No Wonder People Hate Us

312 responses so far

• 1 Dr. Tesla // May 22, 2009 at 3:06 pm

  Aw, Frum, so jealous that Levin’s book went platinum, #1 NY Times best seller for at least 7 weeks and maybe still is, and Frum could only sell about 3 copies, one to Kathleen Parker, one to Colin Powell, and one to David Brooks.

  People hate liberal Republicans like David Frum. Don’t see the evidence of that with Levin. Levin destroyed you on the radio, you whiny little hobbit.

• 2 danbmil99 // May 22, 2009 at 4:03 pm

  The comments of those such as Dr T and Barker answer the question — who gives these folk their audience?

  Truth be told, there is similar hatred and contempt on the left. It was more in the open during the Bush years; as political victors, the left now has a good reason to muzzle their crazier flank.

  As to Obama hatred, I’m starting to have a sinking feeling that they really, truly are scared he will ’succeed’ in some fashion. We will become a slightly more collective society, a bit less virulently individualist and entrepreneurial, but life will not cease to exist. Poor kids will get health care and an education; it will be a bit harder to fire people for no reason; we will pay a bit more in taxes. Starting a small business will require more paperwork. It will be less acceptable to keep gays or other people you don’t like out of your life, your community, your workplace.

  If this world comes to pass, the far right really loses — like big-time, end-of-the-road losing. Somewhat analogous (though not in its extremity) to the tactics of insurgents in the Middle East, this wing of the far right may really prefer anarchy, high unemployment, government gridlock, and financial chaos to a successful 8 years of Obama.

  If that’s true, it’s sort of sad. In a way, I feel sorry for them. Their way of life is coming to an end, and they don’t see any path that doesn’t end with them deposed as the masters of creation, and put in their place as a bunch of old, bitter white men, bereft of their power to inspire fear and obedience from the rest of the world.

• 3 barker13 // May 22, 2009 at 4:16 pm

  I love Mark Levin the serious commentator… Mark Levin the “entertainer” gets on my nerves.

  Too much schtick. Too much!

  But don’t confuse Levin the syndicated radio guy at his worst moments with this same guy at his best; and for God’s sake, don’t think that his books are anything like the worst moments of his radio show – they’re not.

  You know what I’d like to see? Anyone remember when G. Gordon Libby and (the late) Abbie Hoffman did their college debate tour? I attended one when they came to my school, Northeastern University, and it was wild. Both men held court in local bars afterwards! Both men were very approachable. In any case, I’d love to see Mark Levin and Ron Kuby do something like that.

  Anyway… back to David’s slam of Levin…

  Fair enough. I’m sure the transcript is accurate and as for the context… (*SIGH*)… no doubt Levin was by any standard acting like an ass.

  Is such behavior what draws ratings? On one hand you’d think these folks know what they’re doing – at least in terms of income generation – but on the other hand you don’t hear Rush behaving like Levin.

  (Hey… maybe it’s an ethnic thing… a regional thing…?)

  Anyway… to reiterate… Levin’s radio show gets on my nerves for God’s sake, but Levin is a bright guy and even if half his radio show is wasted by “the Levin routine,” the average American would learn quite a bit from listening to his show and definitely his books are worth reading.

  BILL

• 4 Dr. Tesla // May 22, 2009 at 4:22 pm

  The conservative base of the Republican party gives Levin and Rush and Hannity their audience.

  Frum has no audience. Period.

  I have never heard Rush or any conservative advocated violence or discrimination against gays. You are showing that you are not an intellectually honest person….being against gay marriage does not mean you hate gay people or are intolerant of gay people.

  David Frum himself at one point was very anti-gay marriage. I’ve seen his column on the issue from back in the day…kind of hard to believe it’s the same guy. The guy doesn’t have any core set of principles that he sticks to other than his jealous hatred of conservatives that are popular.

  Obama is against gay marriage, at least in his campaign rhetoric, so by your own logic, Obama is a hater.

• 5 Dr. Tesla // May 22, 2009 at 4:25 pm

  Frum doesn’t get the show biz aspect of talk radio, and that lady was an America basher…I thought it was funny as hell. Why be polite to some America basher? I have no use for them.

  Frum has no personality, and dull people tend to hate people that do. Levin has personality in spades, and that’s why his show is a hit. I don’t see this website lasting much longer as Frum seems unable to get advertisers. The free market seems to be rejecting Frum…..maybe that why Frum and his merry bunch on here are so anti-free market these days?

• 6 Dr. Tesla // May 22, 2009 at 4:27 pm

  barker,

  Loosen up, guy.

• 7 A.B. // May 22, 2009 at 4:30 pm

  (DF)”Wouldn’t it be something like, ‘I dont know what’s wrong with that horrible man, but I do know this: whatever side he’s on, any decent person would have to be on the opposite’?” Yes. People think we are boorish sociopaths, or drug-addled phonies. There are a lot of both to go around on both extremes, but frankly I would prefer to see cow-blood-stained PETA fanatics in the news, not crazy self-described Republicans. Not from shame–although there is that to ponder, indeed–but for practical reasons.

• 8 Dr. Tesla // May 22, 2009 at 4:34 pm

  The main problem the Republican party has it lacks personality. It’s mostly a bunch of dull guys like Colin Powell and Frum who just care, or pretend to care, about foreign policy stuff and little else.

  Most of pop culture is liberal. Most comedians are liberal. Despite what this humorless Frum guy says about Limbaugh, the worst you can say about Rush is he’s the rightwing version of John Stewart, excet Rush actually knows some stuff and he’s naturallly funnny, not a pretty boy reading from a script that others wrote for him .

  The Republican party shouldn’t throw the men with personality like Rush and Levin under the bus. Limbaugh and Levin has more appeal to younger people, especially younger people, than some dull dude like Frum. Imagine Frum on the radio 3 hours a day. That’s dead air, and that’s not going to attract any younger people to politics. Humor is one of the greatest forms of persuasion, especially for younger people, and Frum doesn’t get that, because he has no sense of humor and/or he can’t handle some criticism of his liberal positions by Rush and Levin.

• 9 barker13 // May 22, 2009 at 4:40 pm

  Re: Danbmil99; wrote 13 minutes ago –

  Danny boy… looks like we cross posted.

  (*SMIRK*) (*SNORT*)

  So let me get this straight… you have a problem with “Dr. Tesla” so you decide to just throw me in the mix even though I hadn’t even posted yet…???

  (*CHUCKLE*)

  “As to Obama hatred, I’m starting to have a sinking feeling that they really, truly are scared he will ’succeed’ in some fashion. We will become a slightly more collective society, a bit less virulently individualist and entrepreneurial, but life will not cease to exist.”

  Damn straight I’m scared. I’m scared for my country. I’m scared for my kid. I’m scared for the grandkids and great grandkids I hope to have some day.

  Dan. I don’t want America to decline. You seem not to care. Heck… you seem on some levels to welcome the decline, as if by our national societal decline this will somehow boost up the rest of the world.

  It won’t, Dan. If you think a world with America as “Leader of the Free World” ain’t all it’s cracked up to be, you just wait for a few years down the road… let alone a few decades.

  “Their way of life is coming to an end…”

  Hey David Frum… you lurking, bud…? You reading this crap?

  “Their” way of life. That’s what Danny boy calls it. Not “our” way of life. Not “the American way of life.” Nope. “Their” way of life.

  “…high unemployment…”

  Again… addressing Frum if he’s lurking… notice that Danny boy here is seemingly unaware that it’s the European “social democratic” model that is usually liked to high unemployment, not traditional capitalistic “conservative, Right” America.

  (*SNORT*)

  Jeez… I try to have fun here, but it’s hard. I read stuff like Dan’s post and I just get.. depressed.

  Dan… I don’t even get angry. Just depressed.

  BILL

• 10 Dr. Tesla // May 22, 2009 at 4:48 pm

  Frum’s lurking…you can trust in that. No doubt shocked that I would mock him so….that’s just un-American! What’s this freedom of speech thing? How dare anybody criticize David Frum! He wrote speeches for George Bush!

• 11 Dr. Tesla // May 22, 2009 at 4:57 pm

  Oh yeah,

  I forgot to mention that David Frum went on Bill Maher’s show. Yeah, the very same Bill Maher that stated that he hoped Dick Cheney would be killed when he was overseas in Iraq.

  So it’s rather amusing that Frum wants to lecture people on who is “decent” and who is not.

  Is Bill Ayers decent? Is J Wright decent? Obama seemed to think so, and I never saw Frum criticized those associations, but rather seemed to be want McCain to run away from them.

  Is Obama ridiculing retarded kids on Leno “decent”? Never heard Frum crticize that.

  Is Obama laughing at Sykes “joke” that she hoped Limbaugh would die a form of decency we should all follow? Never seen Frum crticize Obama for that.

  There’s always this remarkable double standard Frum seems to have for what constitutes decency, and he’s a lot more forgiving in that area with liberals.

