…and this is a 
What did America do to deserve these idiots?
Category: Kooks • Politics • Religion
Posted on: October 23, 2007 12:30 PM, by PZ Myers
Do we have to wait until he's elected to impeach him? 'Cause right now I'd like to see Huckabee kicked off the campaign trail and sent back to repeat grades 6-12.
Oh, I believe in science. I certainly do. In fact, what I believe in is, I believe in God. I don't think there's a conflict between the two. But if there's going to be a conflict, science changes with every generation and with new discoveries and God doesn't. So I'll stick with God if the two are in conflict.
So when he's faced with two claims, he'll follow the one that ignores all the evidence and sticks to its guns in the face of all reason? We've already had one of those clowns in office, I don't think we need another one.
Politics
Comments
this goes right back to republicans and their outrageous and constant "flip-flopping" claims.
There is nothing wrong with changing your mind when you're presented with better evidence.
I wonder if he sticks with god when U.S. law is in contradiction with the bible. Like how you can't sacrifice your kids and pets anymore, or stone women suspected of prostitution.
Posted by: jenni | October 23, 2007 12:52 PM
the concept of "God" doesn't change? riiiiiight
Posted by: skyotter | October 23, 2007 12:57 PM
Hey - it's better to be consistently wrong than a wishy-washy flippy-floppy!
Posted by: Ian B Gibson | October 23, 2007 12:57 PM
Ri-i-i-ight. Because Christians today are exactly the same as they were in 500 BC.
Oh, wait.
Well, they're the same as they were before the Nicaean Council was convened.
Oh, wait.
Well, they're at least the same as they were before Luther's Ninety-Five Theses and the Reformation.
Oh, wait.
Okay, forget science education for these dimwits; what we need is more religious education. Because most of these 'tards know less about the capriciousness of their own religion than they do the theory of evolution.
Posted by: Brownian | October 23, 2007 12:58 PM
Heh. Skyotter and I made the exact same sound (ri-i-i-i-ight!) at the exact same comment.
We've more agreement than any two Xians!
Posted by: Brownian | October 23, 2007 1:00 PM
I think that you could make the additional point that the fundamental laws of the natural world don't change. Rather, our understanding of those laws becomes closer to the truth through scientific inquiry.
Posted by: Plutarch | October 23, 2007 1:04 PM
Huckabee forgot that God does in fact change with every generation.
This is the same guy who said that most of the signers were ministers. They werent. Not by a long shot. I think it was like 1 in 50.
Posted by: Aaron Kinney | October 23, 2007 1:04 PM
There could be worse presidents than Bush. It can always get worse. Huckabee might very well be one of them.
Bush had several redeeming features. He is incredibly stupid, unable to speak more than a sentence or two coherently. He also has all the charisma of a toad.
Imagine a Bush clone with a brain and the ability to act like a normal human being. We could be much further on our way to banana republic status or armageddon.
It won't take too many more of the fundie theocrats to finish us off. One of my colleagues whose family fled Nazi Germany in the nick of time, has already bought land in South America. If it gets any worse, he plans to move again.
Posted by: raven | October 23, 2007 1:06 PM
Is this whole American Taliban movement going to be over soon so we can get back toward a rational government? I know the Pols are mostly just faking, well maybe not Huckabee as he seems dimmer than most, but having this endless "Oh yeah, well I sacrificed a lamb yesterday", contest from the GOP ghouls is not only tiresome, but keeps leading toward, "Crusades: The Sequel", and I for one usually don't like re-makes, especially when the first version was so awful.
Posted by: afterthought | October 23, 2007 1:08 PM
Oh, Huckabee's going to win; he's been endorsed by Chuck Norris Himself.
Posted by: Warren | October 23, 2007 1:13 PM
Warren beat me to it, but I'm going to link to the hilarity anyway.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/22/424613.aspx
Posted by: Dustin | October 23, 2007 1:19 PM
How do I know?
The Bible tells me so.
Posted by: MikeM | October 23, 2007 1:35 PM
Huckabee recently said that "most" of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were clergymen.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/056664.php
In fact, 1 of the 56 was.
Huckabee is a good old-fashioned theistic liar. I suspect this will position him well to capture the GOP nomination.
