I'm a week or so late on this one, but let me extend a hearty "welcome to the blogosphere" to Conservatives Against Intelligent Design. The founder, Indian Cowboy, has been an occasional commenter here. He has a petition that has already garnered almost 300 signatures. A valuable voice in the battle against the anti-evolution crowd.
More like this
Hearty congratulations go out to fellow ScienceBloggers Orac (Respectful Insolence) and PZ Myers (Pharyngula, like I needed to tell you) for their respective wins in the categories of Best Medical/Hea
Head on over and give fellow physician and outspoken warrior against pseudoscience Dr. R. W. a hearty congratulations!
Today is his first blogiversary.
May there be many more!
Pediatric Grand Rounds, vol. 1, no. 18 has been posted at Breath Spa for Kids:
This site has its heart in the right place, but it's more for theistic evolutionists than my kind—all the bowing and scraping to a creator god leaves me cold (especially since it seems to substitute hearty encouragement and reconciliation over actually discussing the evidence).
Let me know when there is a group, "Conservatives Against Religious Right Wackos."
I think this is fine and dandy and all, but this sentence the blog's owner put up about the ACLU turned me off immediately:
"And what about joining the ACLU? Yeah, since so many conservatives and libertarians support that incoherent, socialist organization."
I'm not sure if he's intimating that many conservatives and libertarians would characterize the ACLU as an "incoherent, socialist organization." Maybe the more ignorant ones would. But if he himself is characterizing the ACLU as incoherent and socialist, then, well (which is how I read it), then this is an idiotic thing to say. In what way are they incoherent? Even more crazy, how are they at all socialist?
Still, it's nice to see someone on the right drawing attention to the issue. I just hope that incoherent asides like the one I've discussed here aren't par for the course.
I could be wrong, but I suspect the site will cater for the type of conservative who's at home on freerepublic.com. It's entertaining watching them fighting off the religious hordes that infest that site, but when they turn to non-origins related matters, liberalism (or even centerism) is still a red rag to the bull.
cater to freepers? I spent about two hours on freep one day out of boredom before vomiting all over my laptop. or do you mean they'll go there to argue against evolution? If it gets out of hand I have no problem instituting a Razib policy and telling them to go to hell.
Rick, I talked about it a bit in comment 17 i think on hte post 'missing the point'. the ACLU doesn't always distinguish between negative and positive rights. since positive rights are a fallacy (representing restriction) and a cornerstone of socialism/the welfare state, yeah I'll call them socialist.
One of the few things I like about the ACLU is that they seem to defend the fundies and the hippies with relatively equal fervor. Granted, their defense of the 2nd amendment is slightly less spirited than your average snail race...
That's probably because the Second Amendment does not set forth an absolute individual right.
only if you choose to interpret the constitution in a vacuum, with no reference to writings that inspired the Founders or the other writings of the framers themselves.
If you did choose to read the Constitution the way ANY historical or topical piece should be read (i.e. in the context of word usage of the times, and with references to authors' collected works), then it'd be pretty clear.
'the milita' was shorthand for able bodied men from late teenhood to middle age. The milita was also shorthand for citizens who operated OUTSIDE THE CONTROL OF GOVERNMENT.
Or, you could stick your fingers in your ears and scream *nyah nyah nyah I CAN'T HEEEEAAAR YOU*. Which I guess is always an option