• 12 sinz54 // May 22, 2009 at 5:20 pm

  Dr. Tesla sez: “The conservative base of the Republican party gives Levin and Rush and Hannity their audience.”

  Exactly!
  These talk-show hosts have NO INFLUENCE beyond the GOP base. I wouldn’t sorry about anyone else who might flip on the radio and here such rants. They will just tune immediately to some other station and forget all about what they just heard.

  So why does Frum keep harping on them, day in and day out?

  Because by personalizing the conflicts within the GOP, Frum avoids having to deal with the policy changes that are necessary. Just blame Limbaugh (without ever explaining just what national issues Limbaugh is wrong about).

• 13 sinz54 // May 22, 2009 at 5:26 pm

  danbmil99: I disagree with your diagnosis.

  The GOP base isn’t afraid that Obama will succeed at making America better.

  The GOP base is afraid that Obama will succeed at making European-style Social Democracy irreversible and permanent in American society.

  And I share that fear.

  Because it’s unlikely to make America better. America has had faster GDP growth over the last 20 years and lower unemployment than any of the European nations with the exception of Britain.

  If the goal of liberals like yourself is to trade off somehow higher unemployment and somewhat lower GDP growth in favor of egalitarianism, that proposition should be openly debated in front of Americans because it hasn’t been up to now. (Till now it’s been something that liberals only discussed among themselves, on blogs like TmpCafe.)

  America cannot tolerate slow growth for any length of time, because we won’t be able to expand the pie to accommodate all the Hispanic immigrants pouring into America. The result may be some genuine social unrest.

• 14 danbmil99 // May 22, 2009 at 5:40 pm

  sinz: “If the goal of liberals like yourself is to trade off somehow higher unemployment and somewhat lower GDP growth in favor of egalitarianism, that proposition should be openly debated in front of Americans because it hasn’t been up to now.”

  Not sure how I got the big L slapped on my forehead — all I said was that some on the far right are afraid that a quasi-socialist USA won’t be a total disaster, and people will accept the change. Did I say I wanted that? No, I just said the people who are *deathly afraid* of that outcome are bitter and sad.

  I am an entrepreneur. Right now my partners and I are debating whether to incorporate, because in CA we will be hit with an immediate $850 tax liability for starting a business. That’s not good for small business. Under Obama, that sort of thing is likely to get worse. I would prefer that America retain its libertarian, free-market roots.

  That doesn’t mean I think that living in a place more like France or Canada would be the end of my life. I’ve been to both places, and I prefer them to, say, China or Mexico. I’m a reasonable person, and a pragmatic person.

  The problem here is that this binary, take-no-prisoners, round up the RINO’s and kill ‘em all mentality means that the GOP has become a laughing caricature of itself. Letting fools like Levin, Coulter, Beck take the ideological reins; nominating fools like Sarah Palin — these are the moves of a dying, desperate party, out of touch not only with the bulk of the American populace, but out of touch with everyone except their most rabid, hateful, bigoted, reactionary base.

  With a rancid husk of the GOP as opposition, these left-leaning, redistributive plans have no brake. We need a moderate GOP to propose a health plan that covers everyone but doesn’t gut private medicine. Instead, we have “just say no to healthcare”. That’s a losing proposition, and it doesn’t move the needle on what we will end up with.

  Same goes for energy, climate, education, even foreign policy (though the present admin seems to be successfully triangulating that issue). There is no credible, thoughtful opposition. Just hate, nastiness, bad vibes, half-empty-cups, just-say-no obstructionism. The only unifying theme is “For God’s sake, make sure this guy fails!”

  It’s not going to work.

• 15 Dr. Tesla // May 22, 2009 at 5:51 pm

  If sinz was right about the reach of Rush and talk radio, I dont’ think Frum, Colin Powel, MSNBC, CNN, etc would all be talking about Limbaugh 24-7. The man obviously is effective and persuasive, or there’s no need to attack him.

  When’s the last time you seen any major liberal person, network, publication, etc, blast David Frum? Nobody knows who he is outside of people like me who heard Limbaugh mention his name a few times along with that effeminate loser David Brooks and people who visit National Review’s website when he was scribbling his random thoughts about trivial matters to himself on his own blog over there.

  Sinz,

  I’ve seen you post in here before. I feel pretty confident that you voted Obama.

• 16 VerityJones // May 22, 2009 at 5:57 pm

  Dr. Tesla: As a fairly regular poster here, I find your continued personal animus toward David Frum distracting and weirdly stalker-ish. The fact that your posts don’t display much critical thinking ability and your juvenile sarcasm seems to indicate that you are either very young or uneducated or both. This is transparent despite your use of “Dr.” in your user name. Since you obviously aren’t here to really contribute to dialogue about serious issues, I hope you will be removed on the grounds that you appear to be just an internet troll.

• 17 VerityJones // May 22, 2009 at 6:02 pm

  Part of the Republican image problem at the moment is exactly the hysteria and thuggishness embodied in Levin’s interaction with this woman caller. Decent Americans on the Left and Right are getting burned out on vitriolic, irrational, verbally abusive talk show hosts and pundits. Whether or not punks, anger-addicts or sociopaths find it entertaining isn’t important. The whole point in being conservative is to steer American culture back toward personal responsibility, dignity, kindness and respectability, not to perpetuate a culture of verbal abuse and animosity toward fellow Americans with whom we disagree — and not to let the current state of “everything goes” continue. That Republican commentators act wild or nasty to get ratings is an unacceptable reflection on their cynicism and self-indulgence — and not the state of mind of the base! I find it insulting to think that their audience is “the base.” If the mentality of the base has become this degraded, then the base needs to be led in a better direction and not be doing any leading.

• 18 VerityJones // May 22, 2009 at 6:03 pm

  I meant: “is a reflection on their unacceptable cynicism and self-indulgence.”

• 19 Dr. Tesla // May 22, 2009 at 6:04 pm

  All this danbmil guy does is smear, demonize conservativies but he never actually debates, refutes their ideas. Palin a hell of a lot more popular than danbmil99, a hell of lot more popular than David Frum, a hell of lot more popular than Colin Powell.

  The National Review has historically never endorsed liberal Republicans for president, including Dwight Eisenhower. Buckley and the National Review endorsed Joe Lieberman over a liberal Republican back in the day.

  This stupid notion that fools like danbmill99 puts forth that Republicans shoudl support liberal Republicans simply so we can win elections is hilarious. What’s the point, if they vote like Democrats and don’t share your principles? To attack people for choosing to vote for principle over Party as this danbmil guy does is just the classic sloppy thinking of the David Frum “Republicans”.

  What’s stopping David Frum and his 2 followers from starting their own party? Why must they bastardize the Republican party?

  Why doesn’t Frum go join the Democrat party and try to get them to moderate on the only two things he appears to disagree with them on, foreign policy and spending? I think it may be liberating for Frum to come on out of the closet as a liberal. He’s clearly a liberal on taxes, social issues, and global warming. This notion that Frum types have that Rush and Levin and company drive people away from the Republican party is laughable because, unless Frum can read minds, he can’t prove it, and I do believe Frum extrapolates his own personal view of charismatic conservatives on the radio onto the American at large. I doubt most Democrat voters have listened to Rush and Levin much if at all….if they did, they probably wouldn’t be Democrats.

• 20 Dr. Tesla // May 22, 2009 at 6:06 pm

  Verity Jones,

  Could I not accuse Frum of stalking Rush and Levin…that’s about all he ever talks about.

  Could I not accuse you of stalking me?

  You are just engaging in callow ad hominen attacks. I understand that, I forgive you, but I rather not converse with a child. Obviously I get under your skin and the truth does that to liberals.

• 21 Dr. Tesla // May 22, 2009 at 6:08 pm

  Decent Americans go to J. Wright’s church and associate with terrorists like Bill Ayers.

  Decent Americans go on Bill Maher’s show, a leftwing kook that expressed his wisht hat Cheney be killed while overseas.

  Decent AMericans like Frum, desperate for attention, go on leftwing kook shows like Maher’s.

  Bullseye.

• 22 Dr. Tesla // May 22, 2009 at 6:14 pm

  Frum can remove me if he wishes. He can’t ban freedom of speech though, and I think that’s a good thing, because if he could, he would silence his critics. That hobbit does not like to be criticized….the guy sounded like he was about to cry when Levin destroyed him on the radio.

  Looks like he could use all the traffic he can get though. Most of his posts only get about about 3 comments max. He’s goign to need companies to advertise on here at some point, and to get to that point, he’s going to have to start getting some traffic on this website.

• 23 danbmil99 // May 22, 2009 at 6:48 pm

  Tesla coil: “What’s stopping David Frum and his 2 followers from starting their own party? Why must they bastardize the Republican party? “

  Amid all his obsessive rambling, this is actually a fair question that deserves an answer. I freely admit that I have as many disagreements with the GOP as I do with the Dems. The question is, where will people like me go? We went with Obama because he represented a break with ineptitude on a colossal scale. That doesn’t mean we’ll stick with him or his appointed heirs forever.