Posted by: RickD | October 23, 2007 1:53 PM
Chuck Norris is a much scarier dude in real life than in the movies. And he could kick PZ's ass in a fair fight too, although he probably sucks as a blogger.
Posted by: jdw | October 23, 2007 1:59 PM
science changes with every generation and with new discoveries and God doesn't
Ahem..... King. James. Version. Fuckwit.
Posted by: AlanWCan | October 23, 2007 2:03 PM
This post and comments thread reminds me of a hilarious fundagelical former coworker of mine, who was also a former Catholic. Why did he leave Catholicism? It irked him how they "changed the Bible." I tried to remind him that the Catholics came first and it is the Protestant bibles that are different, but... that was the end of the conversation. Too much heresy.
Posted by: Greg | October 23, 2007 2:16 PM
"What did America do to deserve these idiots?"
We let our guard down.
Posted by: RamblinDude | October 23, 2007 2:26 PM
I was thinking last night of a Giuliani/Huckabee ticket -- would get the Values Voters off Rudy's back -- but then I realized that there are just too many syllables for that to be a viable bumper sticker.
Posted by: andythebrit | October 23, 2007 2:32 PM
Chuck Norris is a much scarier dude in real life than in the movies. And he could kick PZ's ass in a fair fight too.
But PZ is an atheist, by definition completely lacking in a moral center or respect for rules, so he wouldn't fight fair. And, since we all know political and scientific truths are determined by who can beat up whom, our side should be glad he wouldn't.
Posted by: John McKay | October 23, 2007 2:33 PM
Since the neoconservatives have taken over the republican party, religion is being used to promote "Moral values", Plato's "Noble Lie".
As long as the Republican party stays that way, Bush, Huckabee, Thompson, Romney, ... and many more will come.
God bless America !
Posted by: negentropyeater | October 23, 2007 2:42 PM
"science changes with every generation..."
Right. Heliocentrism, classical mechanics, atomic theory, the conservation of mass... all of it just fashionable whims of the moment. As subject to change as the Billboard Top Ten; as likely to be replaced as a sitcom on NBC.
What a dolt.
Posted by: Greta Christina | October 23, 2007 2:48 PM
Good question. Inbreeding? The triumph of darkness over light? Getting old, fat, and lazy?
It is a bit of a mystery how such a country as the USA could be so successful for so long and then just commit suicide.
Posted by: raven | October 23, 2007 2:50 PM
What's the point of all those guns then? The dungeons at Gitmo? The disproportionate, massive, and growing amounts of GHGs deliberately pumped in the atmosphere? The refusal to consider health care a human necessity? Yadda yadda yadda...
Is it that the USAians let their guard down, or that they started worrying about the wrong things? Either might explain Cheney and Bush II, but "letting their guard down" would not seem to explain everything the USA and the USAians have wrong. (Another possibility is simply that USAians are stupid. This idea is attractive.) Of course, in reality, the current and increasing disasters presumably have multiple causes. Each.
Posted by: blf | October 23, 2007 2:53 PM
So Huckabee is not only a liar. He also sounds very dumb. Not a good lie when anyone with an internet connection can check on it in 15 seconds.
As dumb as Bush. Looks like we got a serious contender for the GOP nomination and the presidency here. There is, in the constitution, a clause that no religious test be used for officeholders. There is nothing about IQ tests.
Posted by: raven | October 23, 2007 2:55 PM
Giuliani's already shedding syllables; most of his bumper stickers just say "Rudy 2008". I can easily imagine something like "Rudy 'n Huck" ('n lotsa luck).
Posted by: noncarborundum | October 23, 2007 2:57 PM
"It is a bit of a mystery how such a country as the USA could be so successful for so long and then just commit suicide."
And with a big vacant smile on its face, as well. Apparently, most of America is too stupid to apply the brakes before speeding off the cliff.
Posted by: Betty Boop | October 23, 2007 3:03 PM
"Success" is relative. In the 19th century, corporations got annointed with citizenship rights, with none of the responsibilities. Slow decline since then, with some shining moments.
Posted by: True Bob | October 23, 2007 3:07 PM
"What did America do to deserve these idiots?"
When a country has been politically dominant for an extended period, it seems to breed complacency and arrogance.
Writing about inter-war Britain in "England, your England" Orwell talks about how the British upper class, confronted by the dual crises of the Great Depression and the rise of Nazism, "retreated into stupidity".
