determine scientifically what sparked it. In the meantime, whether a chance spark or God, it's only a matter of faith, just as it's a matter of faith whether God chose the mechanism of evolution to create intelligent, faith-capable creatures, or whether we happen to be the result of unplanned contingent evolution. Regardless of the original cause, as the ancient philosophers would have it, evolution is demonstrably the mechanism by which we appeared. There is nothing in the Genesis story that forbids God using such a mechanism to achieve creation, any more than the six days of Creation are defined as being precisely 24 hours in length -- an impossibility as clocks had not been invented at the time the stories were being told. On the contrary, it is my understanding that the ancient Egyptian water clocks were accepted as inaccurate enough that they were regularly adjusted when they drifted far enough from outside reality to be disturbing.

Agreed that Mr. Johnson rides his hobbyhorses quite hard, as do his posters. Early on I checked his blog daily; now it's once every few months, like many of the other blogs I used to frequent. Rantburg and a few others much better suit my interests.

Posted by trailing wife in Buffalo 2009-04-18 11:35|| 2009-04-18 11:35|| Front Page Top

#14 well said TWIB.

Posted by Gluting Fillmore6653 2009-04-18 11:37|| 2009-04-18 11:37|| Front Page Top

#15 Missou:

Another thought just occured to me:

The average resident of Louisiana can turn on the television, night after night, and see "Scientists" arguing that "SCIENCE" says the world is going to END unless the only remaining industry in the state keeping everyone able to pay their credit card payments, mortgages, and rent is _ruined_, it's going to generate hostility to 'SCIENCE.' And if Charles Johnson, or you, want 'SCIENCE' to be respected, you might be best concentrating on something else instead of making a little private 'House Un-Evolutionary Activities Committee' clubhouse.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2009-04-18 11:53|| 2009-04-18 11:53|| Front Page Top

#16 I just find complete irony in the thought that a talented computer programmer like Charles can't get his mind around the idea that living creatures, like computer programs or robots can evolve AND be the product of intelligent design.

Posted by Gluting Fillmore6653 2009-04-18 12:02|| 2009-04-18 12:02|| Front Page Top

#17 Regarding: "...And evolution is a science that is far from being complete".

Complete understanding has no bearing on the issue. There is a LOT about gravity that physicists have no understanding of. That doesn't make gravity "just a theory" or some kind of controversial idea unworthy of serious study.

I agree that LGF has become a bit of a bore, but Charles is right that the honest teaching of real science is essential to a vital, modern, society.

Posted by Scooter McGruder 2009-04-18 12:09|| 2009-04-18 12:09|| Front Page Top

#18 I agree with you Scooter. But Charles is more along the lines of someone who believes that the conventional wisdom of gravity should be the ONLY thing taught in schools.

We don't understand gravity. Therefore it is likely what is being taught in the schools is based on science that is not solid. Should we then shout down all other people who perhaps have a differing opinion on what gravity is or could be? Should we demonize them as knuckle draggers when we ourselves don't understand gravity? Or should we say, we don't understand gravity and allow the view point of millions of others to be expressed without shouting them down as heretics.

Posted by Gluting Fillmore6653 2009-04-18 12:32|| 2009-04-18 12:32|| Front Page Top

#19 Another thought just occured to me:

For example, I have enough of a scientific background to be able to argue back against the global warming idiots. I can explain how computer modelling can be misleading, both if the initial physical model is right but the math wrong, or if the initial model is wrong. I could point to the recent papers about the simplifying assumptions behind the models being wrong (if I could find the link), or about how numerical methods themselves can go wrong, or about the observations themselves being screwed up (see the blog 'Watts Up With That' for more)...

Then again, although I didn't graduate, I did have 400 level science courses in college in stuff like mechanics and electrodynamics.

What does Joe Welder with a GED and six months of community college think when he sees the bullpuckey guys like Hanson put out? (Or the movie 'The Day After Tomorrow' to mention another part of the media's alarmist drip?)