  I am not here to “smear” conservatives, or tell them to move left simply to get votes. I am here because we have a 2-party system, and starting a viable 3rd party looks to be almost impossible, due mostly to self-serving regulations and legislation enacted by the two parties in power for the last 150 years.

  So yes, I do want the likes of Rush, Beck, Palin, and our own Tesla and others to be marginalized. I want them mad and panting at the moon, but with no where to go but their closets with their precious AM radios. I want the GOP to be taken over by effete intellectuals who will split hairs with the Dems and make them ever-so-slightly more practical in their agenda. Maybe one day, a chastened, compassionate, politically correct GOP will be allowed to take the reins of power for a term or two, and see if they’re fully recovered from their psychotic break with reality. That’s about the best I think I can hope for.

  If it were realistic to do this with another party, believe me I would.

• 24 barker13 // May 22, 2009 at 7:06 pm

  Re: Sinz54; 5:20 PM –

  “These talk-show hosts have NO INFLUENCE beyond the GOP base.”

  It’s so sad to watch you delude yourself, Sinz.

  Limbaugh has no influence…???

  (*SNORT*)

  As to Hannity… while personally I find him annoying, repetitious, and none too bright, his schtick seems to work with women.

  (*SHRUG*)

  Levin? I’ve already commented.

  As to influencing “the GOP base,” what you’re glossing over is that fact that there are more American CONSERVATIVES than American Republicans and far more American CONSERVATIVES than American liberals – at least according to polling.

  The Limbaughs and the Becks appeal to the conservative base first and foremost and the GOP second. The two “bases” are not always in sync (or else Republicans would never lose elections).

  “So why does Frum keep harping on them, day in and day out?”

  Jealously, mainly, I’m guessing. (*SHRUG*)

  “Because by personalizing the conflicts within the GOP, Frum avoids having to deal with the policy changes that are necessary. Just blame Limbaugh (without ever explaining just what national issues Limbaugh is wrong about).”

  (*CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*) Yep! I think you’re “getting” it, Sinz!

  BILL

• 25 barker13 // May 22, 2009 at 7:37 pm

  Re: Danbmil99; 5:40 PM –

  “Not sure how I got the big L slapped on my forehead…”

  Actually, Danny boy, you’re thinking “SMALL L” as in “liberal.”

  “Big L” refers to classic Liberal thought.

  (*WINK*) (You’re welcome.)

  “Did I say I wanted that? No…”

  Well, you certainly gave the impression you wanted it; I took away that impression after reading your comments and did Sinz.

  (*SHRUG*)

  “Letting fools like Levin, Coulter, Beck take the ideological reins; nominating fools like Sarah Palin…”

  Kinda free and easy with the name calling there, Danny boy. In fact, you’re something of a parody of… er… your own complaints concerning the lack of tolerance of others.

  Levin and Coulter fools…??? They sure as hell can be obnoxious, but I highly doubt you’re an intellectual equal to either. I could be wrong… but I listen to them and have sampled their writings and I’ve read plenty of your posts and… er… I don’t see you knocking either off the Best Seller List any time soon. (*SHRUG*)

  As to Sarah Palin… now SHE’S an entrepreneur – a successful one both in terms of business and politics.

  “We need a moderate GOP…”

  Again with this alternate universe where McCain WON instead of getting his butt kicked.

  “…energy, climate, education, even foreign policy…”

  Again. Earth to Danny boy. McCain LOST. He LOST.

  McCain was your side of this debate’s chance to show you knew what it took to WIN. Instead… you and YOUR candidate LOST.

  Why can’t you see this…???

  BILL

• 26 Dr. Tesla // May 22, 2009 at 7:45 pm

  If the Republican keeps tracking to the left with candidates like McCain (that is, take the advice of our brilliant Frum), a 3rd party is going to emerge. The Conservative Party.

  Going left on social issues will be political suicide for the GOP, as it is the social issues that have prevented Democrats from winning states in the south and midwest. Many of these voters are poorer and are easy targets of the class envy politics of the Left. It’s only their disdain of the sadistic act of abortion with other radical leftwing stances on social issues that keep them voting GOP. Following Frum’s advice would put all southern and midwestern states in play.

  He also advocates Republicans start supporting higher income taxes. I’ll personally never vote for a Party that wants to raise my taxes….taxes are a winning issue for the Republicans and for Frum to advocate the Republican Party abandon is just patent nonsense.

  I don’t think effeminate Republicans like Brooks and Frum could make Democrats more practical on anything. Brooks sounds like he wants to have sex with Obama, and Frum isn’t too far off. I get the feeling that Frum doesn’t feel comfortable criticizing black people in general, which is a form of racism, is it not?

  I do find it laughable and absurd that the Democrats keep asserting that the Republican party cannot win again. If the economy is still in the toilet with 10% unemployment, Obama is going to lose in 2012. Nothing Obama is doign now is going to spur economic growth, and Obama is a true leftist idealogue, despite this notion he’s a pragmatic middle of the road centrist.

• 27 Dr. Tesla // May 22, 2009 at 7:51 pm

  Frum seems to have the incorrect title for his column. It should be “No Wonder People Hate Conservatives” from his point of view. I think it’s hard for any rationale person to believe Frum is a conservative, and he’s barely hanging on to the Republican label with his politics.

  What strikes me is that his goal is to form a New Majority, yet he seems more hellbent on attacking popular figures in the conservative movement that vote for the party out of power. It seems to me that if you wanted to form a new majority, you would first need to make a case against the present majority, the Obama-led Democrats. Frum doesnt’ seem to offer much serious and hard hitting criticism of Obama, and I don’t think he or other dull “Republicans” like him are going to persuade the cult like Obama supporters to vote for a liberalized Republican party.

• 28 barker13 // May 22, 2009 at 8:01 pm

  Re: Danbmil99; wrote 49 minutes ago –

  “The question is, where will people like me go?”

  Oh, Dan…

  (*LAUGHING MY ASS OFF*)

  Too easy. Just… too easy.

  (*STILL CHUCKLING*)

  “We went with Obama because he represented a break with ineptitude on a colossal scale.”

  He did…??? On what record of achievement…??? Seriously… we’re not talking “Mr. Resume,” we’re talking “Mr. Teleprompter.

  Oh, sure… OBVIOUSLY his campaign was successful – he won his Party’s nomination against the Clinton Machine and then demolished McCain, but that’s campaign success, campaign accomplishment.

  I don’t see a hell of a lot of POSITIVE achievement – of success as the nation views success – out of Obama so far.

  What “measure” are you using to judge his actual competence in office as opposed to ineptitude?

  “I am not here to “smear” conservatives…”

  But… but… but… that’s what you do. You engage in such tactics constantly. (*SHRUG*) Are you suffering from a short-term memory problem?

  “So yes, I do want the likes of Rush, Beck, Palin, and our own Tesla and others to be marginalized.”

  Yet you consider yourself to be a Republican…???

  (*HEADACHE*)

  “I want the GOP to be taken over by effete intellectuals who will split hairs with the Dems and make them ever-so-slightly more practical in their agenda.”

  In which case it’ll be the GOP which is marginalized.

  (*SHRUG*)

  Dan. You’re a partisan Democrat. It doesn’t matter if you’re registered as a Republican or an Independent or whatever; in terms of making your political will felt… you’re a Democrat rooting for the Democrats to beat the Republicans, the liberals to beat the conservatives.

  Watch out… VerityJones may soon call for your removal from this site! (*SNORT*) Don’t worry though… while I disapprove of what you have to say, I’ll defend to Sinz’s death your right to say it.”

  (*WINK*) (*NOD TOWARDS SINZ*)

  BILL

• 29 ktward // May 22, 2009 at 8:32 pm

  Well, ‘Hate’ may be overstating it.

  But I do indeed ignore the ridiculous rants of these volatile personalities. Simply put, I’ve no interest in their message because of their delivery, and I’m of the opinion that ideas delivered in such a manner are probably not very good ideas.

  I do wonder (for half a second) about the mental state of anyone who finds such obnoxious and generally insubstantive deliveries entertaining, much less informative. (If one wants simply an entertaining rant, Denis Leary is a better choice.)

  Nevertheless, as Dr. Tesla demonstrates quite nicely here, boorish rhetoric is often the tactic of those with little else to offer in the way of constructive dialogue.

• 30 danbmil99 // May 22, 2009 at 9:06 pm

  Let’s put it straight up. What I want, and I suspect many are in the same camp, is to just pitch the rightmost wing of the party into the river and forget about them. I want to commandeer this party and turn it into a centrist, socially liberal (pro-gay, pro-choice) but fiscally responsible, pro-free-market party that has a chance of winning power and putting a check on the Democrats.