While the crises are hardly as proximate, the "War on Terror", the appalling long term prospect for the US national debt and global warming must make it tempting to switch to discussions about the need for a flag burning ban; The War on Christmas and the threat of activist judges.
Posted by: Ian Gould | October 23, 2007 3:09 PM
Dr. Watson himself would smile at your suggestions that Americans are any more or less intelligent than humans anywhere. Not that I think things can be done any better, but democracy's Achilles' heel is that the most intelligent citizen's votes count just as much as Terri Schiavo's did. Terri's hands are a bit easier to guide than ERV's would be.
Posted by: JeffG | October 23, 2007 3:18 PM
I'm not sure we completely let our guard down. It was a coup de'tat. Our president's inability to produce a coherent English sentence is indicative of a disability not of his intelligence. His inability to create constructive foreign or domestic policies is indicative of amoral social behavior, again not indicative per se of intelligence. His noted lack of curiosity is at least supporting evidence for subnormal intelligence, contrawise he is purportedly a 'quick study' when being briefed by his cronies on particular issues. His greatest strength, in paraphrasing his words, "they always misunderestimate me". He is not stupid, a better characterization might be 'low cunning.'
Posted by: mothra | October 23, 2007 3:25 PM
He is the very definition of conservative. He doesn't want change, no matter what. Everything is good just the way it is.
The conservative nutcase I used to work for once told me, "I have never seen technology make anything easier, it always makes things more complicated." I asked him if he had enjoyed the ride to work on his horse.
Posted by: ckerst | October 23, 2007 3:42 PM
I believe H. L. Mencken said it best;
When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental -- men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or be lost... All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre -- the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.' The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
Posted by: RAM | October 23, 2007 3:46 PM
"What did America do to deserve these idiots?"
I think it's our education. It's easy to graduate from high school or even college without knowing how science works, or how to think critically, and without any appreciation or knowledge of the Enlightenment values our government was built on. Politicians and religionists exploit this ignorance to advance their own agendas.
I was amazed just yesterday by a very bright young engineer I work with who saw no problem basing laws on the Bible, because we are, after all, a Christian nation; why else would we say "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? He also couldn't get through a Harry Potter book, because they were too "demonic".
This is somebody who sailed through an excellent engineering school and promptly followed up with a Master's in his spare time after work.
Posted by: Charley | October 23, 2007 4:17 PM
I can easily imagine something like "Rudy 'n Huck" ('n lotsa luck).
more like:
Rudy 'n Huck
What a mind fuck
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 23, 2007 4:38 PM
Science changes with each generation, but science always shows that the universe has to be fine-tuned by God to exist.
It did when people believed the world was on the back of 4 elephants, and it still will when people find out what version of string theory is nest.
Posted by: Steven Carr | October 23, 2007 4:42 PM
If talked about with enough generality, nothing conflicts with anything.
And if it does, who cares? Goddidit.
June 5, 2007:
"My point is, I don't know. I wasn't there. But I believe whether God did it in six days or whether he did it in six days that represented periods of time, he did it. And that's what's important."
He's been saying this stuff for months. It's his official line: Duh, I dunno... Goddidit.
It must not take much to become an ordained minister in Arkansas.
Posted by: CalGeorge | October 23, 2007 4:50 PM
"What did America do to deserve these idiots?"
You voted for 'em. A SECOND time.
Posted by: Graculus | October 23, 2007 4:56 PM
Mind you Graculus, isn't there an old saying that goes, never two without three.
Well, it seems it is just fine for two companies, run by a pair of extreme partisan brothers, to manufacture the nation's voting machines, never submitting their software code for open testing, obstructing paper trails or auditing, while lobbying for state laws that forbid exit polling, as a last ditch way to verify election results.
Posted by: negentropyeater | October 23, 2007 5:13 PM
"What did America do to deserve these idiots?"
P.Z., people don't get the government or politicians they want.
They get the govt. and politicians they deserve.
Stuart
Posted by: Stuart Weinstein | October 23, 2007 5:15 PM
That brings up something I've been sometimes wondered about for some time now (albeit never for very long or too seriously): Why hasn't there been a coup d'état to eliminate the current junta?