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2009-04-18 12:43|| 2009-04-18 12:43|| Front Page Top

#20 This is, IMHO, stuff y'all all need to answer before shitting on Bobby Jindal. IMHO.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2009-04-18 12:44|| 2009-04-18 12:44|| Front Page Top

#21 Missou, you and I have the background to be able to tell that most of what they're selling out there as science in all the public policy debates ISN'T GOOD SCIENCE.

What about all the people who don't have the background but still suspect it's bullshit?

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2009-04-18 12:48|| 2009-04-18 12:48|| Front Page Top

#22 What can it hurt, if both are taught? What happened to teaching our children "Critical Thinking"? What happened to teaching our children every angle so they develop their OWN theory's rather then there is only one side to an issue and mine is right. Wouldn't it be beneficial to the next generation to develop their own feelings rather then take one side over the next and learn to condemn those who believe in creation? Especially knowing the fact remains that evolution is also just a theory.

Posted by Lftbhndagn 2009-04-18 15:32|| chandlerswatch.com]">[chandlerswatch.com] 2009-04-18 15:32|| Front Page Top

#23 I once was Episcopalian (Mom's doing) untill I ran into a preacher that said "The recent finds of artifacts pre-dating he World's Creation (Accoeding to the Bible) were created by god to test our Faith".

I haven't been back since.

Posted by Redneck Jim">Redneck Jim 2009-04-18 15:43|| 2009-04-18 15:43|| Front Page Top

#24 So whose version of creation are the schools going to teach? Buddhist? Hindu? Some Amerindian or African tribe's? Why should my children be subjected to someone else's religious indoctrination, including yours?

Let's keep religious (and political) indoctrination out of the public school system and insist on an rigorous education that will provide for educated, rational and curious adults.

Posted by ed 2009-04-18 16:11|| 2009-04-18 16:11|| Front Page Top

#25 Hate to say it since I've been a big fan of Johnson in the past, but he's really gone overboard. I've check the comments on the site when I unlinked him, and when Johnson starts bragging in the comments on how many people he banned it's time to stop going. I stopped visiting regularly when the front page had 2 articles relevant to the WoT(what is Obama calling it now?) and the rest were Creationist debunking and arguement threads. I thought, "Maybe it's not so bad" and checked out the creationist threads. It was, Charles basically called them idiots, told them to bugger off, and has even claimed the reason we lost in 2008 was (wait for it) CREATIONISM!

There's cordial, intelligent discussion on the facts and issues that continue to change as our understanding of the Universe expands, and then there's just brow-beating people into your thinking. Last time I checked (yesterday for like 10minutes from AceofSpades link) was enough to know I made the right decision unlinking him before. I saw some very polite posters get banned in the comments from just giving an alternate viewpoint.

This isn't to say that he's done some GREAT things in the past. But agreeing with him on some points doesn't him being a self-righteous ass about it. Looking at the site you would think "He Won".

Posted by Charles 2009-04-18 16:47|| 2009-04-18 16:47|| Front Page Top

#26 Steve White...your comment "Evolution is science" is ludicrous, man. Evolution...macroevolution is totally forensic. There is no physics, organic chemistry, or genetics involved with any "proof". These are empirical sciences. Sheesh. You need to think long and hard about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics before you say stuff like that.

And that's exactly why I dropped LGF off of my radar. When LGF began spending more time slurring anyone who is skeptical about macroevolution than they spent discussing the political scene, GWOT, or islamic terrorism...I bailed. To each his own.

I may not be the brightest bulb in the pack...but I do have advanced degrees in physics and computer science...and I do not accept the idea that macroevolution is correct. I am not here to convince anyone either way. But I do resent the stereotype that it's the 8th grade educated, double-wide crew that are the only ones that reject macroevolution.