  You can’t always get what you want, but there’s no harm in asking.

• 31 danbmil99 // May 22, 2009 at 9:09 pm

  “Levin and Coulter fools…??? They sure as hell can be obnoxious, but I highly doubt you’re an intellectual equal to either.”

  Hehe, I missed this before. Coulter doesn’t know how people evolved. That may be stupidity or just plain ignorance, but whatever it is, it’s not intellectual prowess.

  Levin is just a dumb jerk.

• 32 bbb // May 22, 2009 at 11:37 pm

  Get off the Internets, You Big Jerk!

• 33 Chrisc23 // May 23, 2009 at 12:23 am

  Mark Levin is actually a very bright man. The Republicans need to learn the word tolerance. The Republican party will win again when we learn to tolerate each other and support our candidates.

• 34 BA McCormick // May 23, 2009 at 5:13 am

  Saying things like “why do you hate America” or “why do you hate the troops” is the right-wing equivalent to the left asking someone “why do you hate black people?”

  Its a technique for the intellectually inferior to demonize people that they disagree with. The biggest difference however is that doing or saying something perceived as “racist” can result in having your reputation destroyed while the reverse is generally not true. In general, saying something “patriotically incorrect” will not result in the same level of outrage as saying or doing something “politically incorrect.”

  Now, as far as people “hating us,” I think this misses the point of talk radio. Talk radio is good way for non-intellectuals on the Right to gain information and indoctrination (I&I). The left is made up of intellectuals, single women, union whites, minorities, and the underclass of all ethnic groups. Since the left includes 75% of the intellectuals in the US, most of the intellectual conversation is among the left. Single women (non-Intellectual) receive their I&I from Oprah Winfrey, The View, and Cosmo Magazine. Union whites receive their I&I from their unions.

  On the Right, talk radio takes the place of Oprah, The View, and the Unions. These mediums on both sides don’t attract converts but have the purpose of information and ideology strengthening.

  My point is that we shouldn’t worry so much about talk radio sending a “divisive” message. It purpose is to give the Joe the Plumbers of the Right information on a level they can handle. What people like Mr. Frum need to work on are new ways of attracting intellectuals and professionals to the Right. The right needs a Right Wing NPR.

  But first the Right needs to take a serious look at its ideology. I believe the Right should embrace an ideology of personal liberty. This would include the traditional Right-wing stuff like free enterprise, low taxes, gun rights, opposition to racial polices, and a defense of free speech. But it should also include the right to an abortion and the right for gays to marry. The Right cannot truly be the party of freedom if it doesn’t support these last two rights.

  Of course, this will cause a reaction from Traditionalist Right Wingers. I do understand they’re passionate about these issues, but why can’t they address these issues outside of politics. IOW, if they want to fight abortion why not fight it through community action with their churches? And if they want to talk to gays about sin and Jesus, they can do so without opposing their right the marry. The same way they oppose premarital sex they can oppose these two issues.

• 35 ottovbvs // May 23, 2009 at 6:36 am

  The subtext of David’s piece is that the Republican party has become the party of talk radio. Which is more or less true but before berating Levin is he very different from the former VP going on TV and accusing the current president of exposing the country to danger. Not really and it was so bad a couple of his former colleagues have had to mildly rebuke him. Apparently Cheney is shopping a book deal so it looks like commerce is at the back of all his righteous indignation and it’s also commerce that’s at the back of Levin’s shtick just as it’s at the back of Fox News and all these other right wing shouters like Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity et al. They’ve identified there’s a market for this stuff, just like HSN has identified there;s a market of middle aged women for their trinkets and wrinkle removers. It’s about 25-30% of the electorate, or around 25-30 million people with a hard core of probably 10 million or so. Ample to keep these folks in a nice life style and you get minor celebrity status from it (well major in Rush’s case), tv gigs, and security men. Basically these folks don’t care much about politics and the consequences of what they….it’s a living. Once you understand these basic facts all becomes clear.

• 36 sinz54 // May 23, 2009 at 6:45 am

  Dr. Tesla: You have obviously forgotten that it was originally the DEMOCRATS who plotted to make Limbaugh the public face of the GOP. Paul Begala and other Dems openly admitted this to the press, that this was strategy. They knew that Limbaugh’s statement that he wanted President Obama to fail was political dynamite, and they made the most of it.

  And guys like you walked right into the Dems’ trap.

  The Dems are notorious for picking a conservative or Republican target who is unpopular with the public–and then smearing the whole GOP with it. I remember how they used to name-drop “Gingrich” into ever speech in the 1990s.

  Now they’re doing the same thing with men like Levin, Limbaugh, and Bush himself. They can count on naive folks like yourself to reflexively rush to their defense–and by so doing, proving to the public that these men are indeed the face of the GOP.

  When Frum tried to warn us NOT to stand behind Limbaugh’s statement, again, naive folks like you attacked Frum, instead of realizing how the Dems are using you to make THEIR talking-points.

• 37 sinz54 // May 23, 2009 at 6:55 am

  danbmil99: I’m not going to be associated with any political movement or party which flirts with creationism. When Coulter does this in writing, in a book she wrote, she makes herself, and the rest of us by extension, laughingstocks in the eyes of the young and college educated. Even worse, I don’t recall a single Republican official daring to stand up for science and against the nonsense that Coulter was spewing.

  Hard-core right-wingers keep claiming that we “moderates” have no principles. That is false. My principles include a deep respect for science; a deep respect for the worth of all human beings, gay or straight, white or Hispanic; and a deep respect for personal privacy.

  I’m not suggesting that those who don’t agree with me on those points should be kicked out of the party. But I insist that those of us who feel as I do should not be kicked out either. Because what’s left will be a party of religious zealots, bigots, and scientific illiterates. Such a party is an anachronism in the 21st century.

• 38 sinz54 // May 23, 2009 at 7:04 am

  BA McCormick sez: “What people like Mr. Frum need to work on are new ways of attracting intellectuals and professionals to the Right.”

  We already have the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation and Claremont Institute, among others.

  Intellectual conservatives would go there.

  What we do NOT have today is politicians who care about anything those intellectuals are saying.

  Sarah Palin had clearly not ever bothered to read any of the position papers from those think-tanks, else she would have had some real material to talk about instead of canned talking-points.

  The problem for an intellectual conservative is that no one in government is going to listen to anything he says.
  Conservative politicians (and even more so, talk show hosts) are still ranting about God, guns, gays, abortion and the alleged global warming “hoax.”

  The Left has Obama. We conservatives don’t have any comparable political figures who are young, witty, intellectual, well-read, and can appeal to American brains instead of to their adrenal glands. OK, maybe Eric Cantor comes close.

  I have a challenge for any Republican aspiring to become President: Give a major policy speech that does NOT include God, guns, gays, abortion or Al Gore.

• 39 ottovbvs // May 23, 2009 at 7:06 am

  sinz54
  wrote 15 minutes ago

  “The Dems are notorious for picking a conservative or Republican target who is unpopular with the public–and then smearing the whole GOP with it. I remember how they used to name-drop “Gingrich” into ever speech in the 1990s.”

  ……And this of course is a completely unknown political tactic invented by the Democrats and never used or practised by the Republican party……Yes and pigs have wings……What you don’t recognize is that the GOP has indeed become the party of talk radio and cable tv…..It animates everything that happens on the right.

• 40 Chekote // May 23, 2009 at 7:17 am

  “I love Mark Levin the serious commentator… Mark Levin the “entertainer” gets on my nerves.”

  I agree. His book Liberty & Tyranny is very informative and well written. At first, I thought he was funny but I have recently turned him off. I stopped listening to Hannity too who repeats the same things over and over. Rush is still the best entertainer but he needs to stop commenting about evolution since he obviously doesn’t know what he is talking about.

• 41 Chekote // May 23, 2009 at 7:19 am

  “Because by personalizing the conflicts within the GOP, Frum avoids having to deal with the policy changes that are necessary. Just blame Limbaugh (without ever explaining just what national issues Limbaugh is wrong about).’

  Completely agree. If Frum thinks that by getting rid of Limbaugh, Levin and Coulter, would solve all the GOP’s problem he’ll be very disappointed.

• 42 Chekote // May 23, 2009 at 7:28 am

  “Limbaugh has no influence…???”

  Not as much influence as people think he has. Had it been up to Limbaugh and the rest of the talk shows hosts Mac would have NEVER gotten the nomination.

• 43 Chekote // May 23, 2009 at 7:38 am

  “I have a challenge for any Republican aspiring to become President: Give a major policy speech that does NOT include God, guns, gays, abortion or Al Gore.”

  Hear, hear. Sinz, you are on fire this morning Sinz.