The USA's Declaration of Independence says, in its Preamble (emphasis added):
Has Cheney and Bush II satisfied the necessary conditions of "a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute Despotism"?
Admittedly very superficially:
• Has there been a "a long train of abuses"? Yes.
• And of "usurpations"? Apparently.
• Which are "pursuing invariably the same Object"? Seemingly.
• Which is "to reduce [the people] under absolute Despotism"? Well... the USA is not an absolute dictatorship. Yet. Although with the continuing abandonment of the Rule of Law, other outcomes seem improbable.
It might be possible (to say nothing about desirable or necessary) to produce a plausible list of charges against Cheney and Bush II which meets the criteria (such as the Declaration does in the Indictment). Skipping (dreaming?) widely ahead, if such a case could be constructed, then "it is [the people's] right, it is [the people's] duty, to throw off such Government ...". A free and fair election can do it, and is, realistically, perhaps the best hope. But so can a coup d'état, and could do so earlier, but does require reasonable cause (not to mention considerable practical difficulties).
Has anyone ever looked into whether or not a serious case for (justifying) a coup d'état could be constructed? Perhaps an assignment for some law class... (Where's Thomas Paine when you need him? (Ok, so he was more of a propagandist than a lawyer, but a quite important one at that.))
Cheney and Bush II in front of a firing squad. Or in the dock at the appropriate International Court in The Hague. Sweet dreams!
Posted by: blf | October 23, 2007 5:18 PM
I saw a great .sig today:
"A society without religion is like a maniac without a chainsaw."
Too bad it's too wordy for a bumper sticker, but maybe that's good because these fine christian folk seem to like to lash out and hurt people and property a bit too much, ergo Iraq.
Posted by: Mena | October 23, 2007 5:21 PM
Science changes with each generation, but science always shows that the universe has to be fine-tuned by God to exist.
Actually, there's no reason to believe the universe wouldn't still exist if any of several empirically determined physical constants took a different value... It's only us that likely wouldn't be around in our current form to invent a God in our own image.
Posted by: melior | October 23, 2007 5:29 PM
The second sentence is wrong, unless you only mean 5/9 of the Supreme Court by "you". The first sentence is entirely disputable.
Let me suggest a few other national oddities:
- Failure to vote in ink on paper.
- Failure to count ballots by hand -- exaggerated by the occasional absence of ballots due to the above point.
- People who are both leading managers of an election campaign and responsible for the proceeding of that very election.
- Party affiliation printed on the voter registration card and on the bureaucratic form needed to get that card. I mean, WTF!?!
- Low turnout due to electoral college. (What good is it to vote in Texas? Texas goes Reptilian anyway. What good is it to vote in New York? And so on.)
- Low turnout due to lack of voting booths. Which was the case, in 2004, in Democratic but not in Republican areas. What a coincidence.
- Low turnout due to everyone having the right to harrass everyone for proving identity. Exacerbated by the fact that proving one's identity isn't necessary in at least some counties.
- Confusion due to the presidential election not being a federal or even a state affair, but managed on the county level (if it isn't an even smaller one that I forgot). Thirteen thousand different regulations, many of them batshit insane.
- Confusion due to frequently repeated gerrymandering, leading to people not knowing where to vote.
- Confusion because all elections of an entire two-year period are held at once. Election for president, senator, representative, judge (!), dog catcher... all at once. Do people never get lost in the ballots and forget to vote for, say, president?
- I could go on for the rest of the night.
Granted, that doesn't explain why well over 45 % of the voters did in fact vote for Fearless Flightsuit, twice. For that, comment 33 sounds plausible to me.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 23, 2007 5:39 PM
@40; Thomas Jefferson said something to the effect "the freedom of this country will last only so long as the people overthrow the government at least once a century."
I believe he would have agreed with your conjecture.
Posted by: James Stein | October 23, 2007 5:41 PM
When Maher asked Huckabee if he believed that man came from monkeys, he said: "I don't know, but they'd sure to a better job than me as President"
Posted by: negentropyeater | October 23, 2007 5:44 PM
Well, Stuart, the assertion that people get the government they deserve sounds almost karmic in nature--rather like a belief in "heavenly justice." Surely not!
Posted by: Ann | October 23, 2007 5:49 PM
lol! Did Republicans get website tips from Dembski? Obviously, the best way to address an adversary is to make fun of them in Flash!