Posted by anymouse">anymouse 2009-04-18 16:47|| http://theworldsworstblog-really.blogspot.com/]">[http://theworldsworstblog-really.blogspot.com/] 2009-04-18 16:47|| Front Page Top

#27 Why is it so difficult to accept that the universe may have been created by a Supreme Being, but that creation myths of various religions are not scientific treatises on the exact means by which said creation took place?

I believe that God created the universe. I also believe that the universe is billions of years old, that life on earth evolved over a billion years pretty much thae way the fossil record says it did, and that evolution is STILL happening today (Rousseau was and always will be wrong).

As another poster wrote, leftists are constantly bashing on large "C" Creationists for denying evolution, only to turn around and be in absolute denial about evolution's implications for human behavior, psychology, and society. Doesn't sound very "pro-science" to me. Sorry, but the right certainly has no monopoly on being anti-science.

So put me down as a rational small "c" creationist. Darwin and his scientific descendants are essentially right about the way things happened. Doesn't rock my faith in God one whit.

Posted by no mo uro 2009-04-18 16:59|| 2009-04-18 16:59|| Front Page Top

#28 #27 is pretty close to where I am on this. LGF took a turn for the worse IMNSHO a few years ago, and I've deleted it from my bookmarks. Charles owns it and can operate it in whatever direction he wants. I just don't visit or link him. Hell, I remember when John Cole's Balloon Juice (no, not gonna link that f*cker) was reasonable.... look at it now: a frothing upchuck of lefty bile

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2009-04-18 17:04|| 2009-04-18 17:04|| Front Page Top

#29 Why is it so difficult to accept that the universe may have been created by a Supreme Being, but that creation myths of various religions are not scientific treatises on the exact means by which said creation took place?

I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that most Creationists are not looking to teach religion in the classroom, but to simply allow other points of view to be acknowledged. Lets face it, BILLIONS of people believe in intelligent design. And yet it can't even be mentioned in the classroom without bringing out the dunking tanks to make the person who mentioned God prove that God will save them.

Posted by Gluting Fillmore6653 2009-04-18 17:26|| 2009-04-18 17:26|| Front Page Top

#30 We don't understand gravity. Therefore it is likely what is being taught in the schools is based on science that is not solid. Should we then shout down all other people who perhaps have a differing opinion on what gravity is or could be?

Bull. Charles isn't defending General Relativity (to continue your gravity analogy) against the heresy of the Brans-Dicke theory. He's defending General Relativity against the Little Invisible Pink Unicorn theory, in which the phenomenon known as "gravity" is actually achieved by the actions of the LIPUs. That is to say, there is as much evidence for special creation (or intelligent design) as there is for LIPUs: they are both unprovable.

You need to think long and hard about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics before you say stuff like that.

People who bring up the Second Law in regards to evolution very rarely understand it.

Posted by Angie Schultz 2009-04-18 18:54|| 2009-04-18 18:54|| Front Page Top

#31 Oh, and speaking of false analogies, the Johnson=Sullivan thing doesn't hold water. Sullivan became unhinged after Bush proposed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. After that, everything that Bush did -- including things Sullivan had previously supported -- became evil and poisonous.

Some of you seem to believe that championing the WoT or Western Civilization means that Johnson has to adopt a conservative stance on every other issue: 'tain't so.

Posted by Angie Schultz 2009-04-18 19:01|| 2009-04-18 19:01|| Front Page Top

#32 You might want to read the previous discussions before jumping in and implying that others who disagree with your viewpoint are mouth breathers who can only grasp the concept of unicorns.

Posted by Gluting Fillmore6653 2009-04-18 19:05|| 2009-04-18 19:05|| Front Page Top

#33 Sorta/kinda getting back on topic here, if I may....

I used to love LGF. Many times, there were things on there that I would see later....sometimes much later, if at all...on the MSM. Lately, however, it has turned into an anti-creationism site.

If Mr Johnson is reading this, thanks for all the stories you broke years ago. I agree with you that creationism has no real place in the modern schoolroom, but I think you made your point 100 stories ago.