• 44 Chekote // May 23, 2009 at 7:44 am

  Very interesting analysis and poll about the current state of the electorate:

  http://themoderatevoice.com/32764/pew-poll-independent-voter-identification-and-centrism-are-surging/

• 45 ottovbvs // May 23, 2009 at 8:02 am

  Unfortunately any sense of self awareness, let alone good manners, has left the Republican party as this press comment suggests:

  “Earlier this week, Pittsburgh radio host Jim Quinn referred to the speaker on his program as this bitch; last week, syndicated radio host Neal Boortz opined how fun it is to watch that hag out there twisting in the wind.

  There has also been a steady stream of taunts about the speakers appearance, and whether its been surgically enhanced. On CNNs State of the Union, Republican strategist Alex Castellanos said, I think if Speaker Pelosi were still capable of human facial expression, wed see shed be embarrassed.

  ………All stuff aimed at the aging white male base…..not going to do you much good with the typical middle of the road woman voter though.

• 46 R.E. Munn // May 23, 2009 at 8:25 am

  Once again, David Frum displays his disdain for the unwashed masses, and makes clear that he thinks them unthinking dolts. I really do think it’s a Canadian thing, and it is why Canada has much more in common with the “enlightened” Euros than it has with the US.

• 47 midcon // May 23, 2009 at 8:35 am

  It is both amazing and frustrating at the same time to witness the “Who Moved My Cheese?” syndrome that is prevalent within the binary conservative community. While interesting to watch, what should the 38% Independents do while the 21% Republicans look for their cheese?

• 48 sinz54 // May 23, 2009 at 9:11 am

  ottovbvs: There were never “good manners” in politics. Abe Lincoln’s opponents caricatured him as an ape, remember? Bush’s liberal opponents caricatured him as a new Hitler too.

  I remember the savage glee from you Lefties when Milton Friedman passed away. Friedman wasn’t even a politician, but you heard “Good riddance, let’s celebrate” from the Left.

  The only ones who actually take pleasure in the deaths of their political opponents are the Left.

• 49 sinz54 // May 23, 2009 at 9:22 am

  Chekote: If the GOP can’t find room for folks like you and me, it will be time to start searching for Ross Perot II.

  Petraeus for President!

• 50 barker13 // May 23, 2009 at 9:49 am

  Re: Chekote; 7:17 AM –

  “Rush is still the best entertainer but he needs to stop commenting about evolution…”

  Honestly, I can’t recall Rush commenting on evolution. What’s he say about it?

  Seriously… while I sometimes have Rush (and other hosts) on my home or office radio while doing other things, I kind tune the noise out when I’m concentrating – like when I’m writing or researching. When I’m paying closer attention to talk radio is when I’m driving – driving alone in a car.

  Rush ain’t exactly what some folks call a “bible thumper.” (*SMILE*) What exactly is his position that you object to, Chekote?

  BILL

• 51 barker13 // May 23, 2009 at 9:53 am

  Re: Chekote; 7:28 AM –

  “Had it been up to Limbaugh and the rest of the talk shows hosts Mac would have NEVER gotten the nomination.”

  True! (*GRIN*)

  I for one wish Limbaugh had MORE influence over the GOP establishment, not less.

  Chekote, how’bout you…???

  BILL

• 52 barker13 // May 23, 2009 at 9:59 am

  Re: R.E. Munn; 8:25 AM –

  Ottawa is one heck of a nice little city, though!

  (*WINK*)

  Re: Sinz54; wrote 31 minutes ago –

  Sinz. As always… I urge you to get involved in Democratic politics, join a Democratic Committee.

  America would be far better off if the Democratic Party had more “Sinz” voices in it, especially as movers and shakers.

  As for Chekote… no… I want him in the GOP.

  (*SMILE*)

  BILL

• 53 midcon // May 23, 2009 at 9:59 am

  sinz, the GOP can’t or won’t find room for you and it is time to start searching. I’ve been saying it and saying it and I am sure I sound like broken record. The GOP doesn’t want you, or me, or others who think that personal personal responsibility and personal liberty go hand in hand.

  Perot received 19% of the vote when he ran. With the GOP standing at 21% (21% of those polled identify themselves as Republicans), it is pretty clear that an indepedent candidate would received a considerable increase in the percentage of the those who identify as Independents (38%). Coupled with the disaffected in both of the parties, it could conceviably provide numbers as high as 40-45% for a third party candidate. More than enough to get a majority of the electoral votes.

• 54 barker13 // May 23, 2009 at 10:20 am

  Re: Midcon; wrote 13 minutes ago –

  (*HEADACHE*)

  Midcon. The two-Party system is our present reality. It makes no difference how many “independents” there are out there except as they shift elections to one of the two Parties.

  Why don’t you start doing “write-in votes” and see how far ya get.

  (*SNORT*)

  “The GOP doesn’t want you, or me, or others who think…”

  Yeah… yeah… yeah…

  Blah… blah… blah…

  As for whether I want you in the GOP… like Sinz, chances are America would be best served with you being in the Democratic Party. That’s just my opinion. Being a registered Democrat myself I don’t speak for the GOP.

  (*CHUCKLE*)

  Hey… as long as I can “trust” folks like you and Sinz to stick to your guns, stick to your principles, refuse to “back your team” in partisan fashion when “your team” is going in what you consider the wrong direction… then, sure, I want you to become a registered, active Democrat.

  BILL

• 55 sinz54 // May 23, 2009 at 10:22 am

  midcon: Perot actually botched his candidacy, when he announced it, then withdrew it, then announced it again–and chose someone out of his depth for running mate. and yet, he still got one-fifth of the voters.

• 56 sinz54 // May 23, 2009 at 10:24 am

  barker13: The Dem base would reject me just as vehemently. I’m a foreign-policy hawk and a strong supporter of a strong military and a safe Israel. And I’m a strong supporter of Rudy Giuliani’s efforts to clean up New York. That’s anathema to the Dem base in Massachusetts, where I live. They’ve called me a “fascist” once too often.

  So I’m caught between the hard right like Dr. Tesla, who calls me a “liberal,” and genuine ultra-liberals, who call me a “fascist.”

• 57 Chekote // May 23, 2009 at 10:32 am

  “Honestly, I can’t recall Rush commenting on evolution. What’s he say about it?”

  Rush is not generally a Bible thumper. But he is a creationist. Here is a link:

  http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_051909/content/01125104.guest.html

  Honestly, I can’t believe so many in the GOP are still stuck in Scopes trial mode. No wonder, we are labeled as anti-science! The problem with Rush and other talk shows hosts is that a large part of their audience is evangelical. So Rush made a big deal about Prop 8 results and totally ignored the ballot initiatives that didn’t go the SoCon way.

• 58 Chekote // May 23, 2009 at 10:34 am

  “I for one wish Limbaugh had MORE influence over the GOP establishment, not less.”

  Depends. On economic issues, I would say yes. On social issues, I would say no.

• 59 Chekote // May 23, 2009 at 10:37 am

  “Perot actually botched his candidacy, when he announced it, then withdrew it, then announced it again–and chose someone out of his depth for running mate. and yet, he still got one-fifth of the voters.”

  I agree. If Perot had stayed in and picked a good running mate, he would have been elected. I would have voted for him.

• 60 midcon // May 23, 2009 at 10:58 am

  barker; I’ve used the write in space on the ballot in the past. I imagine I will do again in the future as well. I can be just as hardline about my independence as the binary parties can be about their dependence.

  Being an independent is who I am, so I’ll stick to that registraton. As a personal liberatarian, but a national interest conservative, I’m like sinz I don’t fit anywhere, which is just fine by me.

  In the meantime I’ll enjoy the majority position of being able to swing elections whichever way we indpedendents decide, in spite of the huffing and puffing of both parties. Individualists have had as much to do with the growth of this country as the joiners did. I’ll just enjoy my individualism thanks.

• 61 sinz54 // May 23, 2009 at 11:57 am

  barker13: Here’s a transcript of Limbaugh on the Theory of Evolution:

  RUSH: “Drudge had as a lead item up there this morning on his page a story from the UK, Sky News: “Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution.” It’s all about how Darwin would be thrilled to be alive today. “Scientists have unveiled a 47-million-year-old fossilised skeleton of a monkey hailed as the missing link in human evolution.” It’s a one-foot, nine-inch-tall monkey, and it’s a lemur monkey described as the eighth wonder of the world. “The search for a direct connection between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom has taken 200 years – but it was presented to the world today –” So I guess this is settled science. We now officially came from a monkey, 47 million years ago. Well, that’s how it’s being presented here. It’s settled science. You know, this is all BS, as far as I’m concerned. Cross species evolution, I don’t think anybody’s ever proven that. They’re going out of their way now to establish evolution as a mechanism for creation, which, of course, you can’t do, but I’m more interested in some other missing link. And that is the missing link between our failing economy and prosperity.”

  [rest of rant about Democratic Party and Obama snipped]

  http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_051909/content/01125104.guest.html

  So Limbaugh believes that the Theory of Evolution is “all BS.”