(from the Salon War Room page)
Posted by: Shawn Wilkinson | October 23, 2007 5:49 PM
The damned shame about Huckabee is that if I didn't know that he is a former Baptist minister, and if I had never heard any of his ridiculous, ignorance-glorifying theistic braying about God and evilution, I would be impressed by his speaking ability, his rapport with voters, and even many of his specific positions on matters of public policy (for example, health care reform) that don't have anything to do with "social issues."
But he's dangerously in the thrall of the forces of "faith," i.e., the persistence and certainty of belief that is impervious to evidence and reason. No way would Huckabee get my vote, ever.
Basically any candidate who truthfully admits or falsely pretends to be a "person of faith" will fail to get my vote once he or she concedes that matters of religious faith or doctrine would play any role whatsoever in that candidate's official decision-making, if he or she were elected.
Posted by: Jeff D | October 23, 2007 5:52 PM
I wondered if that would start an argument.
We let are guard down against the virus of religion and lazy mindedness. We assumed that because we went to the moon and lead the world in scientific innovation for so long, that this country would continue to hold science in the highest esteem. It didn't. And it doesn't. Investigation and exploration are no longer prized the way they once were. Faith based endeavors, talk shows about feelings, award ceremonies, anticipating the rapture, partying, etc. all seem to be more important than the hard work of finding out how the world works.
And when laziness and complacency crept in, it was inevitable that religion did too.
I realize that I'm over simplifying things, but I'm feeling kind of cynical at the moment thinking about that idiot Ben Stein and that stupid movie "Expelled". I've seen too many people lobotomized by religion to doubt that many are going to see the movie and go, "Well, gosh, A hyuck! That makes a lot of sense!"
The intelligent, thinking people in this country underestimated the zealousness of the jesus zombies.
Zeuss, I'm in a bad mood.
Posted by: RamblinDude | October 23, 2007 6:02 PM
See? I even forgot to paste the spelling corrected version into the box.
Posted by: RamblinDude | October 23, 2007 6:14 PM
BTW, does anybody know what are the statistics of died-in-the-wool faithheads (not theists, but people who regularly practice their faith) that are republicans vs democrats.
Maybe I am wrong, but I'd say approx 150 mill people (half of all americans), 80% GOP / 20% dem.
Now, assuming such a proportion, is it fair to say that the DITW Faithheads are going to pray to god that their beloved party wins the elections this time.
So God is going to get these
- 150 million of prayers on election day,
- 120 for GOP
- 30 for Dem, a net prayer energy effect of some 90 million HPEDITW ( equivalent in Joules not exactly known) asking for a GOP win.
So, what is he going to do ?
Well, we don't really know, he hasn't exatly been that reliable lately, but who knows this time.
In any case, we'll know who will win the election.
So, if the Dems win the election, can we deduct that :
a) god doesn't bless america, even wants it to fail as a punishment for the stupidity of having elected twice such a nutcase
b) god doesn't exist or doesn't even listen to 10s of millions of prayers because he really doesn't give a dam about what's hapening on that pale blue dot lost somewhere in one of his miriads of galaxies
c) god didn't get a good "connection" with earth this time, 90 mill HPEDITW is not big enough as a prayer, or maybe there were some special magical words missing, or my calculation is wrong and it was only a net effect of 50 mill HPEDITW, who will know ?
d) god blesses america but thinks a Dem is best for president
What would you say is the right answer ?
Posted by: negentropyeater | October 23, 2007 6:20 PM
Charley #33
I think it's our education. It's easy to graduate from high school or even college without knowing how science works, or how to think critically, and without any appreciation or knowledge of the Enlightenment values our government was built on. Politicians and religionists exploit this ignorance to advance their own agendas.
Yeah, that's where I was going. You said it better though.
Posted by: RamblinDude | October 23, 2007 6:25 PM
While Huckabee's answer to this question is of course wrong, he is not inconsistent with conservative thinking. After all, conservatism prides itself on borrowing from the past to inform the future, not about changing the present as knowledge and understanding yields new insights. Aside from his view being consistent with adherence to religion, it is consistent with traditional conservatism. Not that I believe "conservatives" now are anything like their forebears, and indeed it's very telling how conservatism decided it had to change (or at the very least most of its followers did) and become more authoritarian and force-based in order to compete with the tempered liberalism we had achieved by the early 80s.