Right now, I'm more willing to spend my time watching Glenn Beck right now than to read LGF. At least it's not all one topic, all the time.

Posted by Cornsilk Blondie 2009-04-18 19:50|| 2009-04-18 19:50|| Front Page Top

#34 I agree with CS Blondie (she's armed - it's best to go along). I don't have ANY problem with Creationism being taught at home, religious school (I was a Catholic Catechism internee - lol), but it has no place in public school. I, myself, believe in ID. Before evolution, before the big bang, before everything...where did the mass/existence of the universe come from? That's something nobody can explain, and the beginning of faith. The two don't necessarily conflict til someone applies their own constraints on explanation options.

That said, LGF is off the rails. I quit it

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2009-04-18 20:05|| 2009-04-18 20:05|| Front Page Top

#35 I quit going there a long time ago. As Charles moved more and more away from GWOT and other important issues, it really became pointless. Moreover, the posters are starting to act alot like DU people in regards to people not toeing the party line.

Sad to see, but Charles is free to descend into whatever tiny box he's locking himself in.

Posted by Silentbrick">Silentbrick 2009-04-18 20:09|| 2009-04-18 20:09|| Front Page Top

#36 Oh, and speaking of false analogies, the Johnson=Sullivan thing doesn't hold water. Sullivan became unhinged after Bush proposed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. After that, everything that Bush did -- including things Sullivan had previously supported -- became evil and poisonous.

Actually, there is a close parallel between Sullivan's frothing response to gay marriage issues and Johnson's response to (often Christian) Europeans who are attempting to figure out how to organize to prevent the total Islamicization and submersion of their historic cultures.

From a few special hot buttons at LGF I suspect the intersection of those two sets (Christians and what Johnson insists are fascists/racists) = creationism in his feelings, if not in his mind.

That said, count me among those who are appalled at the know-nothing strain that has emerged on the right in the last 5-10 years. Much as I admire her in many ways, Sarah Palin was the poster girl for loud, proud assertions that education, broad experience and rigor are superfluous for high public office.

Such an assertion WILL guarantee electoral defeat for those who embrace it. Or if not, this country is screwed even more badly than it appears at present. We currently have a president who talks about how he 'feels' on critical and complex policy matters. We have a massive dearth of students and young adults who are equipped to maintain, much less extend, our previous and rapidly eroding technological and scientific strength -- which strength has been the basis not only of our military capability but of our economy as well.

Meanwhile, China and India are instilling rigorous training and education in many of their youths. And not only in the sciences -- a major push in China right now is to teach Western classical music on the (correct) assumption that it instills skills in orderly thinking, critical analysis and complex pattern recognition.

We OTOH boast Lindsey Lohan and Al Gore. We are in much direr straits than most Americans recognize - we're well past the point of eating our seed corn in the form of breakthroughs first made in the 80s and early 90s. Take a hard look at patents, key scientific papers and similar metrics and you will see that we are in a steep steep decline. And that has immediate consequences for things like naval and air superiority in the coming decades. Or for devising ways to detect, defeat and recover from WMD attacks, to name just a few issues of serious concern.

Posted by lotp 2009-04-18 20:19|| 2009-04-18 20:19|| Front Page Top

#37 What the shit is it with Palin tirades, anyway? Yes, she came across as a religious tart, but can't we leave her be?

Posted by Mike N. 2009-04-18 20:50|| 2009-04-18 20:50|| Front Page Top

#38 Palin tirades say more about the inadequacies and insecurities of those bitching. IMFO

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2009-04-18 21:22|| 2009-04-18 21:22|| Front Page Top

#39 IMFO

In My Fords Opinion?

Drinks!

Posted by Mike N. 2009-04-18 21:52|| 2009-04-18 21:52|| Front Page Top

#40 You might want to read the previous discussions...

I read every one. In fact, I've been reading them for about fifteen years now, and it's weird how they don't seem to change.