• 62 ktward // May 23, 2009 at 12:18 pm

  sinz54: “The only ones who actually take pleasure in the deaths of their political opponents are the Left.”

  Aw c’mon, you’re not THAT insulated are you? There’s no shortage of boorish, insufferable sentiment and behavior on both sides. This ilk of finger-pointing is silly and a poor argument for anything.

  barker13: “Being a registered Democrat myself I don’t speak for the GOP.”

  Reeeaaalllyyy. Now my cat-killing curiosity is piqued beyond redemption; do tell, why are you registered as a Dem? I’m on speculative pins and needles here.

  sinz54: “So I’m caught between the hard right like Dr. Tesla, who calls me a “liberal,” and genuine ultra-liberals, who call me a “fascist.”

  Hmmm. Sounds like you’re, mebbe, a [gasp, choke] moderate?

  On Limbaugh, since so many of you have an opinion: I’m a woman, and it’s no secret his feminine following is understandably minimal. Ideologically, physically, rhetorically … well, not to put too fine a point on it, but he’s gross, grossly partisan and often grossly misinformed (though that may be the his entertainment value.) Then again, I feel the same about Ann Coulter, so there ya go.

  midcon: “Individualists have had as much to do with the growth of this country as the joiners did.”

  Indeed.

• 63 ktward // May 23, 2009 at 12:25 pm

  sinz54:

  I’m SO conflicted. Rush’s overall opinion has no scientific basis, but there is indeed legit scientific scrutiny over this latest find:

  http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2009/05/poor_poor_ida_or_overselling_a.php

  Which, I guess, is the point: ANY broadcast media source serves as nothing more than a springboard toward our own fact-finding. To automatically trust any statement on face value is to deny our ability to ascertain fact over media drama.

• 64 midcon // May 23, 2009 at 12:39 pm

  barker just for the record, my write in vote gets me just about as far as your vote for Bob Barr (which sounds strangely like a write in vote) got you. An odd thing for a Democrat to do, considering the reality of the two party system and all.
  um…(*SNORT*)

• 65 ktward // May 23, 2009 at 12:46 pm

  barker13:

  See? midcon demonstrates that I’m not the only one annoyed by your, uhm, ’style’. C’mon, I don’t always agree with you, but even when I do it’s hard to get past this particularly idiosyncratic condescension of yours.

  Let it go, buddy. Really. Let it go.

• 66 midcon // May 23, 2009 at 1:46 pm

  wait a sec kt. I was just snortin’ back cause of the implied wasted vote thing he was trying to break my chops on. I admit barker’s style makes his posts a little more difficult but if he can’t snort then I won’t be able to!

• 67 ktward // May 23, 2009 at 1:54 pm

  Darn you, midcon! Now I’ll never get him to tone it down.

• 68 midcon // May 23, 2009 at 2:00 pm

  Oh he wasn’t going listen to you anyway. At he does maintain a degree of civility which is sorely lacking from so many other posters. Although my one wish would be eliminate some of the spacing between snorts and sentences. That affects the readability more than anything.

• 69 ChristianMiller // May 23, 2009 at 2:16 pm

  Who is “us”?

  Really David, do you think Levin is anything like you politically? So why are you identifying with him?

  As a long-time listener to Levin and a total FAN, I have to let some of you folks and Frum in on something.

  Levin holds drones like that woman in complete contempt. It is something that people on the left do all the time. ALL the time, with those of us on the right. Jennine Garafalo’s recent remarks are a case in point. She claimed all the tea party protesters were racists and also smeared them with a left-wing gaymetrosexual epithet as “tea-baggers”.

  How do Democrats attract folks when this kind of bigotry is advanced?

  Huh David?

  How about Obermann? Any independents switching channels, and hearing his rants and decide to vote GOP because he is such a brain-dead sportscaster with a thesaurus and a writing staff who are full of false charges overstatements and off-the-wall hate? I doubt it. Ubermann, by the way, is waaaaaay more full of hate and vitriol than anyone on talk radio including Savage and Levin.

  We ALL have to be pristine and above all this kind of thing?

  Hey David, you can be civil all you want while they roll all over you.

  Now, Levin attacked this one individual. His show is for people who don’t want to hear the party line. We know what these drones say, and his show is the fastest growing talk radio show right now because there isn’t this ridiculous back and forth between the host and some committed leftist drone. He isn’t going to convince this woman of ANYTHING whether he is nice to her or not, therefore he simply attacks her back. When a Democrat or even left-winger makes a coherent point Mark debates them civilly There are some who will shut him off as is their right, but anyone who hears some of Levin or Rush and then decides they will vote for Democrats in elections is a complete idiot. And idiots and America-haters tend to vote Democrat anyway.

  David here’s some news – you don’t control the message from people who are on “our” side that is non-leftist. I don’t think you are a leftist perhaps indirectly as a statist as Mark would probably peg you. Is that too difficult for you to understand?

  Here is a challenge Frum. What about “Liberty and Tyranny”? Review it? Discuss it? All you are doing is smearing these guys with cherry-picked quotes from hours and hours of talk.

  Hey, any thoughts on Colin Powell? He is in the news spouting pretty much your talking points, why no reference to him all these weeks? Is he a personal enemy?

  Talk about substance with these guys or shut up, it is getting old.

• 70 ChristianMiller // May 23, 2009 at 2:23 pm

  On Barker13,

  The only thing I don’t understand is the SNORT reference. I can only think of some animal or monster. It must really get under the skin of females. Maybe that’s why he does it…

• 71 ktward // May 23, 2009 at 2:26 pm

  Franco:

  You are, indeed, an excellent whining case in point.

• 72 danbmil99 // May 23, 2009 at 2:35 pm

  Franco sez: “Ubermann, by the way, is waaaaaay more full of hate and vitriol than anyone on talk radio including Savage and Levin.”

  What unifies the histrionic left and right wings is contempt — utter, unmitigated contempt for the other side, their arguments, their motives, their secret conspiratorial goals to lay low the values of the righteous.

  It’s really laughable. These people, on both sides, are completely clueless, except when it comes to lathering their audience with the foam of thoughtless rhetoric and making tons of money to do it.

  It’s going to be remembered as a sad time for political discourse.

• 73 ChristianMiller // May 23, 2009 at 2:38 pm

  sinz,

  “So Limbaugh believes that the Theory of Evolution is “all BS.”

  Er, I think he is pointing out how speculation on something found and dated 47 million years ago can be used as evidence of evolution is a pretty big leap.

  These days, in circles where there absence of church dogma, scientific dogma has replaced it. But science is not settled and it never really is. So much of what was “scientific” in previous times has been debunked. Darwins Theory of Evolution has many holes, many things that don’t really fit.

  Creationism is pure belief; I don’t believe it, at least as proposed by the evengelicals who say the earth is 6000 years old, and I doubt Rush believes it. But evolution is only a theory, that makes a hellova lot of sense, and should be treated as such. To just find some fossil and date it at 47 MILLION years old…. I mean, it is mind boggling! I can’t get my head around 47 million years, it flirts dangerously with pure belief.

  I doubt that we know very much scientifically though in the grand scheme of things, so to act and believe like all this is settled is very un-scientific.

• 74 ChristianMiller // May 23, 2009 at 2:48 pm

  danbmil99,

  What unifies the histrionic left and right wings is contempt — utter, unmitigated contempt for the other side, their arguments, their motives, their secret conspiratorial goals to lay low the values of the righteous.

  “It’s really laughable. These people, on both sides, are completely clueless, except when it comes to lathering their audience with the foam of thoughtless rhetoric and making tons of money to do it.”

  You are missing the big picture. Most of the time these guys are talking substance. Obermann isn’t in the same class intellectually as any popular right-wing talk show host. I don’t listen to Levin to hear him blow off left-wingl callers, that takes a few seconds. If he did that all the time he would have no listeners – I’m not that interested, but I don’t mind it when it happens. You read Levin’s words here as Frum presents them and judge him. Fine but you are speaking from ignorance, because Levin has many substantive things to say, perhaps THE most substantive talk show host.

  “It’s going to be remembered as a sad time for political discourse.”

  You need to read some political history. This is nothing.

  And you would do well to develop a philosophy that is more sophisticated than trying to find a middle ground. There IS such a thing as polarity, yin/yang, right/wrong left/right.

• 75 ChristianMiller // May 23, 2009 at 2:51 pm

  “President Obama thinks that Gitmo is a PR disaster that helps Al Qaeda recruit more terrorists, and therefore makes us less safe.”

  Yes, and he’s wrong, isn’t he David?

• 76 ChristianMiller // May 23, 2009 at 2:57 pm

  Gitmo is a PR disaster because of the left-wing media of the US and other countries. They just make this stuff up and attack and they use it to cripple America. Absent a Gitmo, they will make up stuff out of whole cloth. See Israel/Palestine, read Arab newspapers or watch al-Jezeera. They don’t need facts of any kind. You go along with that and you are either a complete naive dupe or a coward.