As for AlanWCan's point in #15, that is true, but Huckabee is consistent within his own specific religious sect. Religion itself is entirely inconsistent and subjective, even before one picks an example and starts rambling about its specific rightness and morality.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | October 23, 2007 6:29 PM
BlueIndependent (#53):
This version of conservatism is a brand, popularized on radio and on Fox. It isn't that they don't want change, it's that they don't want to think so they go crazy about what they are told to drool over, eg a particular immigration policy, gays being abomininations who shouldn't be allowed to marry, muslims being bigger abominations because they want to kill everyone in Podunk, and the worst abomination of all - liberals. What people who aren't Fox conservatives believe in really has no relation to what you hear when the whining about liberals starts, and if someone doesn't buy into that brand they aren't a conservative at all, they are called something like "Republican in name only". It's a lot like a religion, they have a dogma that they all need to follow or they are no longer considered part of the group and are shouted about like the other infidels.
Posted by: Mena | October 23, 2007 6:46 PM
Huckabee states:
You know what else changes all the time -- the Constitution with all those annoying Amendments. Better to stick with the Bible, eh Huck? Progressivism is so damn messy.Posted by: Ex-drone | October 23, 2007 7:03 PM
- Too few people are aware of the chronic electile dysfunction.
- Until recently, too many people believed in WMD and the rest of the bullshit.
- Why bother? Next year it will all be over; there is no third term, and Richard the Lying-Hearted isn't running.
Of course it won't be over. There are plenty of documents that the world should see. I want to know what the Busheviki knew and when they knew it.
Make a T-shirt of it. (An XXL one.) And perhaps replace "society" by "government" for the US market...
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 23, 2007 7:19 PM
Oh, BTW, when they aren't making a revolution, the French have so much respect for the state that they always capitalize État. Even in coup d'État. I kid you not.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 23, 2007 7:22 PM
- Too few people are aware of the chronic electile dysfunction.
...or think that there's already a pill to fix it.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 23, 2007 7:24 PM
There is - it tastes like Kool-Aid.
As much as I loathe the current Administration, America's political problems didn't begin there, they've just worsened.
Personally, I think things started to go wrong with Andrew Jackson. But maybe they started to go wrong before then, and Jackson was elected as a consequence. Hmmm.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 23, 2007 7:27 PM
#33, I think you are right, the American educational system is probably the key in differentiating the much more rapid move of secularism in Europe (led by France / Germany and the UK) compared with the US.
First, the pledge of allegiance is really typically American. It indoctrinates kids with the idea of American Exceptionalism, a nation blessed by God. None of that now in Old Europe. Mind you, we had our fair share of European Exceptionalism in the past, so now it's your turn to make the same mistakes as we did in the past, I guess...
Second, Maths. I had the chance to get schooled both in the US and in Europe when I was a kid (ages 12-14 in the US public school), gee the level was very different. I can say that the american system is much less rigourous and less focussed on maths than in Europe.
Now Maths being the language of science... American science and technolgy is still the best in the world today, but how many foreign-schooled people from all over the world does it import ? From India, China, Europe... And these people don't vote untless they become citizens.
Well, for what its worth, that's my personal experience.
Posted by: negentropyeater | October 23, 2007 7:32 PM
Another thread that's become a Party Political Broadcast on behalf of the loony-left wing of the Democratic party....
Posted by: Jason | October 23, 2007 7:37 PM
Of course negentropyeater, the fact that the American system is an egalitarian system that attempts to educate all students in a general academic college prep program doesn't have anything to do with that difference in level does it? ;o)
Fact is, if you want to compare US public schools with European public schools, you need to compare AP and honors students with European college prep/gymnasium students.
Personally I would favor a more European style system, especially the part that emphasizes quality technical training for students who are not college bound (in either aptitude or interest). Unfortunately we currently have a "YOU MUST GO TO COLLEGE" mindset, completely dismissing the valid societal contribution of the trades.
Posted by: dogmeatib | October 23, 2007 7:42 PM
Another thread that's become a Party Political Broadcast on behalf of the loony-left wing of the Democratic party....
something tells me that bit of bait is a tad too ripe, Jason.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 23, 2007 7:45 PM
#61 : It's got nothing to do with the loony- left wing of the Dems, it's got to do with reality for god sake, open your eyes listen to the world, don't you see that America is losing it, going nuts ?