Posted by Angie Schultz 2009-04-18 21:55|| 2009-04-18 21:55|| Front Page Top

#41 Indeed.

And isn't Palin educated, with broad experience? And if by rigor (a curious term), one means stick-to-it-ness and brass, then she's all that.

Posted by Gabby 2009-04-18 22:01|| 2009-04-18 22:01|| Front Page Top

#42 No, Palin isn't all that well educated. She pieced together a rather less than challenging bachelor's degree from several schools in communications/broadcasting. She gives every indication of being essentially unread in history, political science, economics and any science past high school. She's clearly a great athlete and has a firm moral foundation. Like many athletes she's highly intuitive in attractive ways. But she's not, so far as her public appearances suggest, a rigorous thinker at all. And intuition only carries one so far when dealing with complex issues -- especially if you don't have a solid education to inform that intuition.

Nor does she show much evidence of the kind of analytic care and rigor of thought that real science requires -- and teaches. (And no, I don't mean the politicized crap that some people with science degrees bandy about. I mean real science, that is held to the standard of clear definitions, careful reasoning and examination of assumptions and evidence.)

As far as 'what's with Palin comments', I mentioned her because she symbolizes a broader issue. A lot of her supporters during the campaign made a point of stating that her lack of broader/more rigorous education was a positive qualification for VP. And it's exactly that sort of that anti-intellectual attitude that has essentially made it impossible for conservatives to reach the growing number of 20s-40s who are secular but could be brought to understand why liberalism isn't in their best interests.

In other words, it's why the Republicans are losing a lot of potential votes, including among solidly Christian, sensible middle class people like my siblings.

Posted by lotp 2009-04-18 22:09|| 2009-04-18 22:09|| Front Page Top

#43 puhleaze. I had a snarky reply that I deleted (wisely) before posting. You would do best to reflect as well. I don't think better of your elitist snark (a la Mdm Noonan, Msr Brooks and Frum). and I'm barely restrained from remarking on the lack of Republican or small-government ideas from your region. Spare me the elitist talk when your Republicans represent the weakass keft of the party

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2009-04-18 22:18|| 2009-04-18 22:18|| Front Page Top

#44 keft, left...what's a ~~finger~~ consonant stumble among friends

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2009-04-18 22:20|| 2009-04-18 22:20|| Front Page Top

#45 And if it sounds as if I'm on a soap box, well, I am.

I've had a chance to see up close how badly the last generations are prepared in science -- and the consequences for our freedom and prosperity in the not very distant future. But don't take my word for it, find someone who's leaving the NSA or various defense research organizations and ask them how deep the pool of new talent is to draw on for defense and security work.

The answer is, not nearly as deep as would let me sleep well at night.

Posted by lotp 2009-04-18 22:20|| 2009-04-18 22:20|| Front Page Top

#46 Damn it Frank, I'm not talking elitism.

I'm talking competance. And an attitude that recognizes its value.

But in any case I'm done on this topic here -- but not in the real world where it's a pressing issue for me and others.

Posted by lotp 2009-04-18 22:23|| 2009-04-18 22:23|| Front Page Top

#47 with the current Admin, you can harp about competence? Puhlllleeeease. You are talking Noonan/Frum talk. Don't disguise it. Grassroots admin can work, and having "professional" bureaucrats can be a +/-, but it helps for a state administrator with executive experience, whether it be Jindal, Palin, or whomever, to step in, is EXACTLY what is needed.

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2009-04-18 22:29|| 2009-04-18 22:29|| Front Page Top

#48 Frank G....ya know I'd never hurt you, armed or not. I'm gentle as a lamb, really. ;)

Posted by Cornsilk Blondie 2009-04-18 22:34|| 2009-04-18 22:34|| Front Page Top

#49 I know ;-)

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2009-04-18 22:43|| 2009-04-18 22:43|| Front Page Top

#50 It rather seemed that Palin was brought into this topic for same reason she is trotted into many subjects on this site. As a favored whipping boy.