• 77 ChristianMiller // May 23, 2009 at 2:59 pm

  Why is there no argument going on in the Muslim community about how beheadings and the INTENTIONAL killing of innocents is causing the US to invade and attack their countries?

• 78 Chekote // May 23, 2009 at 3:07 pm

  Franco,

  Rush keeps saying that we came from monkeys. That is not the theory of evolution. Further, the fossil record is more extensive than just one or two items. Finally, genetics show that the structure of our eye is basically made out of the same genes as a fruitfly. It is hard to explain why the same genetic toolbox is so widely used without accepting evolution. In any case, there is more scientific evidence supporting the theory of evolution than to support the earth being created in six days about 6,000 years ago.

  The reason Rush tries to poke holes in the theory of evolution is because it makes his evangelical listeners happy. Above all, the man has never spent time actually studying the issue and should spare us of his ignorant opinion. I do like Rush when he talks politics.

• 79 Dr. Tesla // May 23, 2009 at 3:08 pm

  I think Obama’s attempt to make Limbaugh the face of the Republican party backfired on him. It just got more people listening to Rush, and I think that people that give Rush a chance and listen with an open mind usually end up at least liking him, if not always agreeing with him.

  Frum and other no-names in the GOP are always saying that Rush and Levin drives people away. He cannot prove this assertion, it begs the qeustion….who the hell does Frum and other liberal Republicans bring to the GOP?

  Frum’s advice for the GOP would put all 50 states into the play if the GOP took it. The only coalition that has been proven to beat Democrats is the Reagan coalition of social conservatives, economic conservatives, and national security conservatives.

  Frum advises we throw the social conservatives under the bus, and he doesn’t even seem to be much of an economic conservative. He’s for higher income taxation and a carbon tax.

  I’d be interested to know what I have said in here that constitutes “boorish” behavoir, as one whiny liberal accused me of.

  Also, I would like to know if liberals think it’s even possible for an American to be anti-America? Surely there are plently of Americans out there that don’t like this country. Why must conservatives accept the politically correct premise that all Americans including all Democrats love this country, when we hear liberal Democrats spew anti-America diatribes all the time?

  THere is a significant number of Democrats that don’t like this country. This is not a smear because it’s true, and there is no obligation that liberals or any Americans be partriotic. I would contend that liberals rather look down on people that ARE patriotic, yet at the same time they FLIP out if you simply recognized that they don’t care for America all that much. Democrats always suggesting we are to blame for terrorism and global warming and every other problem or non-poblem in the world, and they always accentuating the negative aspects of our history, like slavery and discrmination, while never mentioning the overall good that America has achieved.

  I don’t see what is soooooooo horrible about what Levin said that lady….I laughed, because if that lady was my wife, and I think I would want to be a gun to my head. David is an uptight poiltically correct liberal, and that’s cool, but being dull isn’t going to unseat Obama in 2012, and if we run a David Frum dull candidate in 2012 like McCain, Obama’s going to win again. And I don’t think David Frum and his merry band in here would be all that disappointed. Their agenda is to attack popular conservatives, not to beat Obama.

• 80 ktward // May 23, 2009 at 3:16 pm

  Franco:

  “You are missing the big picture. Most of the time these guys are talking substance. Obermann isn’t in the same class intellectually as any popular right-wing talk show host.”

  First, it’s spelled Olbermann. Picayune point, perhaps, but you may as well spell it correctly.

  Second, ‘intellectual’ integrity surely seems to be a matter of opinion. I disagree soundly with yours: I actually watch Hannity, Beck & O’Reilly so that I’m getting the full picture. Sure, I have to shower after, but I get the full dose. They. Are. Clowns.

  Olbermann? Yeah, he’s kind of a clown too, but generally has fact to back him up. Where I’ve caught him is not in blatant misrepresentation (where I often catch Hannity, Beck & O’Reilly), but in the sin of omission.

  Point being, there is indeed little substance to these RW Fox hosts, and they only serve to reinforce the beliefs of those that already buy into what they’re selling. Their antics persuade no one.

• 81 Joda Plummer // May 23, 2009 at 3:17 pm

  Well, it’s too bad you let people like Levin and Limbaugh become at least the quasi-spokespeople for the party by repeating every talking point they come up with and defending the kind of behavior exhibited by Levin in this instance.

  That kind of crap can do nothing but exactly what Frum and a few cooler heads say it will do.

  If this is the way we treat people outside of our base… whom we INVITE to call in to these shows and offer an opinion… then we’re looking at a large part of the reason why we have to be as shrill and as mean minded as possible to even get our points heard, let alone agreed with.

  Oh yeah, I listened to Rush from the time he started nationally until he became so far out there in his incitement of hate and the damage to the republican party he was doing on a daily basis. So for me, It’s not a matter of being open minded and letting him grow on me… in fact, exactly the opposite.

• 82 Dr. Tesla // May 23, 2009 at 3:19 pm

  Olbermman has the facts to back him up?

  Heh. That guy is just f—– insane, and he’s obsessed with Bill O’Reilly, who doesn’t seem all that conservative to me.

  What’s funny to me is that Frum doesn’t seem to think Olbermmman and Bill Maher and Al Franken types hurt the Democrat party, yet Limbaugh and Levin and Beck and Hannity are driving people away in droves?

• 83 Dr. Tesla // May 23, 2009 at 3:21 pm

  I have to laugh when somebody says Limbaugh is full of hate.

  This effort to demonize a charasmatic funny man in Limbaugh simply because he doesn’t agree with the Marxist views of leftwingers like Obama is almost Orwellian.

  You either support Obama, or your are hateful. This is the template of the Left.

• 84 ktward // May 23, 2009 at 3:23 pm

  Dr. Tesla:

  “… I think that people that give Rush a chance and listen with an open mind usually end up at least liking him, if not always agreeing with him.”

  I’m so chuckling. You go ahead and run with that, and good luck.

  Boorish behavior? In present context, that’s when one, such as yourself, uses pejoratives and transparent insults to enhance or make one’s point. Which, of course, calls into question the veracity of one’s argument. Good luck with that too.

• 85 macgregor57 // May 23, 2009 at 3:24 pm

  Franco, whoa nelly bud! Tell me I’m wrong, but it sounds as though if I were to agree with every word you wrote you would disagree with me. I say white, you say black, I say black, you say white. Franco, if you keep it up, your head’s gonna explode. It just ain’t worth it pard.

• 86 Dr. Tesla // May 23, 2009 at 3:30 pm

  ktward,

  You are going to accuse anybody that disagrees with you of being the Devil.

  I understand that…it’s predictable, and therefore amusing.

  I will note that Obama and his henchmen have not been bringing up Rush’s name too much since they saw his ratings go through the roof. He is the most vocal and effectivic crictic of Obama, and it is why the Obama adminstratin targeted him. They want to polarize him and discredit him, obviously.

  Watch any liberal news network and noticed how Limbaugh’s name always comes up. Limbaugh even challenged MSNBC to go one month without saying his name and they jsut can’t do it.

  Alexander Hamilton used to be attacked by his opponents in much the same way as Rush. Both were and are excellent rhetoricians and intelligent thinkers. Nobody on the right cares about Olberrman and Michael Moore because we just don’t think they are persuasive. Olbererman and MSNBC hosts have tiny audiences. CNN is irrelevant now and the free market should have washed it away long ago.

• 87 Dr. Tesla // May 23, 2009 at 3:38 pm

  This is off topic, but i saw on the main page of this website an article posted about Elizabeth Edwards telling women to pick the right man.

  Isn’t she still married to John Edwards? Why don’t liberal women EVER divorce their male pig husbands? Is it just low self esteem or what? I understand Hillary needed Bill to remain viable politically but still……

• 88 ktward // May 23, 2009 at 3:41 pm

  Dr. Tesla:

  “You are going to accuse anybody that disagrees with you of being the Devil.”

  Uh-huh.

  You’re as overtly melodramatic and offer equally as insubstantive argument as my teenage daughter.

  Good luck with that too.

• 89 Dr. Tesla // May 23, 2009 at 3:48 pm

  ktward,

  I have yet to see you refute anything that I have said with logic. You just ad hominem attack me as boorish.

  You are callow and seem unable to engage in a debate in the arena of ideas. You appear to have the low emotional IQ of your typical redneck union voter.

• 90 midcon // May 23, 2009 at 3:50 pm

  It is important create as much publicity as possible about Rush Levin (they’re the same person right? heh heh). I have a rather large bet with my brother that the percentage of Republicans will dip down to the high teens before September. It’s 21% at the moment and I am worried it is going to stick there. I think I need some help or I’m going to lose. So the more we see of them in the news, better my chances are.