I don't vote in the US, but I know that in the UK, France, or Germany, if ANY candidate to the highest post in the country were asked if he believed that Monkeys and Humans had a common ancestor and answered "I don't know", he would get immediately joked about by the vast majority of the electorate. He would never reply "I don't know", not a politician. If a politician answers that in the US means he believes he can attract a lot of voters by making these stupid comments about science.
I'm not saying that he should go against religion, but he is definitely going against science. And I guess that's how any scientifically minded person with a minimum amount of knowledge about the world outside the US would understand this Huckabee.
If what I am saying sounds left wing to you, then Huckabee is really far-far right. And that has not always been the case. The republican party used to be a decent right wing party, not anymore.
Don't you see what has happened in the US, the neocons took over 7 years ago, and tried to move the whole country much more to the far right than what this country can afford.
I really hope you Americans react this time.
The world cannot afford to get another lunatic duo at the head of it's largest power.
There is now a growing voice in Europe of intellectuals, politicians from all parties that are scared if America looses it one more time.
Posted by: negentropyeater | October 23, 2007 7:57 PM
And seriously diluting the utility of a college degree. Everybody loses.
Not for a long time. Were the Democrats ever a decent left-wing party? Not that I can recall. What parts of the world are actually improving? None that I'm aware of.
What else do you expect from the avatars of the Sixth Extinction?
Posted by: Caledonian | October 23, 2007 8:30 PM
A lot of people are scared here too. While you watch, we are in the den of the beast.
One more looney leadership time, and it will be time to give up. Empires always fall from within. Rome fell, Great Britain fell, the USSR fell. No reason not to expect the American empire to fall. I was hoping that it would hang together for my lifetime.
But if not, time to break out the violin (equivalent) and play a tune while everything fails around us.
Posted by: raven | October 23, 2007 8:57 PM
It is apparent that Huckabee isn't any more knowledgeable about Christian history than he is about science. At least when Ron Paul talks about Christianity, he talks about things like the "Christian Doctrine of a Just War" which which at least attempts to develop rational justifications for, and responses to, aggression within a Christian framework. Unfortunately, American evangelicalism rejects those types of attempts to bridge faith with reason. It represents the total rejection of reason as a means to knowledge and truth. For the faith heads who preach and follow that belief system, knowledge of history and science serve no purpose and it is a badge of honor to take pride in their ignorance.
Posted by: Kevin | October 23, 2007 9:11 PM
It's a tiny bit shorter in Klingon, if that helps:
Posted by: noncarborundum | October 24, 2007 12:00 AM
Which, of course, is why comments from confused people whose mental map of the American political landscape places "far left" slightly to the right of center are allowed to remain on the board.
Posted by: Azkyroth | October 24, 2007 12:09 AM
When a situation arises where a person who has a chance of becoming the president of the USA actually thinks like that, it is very scary.
Of course, there is a chance that he doesn't really believe that himself, he's just saying it in order to get the votes of those who do think that way. However, if there are enough of those people that they make up a significant part of the voting population, that's pretty scary too.
Either way, it seems something has gone very wrong with America, and I hope it's not too late to fix it.
Posted by: Date Fingers | October 24, 2007 12:24 AM
Azkyroth,
I do annoy you so, don't I? Good.
The idea that comments like "Cheney and Bush II in front of a firing squad. Or in the dock at the appropriate International Court in The Hague. Sweet dreams!" and "The world cannot afford to get another lunatic duo at the head of it's largest power" express a political view that is "slightly to the right of center" is priceless.
Posted by: Jason | October 24, 2007 12:26 AM
Jason, examine the platform of Richard Nixon. Now delete references to his name and the date. Now give copies of this platform, foreign and domestic, to your buddies.
You will be accused of possesing extreme left-wing propoganda. And then you will likely be sodomized.
America is broken.
Posted by: autumn | October 24, 2007 1:35 AM
Did Huckabee just say that he believes in a flat-earthed, geocentric static universe, covered by a firmament?
Or was he just talking out of his ass again?
(Talking asses do exist by the way, I read it in this book a snake told me about.)