A lot of her supporters during the campaign made a point of stating that her lack of broader/more rigorous education was a positive qualification for VP. And it's exactly that sort of that anti-intellectual attitude that has essentially made it impossible for conservatives to reach the growing number of 20s-40s who are secular but could be brought to understand why liberalism isn't in their best interests.

Two things here: Yes, there are those that actually did applaud her lack of education. I will agree that is anti-intellectualism. However, I fear many of the cheers weren't so much for her lack of education as they were for what she accomplished without one. And the misinterpretation of those cheers are likely what smack of elitism.

More importantly, I strongly disagree with you assessment of why we, as conservatives, can't attract those 20-40 year olds. It is NOT because of some sort of anti-intellectualism, real or imagined. One can see many examples of conservatives being attrached, en masse, to educated conservatives whom speak well. It is NOT because some on our side believe in creationism. The only people in that age bracket that care enough to vote by it are the extremely religious and the extremely liberal who care about it only to pick on the religious. I am square in the middle of the above age bracket and I assure you it is neither reason.

We are losing that demographic because liberalism is easier and the Mainstream Media popularizes all that is liberalism.

Palin, education, religion and all that other hoopla is not the reason.

WE CAN'T ATTRACT PEOPLE TO OUR PHILOSPHY FOR THE SAME REASON THAT A 25 YEAR OLD MALES THINKS HIS FANCY WATCH IS WHAT IS IMPORTANT IN LIFE!

Posted by Mike N. 2009-04-18 22:51|| 2009-04-18 22:51|| Front Page Top

#51 lotp and Frank both have good points here. Palin is far from what I would consider my preferred level of competence, but she would make a better president than that which we are currently straddled with.

Posted by Mike N. 2009-04-18 22:54|| 2009-04-18 22:54|| Front Page Top

#52 ty Mike N - my point, made more clearly, than my fingers could express

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2009-04-18 23:22|| 2009-04-18 23:22|| Front Page Top

#53 If you are gonna bring up Palin, don't forget, there was quite a bit of snark tossed her way because she was in many ways NOKD. (Not Our Kind, Dear, to anyone not familiar with the acronym.)

I am certain that the media would have given her an extra ten IQ points credit if she spoke in bland Midwestern cadences (a la news anchors everywhere) instead of her funky twang. She would have gotten more credit if, for example, instead of shooting moose and catching salmon to feed her family, her hobbies included fly fishing in a picturesque river in Montana or Wyoming. The fact that she is and was prettier than most of the media chix didn't help, either.

They could kick back, snark at her alma mater being less distinguished than theirs....even though she arguably did more with her degree than most of her detractors. Sure, she didn't know who the president of Upper Revoltistan was, and she probably could not give you a ten second summary of John Stuart Mill's The Subjection of Women, but that was a minor sin.

Her major crime? She got out of her "place", and that simply can not be tolerated.

Posted by Cornsilk Blondie 2009-04-18 23:31|| 2009-04-18 23:31|| Front Page Top

#54 Re: preferred level of competence, I'd rather we had more politicians who tried to run a small business, even (or especially) if they failed, rather than the types we have today, whose only experience with the private sector is when they go off and trade on their political influence.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2009-04-18 23:44|| 2009-04-18 23:44|| Front Page Top

23:44 Thing From Snowy Mountain
23:31 Cornsilk Blondie
23:22 Frank G
23:16 whatadeal
22:54 Mike N.
22:51 Mike N.
22:46 3dc
22:43 Frank G
22:34 Cornsilk Blondie
22:29 Frank G
22:26 Barbara Skolaut
22:26 Hellfish
22:23 lotp
22:22 Barbara Skolaut
22:20 lotp
22:20 Frank G
22:18 Frank G
22:15 gorb
22:13 Mike Kozlowski
22:13 Barbara Skolaut
22:09 lotp
22:01 Gabby
21:59 Anonymoose
21:55 Angie Schultz