Posted by: Michael X | October 24, 2007 3:46 AM
autumn,
So you're another one. I don't know if you're just young and naive and ignorant, or whether you really are familiar with Nixon and his administration and sincerely believe that it could reasonably be described as "extreme left-wing" but either way, you're spouting nonsense.
Who's your candidate of choice for '08? Kucinich? I haven't heard him calling for the prosecution of Bush and Cheney on war crimes charges, so perhaps even he's too "right-wing" for you.
Posted by: Jason | October 24, 2007 4:20 AM
Time was that the Church of England, which appointed all the priests who mattered ensured their quality by insisting they attend either Oxford or Cambridge and be proficient in BOTH Latin and Ancient Greek. That proficiency was gained by getting them to read the ancients and since there were no xian ancient Greeks that meant the pagan philosophers. They were also steeped in Church history, an essential thing for a church that had to balance with one foot hovering over Rome (without ever actually touching down) and another one planted firmly next to the protestant flag and they pyres of burning catholics.
One consequence of the great freedom of religion over the pond there is that this practice of properly educating your clergy went by the bye. Since your constitution forbids the imposing of standards sufficient to correct the situation you are stuffed. Meanwhile over here in Established Religion land they are talking seriously about standards for Imams to prevent ignorant know nothings who can't speak English coming over and corrupting our muslim youth.
It's a funny old world where the country with an established church is one of the most secular and unbelieving while the country with complete freedom of relgion enshrined in its founding document is sliding towards theocracy and needs civil rights organisations for atheists (which despite what they say, is what us Brights are).
I suspect the only cure will be to actually have a theocracy for a few hundred years, like we did, then you will learn to despise it so much it turns in something like an embarrassing maiden aunt. Mind you, seeing what Might is Right British people did to the world this would not be good for the rest of us.
Meanwhile fight the good fight for proper educational standards, support the ACLU and hope.
Posted by: Peter Ashby | October 24, 2007 4:48 AM
Chuck Norris? (see comment #10)
That's nothin'. Duncan Hunter has been endorsed by Chuck Yeager. http://www.chuckyeager.com/ As much as I think Duncan Hunter is a clown, Chuck Yeager's endorsement convinced me to stop calling Hunter a clown. Someone who can earn the respect of, and friendship of, Chuck Yeager, is close enough to being a mensch that we can at least avoid laughter.
Voting for the guy would be another thing altogether.
Chuck Norris gets all the credit only because Chuck Yeager likes a good joke.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | October 24, 2007 5:02 AM
You (first few) guys need to learn the difference between Christianity and Judaism!
Posted by: Steve | October 24, 2007 8:32 AM
Okay, I screwed up the word order there. It should be:
Klingon grammar is tricky for us Terran types.
</Klingon grammar pedant mode>
Posted by: noncarborundum | October 24, 2007 9:26 AM
Yes, God's love does not change, but you must realize that he will never give us more than we can take. That includes, the amount of knowledge or understanding that he allows us to have concerning some subjects. The knowledge could had been out there, in the universe, but no one understood exactly what that knowledge meant, so they (people who seen or heard of the knowledge before this time)interpreted it incorrectly. Marilynj
Posted by: marilynj | October 24, 2007 9:57 AM
Wow.
Just wow.
What a deluded bizarre philosophy.
Posted by: Steve_C | October 24, 2007 10:09 AM
Jason:
autumn is correct, if perhaps a bit hyperbolic. Note that autumn's claim is not that the Nixon Administration was liberal (there was all that Imperial Presidency stuff, for one thing; the Southern Strategy for another), but that its platform was.
Imagine that any president or presidential candidate today, of either party, were to propose government control of wages and prices. Would this be seen as conservative? Or would it, as I suspect, call forth cries not just of socialism but of outright communism (i.e., "extreme left-wing")? Yet Nixon not only proposed this, he did it.
Consider, too, that Nixon created the EPA (on his own initiative), imposed an affirmative action plan on Philadelphia trade unions, and signed bills creating OSHA, increasing Social Security benefits and indexing them to inflation, and creating the SSI program.
Wikipedia summarizes Nixon's domestic policies this way:
As for foreign policy, his platform (if not his actual actions) included a quick end to the war in Vietnam. He pursued a policy of détente (relaxation of tensions) with the Soviet U