• 91 midcon // May 23, 2009 at 4:00 pm

  I am less interested in what folks do in the bedroom (and whose bedroom) than I am in what they do in the boardroom, state house, and White House. What they do in those places is within my domain as a voter to judge. God has other measures that I am sure will be brought to bear. In the meantime, I try not cast stones because I not exactly perfect myself and if I’m not mistaken, we admonished to do just that.

• 92 Dr. Tesla // May 23, 2009 at 4:04 pm

  Midcon is an independent thinker. He’s come up with an original statement that just happenes to be the mantra of the Democratic party right now…which is…that the Republican party is on a downward spiral into total irrelevancy. That of course, may true about the Republican party, but not so much the conservative movement.

  Again, if Rush is irrelavant, why can’t Frum and other liberals stop obsessing about him? He obviously is relevant, and there is no evidence that Frum can offer that proves that Rush and Levin are the only reason, if a factor at all, that so called moderates voted for Obama.

  For some reason, I would conclude Obama won because the economy was in the tank, gas prices were high, the housing crisis hit a few weeks before the election, and party in the oval office always gets the blame by the electoral public. SOmehow, I don’t think it was Rush Limbaugh and Levin that led to the massive blowout of McCain. McCain lost the election, not Limbaugh or Levin, and McCain never once appeard on Limbaugh’s or Levin’s shows. McCain hates Rush.

  I just don’t get how anybody can with intellectually honesty blame the problems of the Republican party on popular conservatives like Limbaugh and Levin. If Frum has a better way, why isn’t he more poopular? Why couldn’t he sell any copies of his book? I think to blame opinioinated popular conservatives on the radio for the presidential lost to Obama is just grabbing at straws. Frum asserts that the GOP needs to be less hard right on social issues, yet I didn’t see McCain or Bush mention abortion or gay marriage much. Both parties in general run away from the social issues.

• 93 Dr. Tesla // May 23, 2009 at 4:05 pm

  I like Ann Coulter’s line that liberals have no morals but they are the most judgmental people out there.

• 94 Dr. Tesla // May 23, 2009 at 4:07 pm

  I’d like to know why liberals think we are interested in what they do in the bedroom. I’m pretty damn confident nobody is interested in your bedroom activities. I know think Bush was spying on you in the bedroom, but paranoia is a hallmark of the left.

• 95 Chitown Dem // May 23, 2009 at 4:14 pm

  Interesting Assertion Dr. T,
  Let me remind you that guilt by association tactics never work.
  As far as Wright and Ayers go, isn’t redemption and reintegration into mainstream society an American tradition. As far as Wright goes, I do not take kindly to all his comments and believe his world view is shaped by what happened in the 60’s and 70’s; America has moved on and so should Wright. Also, it is intellectually dishonest to say that this President is somehow tainted just because Wright happened to be his pastor.
  Secondly, there was never any proof or coraborration that Ted Kennedy had been drinking while driving. He was not issued a DUI.
  John Edwards never stands a change of getting elected again!!….Trust me on that front!!
  As far as Al and Jesse go, their kind are an endangered species. Obama’s elections is going to do what JFK’s election did to the Irish….10 years from now, there is not going to be an African American Voting Bloc.

  However, Republican policies have to evolve to include aspirations of every American and let us not forget that we are the party of Lincoln, we represented the union and now a solid majority of our elected representatives are from the former confederacy.
  We are under siege by an ultra conservative southern base that is driving out any sense of fairness or equitability, be it the teaching of junk science in schools or the meshing of church and state. We have to get back to our principles of libertaniasim and reject fear and hate mongering if we ever want to come back as a strong political force in this country!!!

• 96 Chitown Dem // May 23, 2009 at 4:16 pm

  Interesting Assertion Dr. T,
  Let me remind you that guilt by association tactics never work.
  As far as Wright and Ayers go, isn’t redemption and reintegration into mainstream society an American tradition. As far as Wright goes, I do not take kindly to all his comments and believe his world view is shaped by what happened in the 60’s and 70’s; America has moved on and so should Wright. Also, it is intellectually dishonest to say that this President is somehow tainted just because Wright happened to be his pastor.
  Secondly, there was never any proof or coraborration that Ted Kennedy had been drinking while driving. He was not issued a DUI.
  John Edwards never stands a change of getting elected again!!….Trust me on that front!!
  As far as Al and Jesse go, their kind are an endangered species. Obama’s elections is going to do what JFK’s election did to the Irish….10 years from now, there is not going to be an African American Voting Bloc.

  However, Republican policies have to evolve to include aspirations of every American and let us not forget that we are the party of Lincoln, we represented the union and now a solid majority of our elected representatives are from the former confederacy.
  We are under siege by an ultra conservative southern base that is driving out any sense of fairness or equitability, be it the teaching of junk science in schools or the meshing of church and state. We have to get back to our principles of libertaniasim and reject fear and hate mongering if we ever want to come back as a strong political force in this country!!!

• 97 ChristianMiller // May 23, 2009 at 4:24 pm

  ktward , I don’t believe Hannity, O’Reilly or Beck play fast and loose with the facts. Please point me to where they have . I don’t care how Ubermann spells his name -just like Rush’s enemies keep calling him “Rush Limbowe”. Obviously they never listen to him because they can’t even pronounce his name – and he says it quite a lot.

  Anyway, I am NOT a fan of Hannity, especially his radio show, or O’Reilly who is pompous and egomaniacal and not that principled. Beck is okay but he doesn’t interest me that much, and he is a libertarian, unlike Hannity and O’Reilly, who is, as best as I can determine, an O’Reillian or is it O’Reallyan?

  The real thinkers on the airwaves are Rush and Levin and maybe a few others. TV isn’t the only place to get right-wing thoughts, you know.

  “Point being, there is indeed little substance to these RW Fox hosts, and they only serve to reinforce the beliefs of those that already buy into what they’re selling. Their antics persuade no one.”

  These people – none of them, left or right are there to persuade anyone. All of media now is preaching to the self-selected choir. If you believe people are drones, and many are, then you care about what they hear. If you believe people think for themselves, as many do, then no matter what they hear they are relatively immune from influence. But anyone who can be convinced by logical arguments thinks for themselves, so most of these people already have firm opinions. Those who are illogical due to psychological needs or emotional attachments, or who have a warped sense of history, will tend to believe leftist drivel. There are non-thinking conservatives too they tend to be faith based. I can argue with them too. They do tend to vote for the right people as long as they don’t go for Huckabee or his ilk.

  There is one talker I can think of who tries to persuade people, Michael Medved. He is very kind and gracious and I doubt he has converted many people either. He is respectful and eloquent in debate he devotes a whole show to people who call him to disagree. He uses great arguments but the lefties are never convinced.

  I have had probably 1000 debates with people from around the world on all these subjects and I can tell you most people operate out of belief and are overly identified with their beliefs. These people can’t be budged from them no matter what.

  And Frum isn’t doing too well either, just look at the commenters here.

• 98 ChristianMiller // May 23, 2009 at 4:31 pm

  I repeat, David, WHO IS “US”?

• 99 Dr. Tesla // May 23, 2009 at 4:35 pm

  Chitown Dem,

  You are the token Democrat apologist.

  It’s not intellectually dishonest to be disgusted by the fact that Obama chose to attended to associate with a raciste hatemonger in Wright and a former unrepetent terrorist in Ayers. These were not just acquaintances of Obama’s (ie some guys that he saw every now and then at the grocery store). He was friends with both men, and to believe he didn’t know what they were and what they believed, you would have to also believe that Obama is rather naive and just not all that bright.

  The people you choose to associate with does reflect back on you and your own character. To suggest otherwise is, I think, the dishonest arguement.

  Ted Kennedy is as guilty of DUI as Obama was of murdering his ex-wife and the other guy. I can’t believe that Democrats would even contend that there’s no proof he was DUI. He wasn’t issued DUI because he fled the scene…did not even attempt to rescue the girl or stop at the first house to get help. This notion that he just drove off a bridge after a party but wasn’t drunk is laughable.

  The news of John Edwards cheating on his wife dying with cancer came out before the election, yet Obama still won the election in a landslide. My main point was if men like that in the Democrat party do not drive voters away, how can you assert that Limbaugh and Levin do drive people away from the GOP? This is Frum’s core assertion, and it’s just absurd.

  How can you conclude there will be no black voting bloc, when nearly every black person voted for Obama rather than Hillary in the primary despite their politics being nearly identical?

  I don’t see any conservatives advocating for church intrusion into the private life of citizens…I see liberals like you advocating that Christians not be allowed to be Supreme Court justicies, etc, a rather quasi-bigotry of Christians in general.

  You no doubt support teaching global warming in schools, despite no evidence at all that CO2 has any major impact on global temperature. The carbon loading in the atmospher has not decreaseed the past 10 years but global temperature has. The last two years have seen record cold temperatures, something the global warming alarmists don’t like to acknowledge or explain. I don’t think enviromental fear mongering should be in science books, and furthurmore, i dont’ think evolution has been proven. Natural selection is a fact, but it has not been proven that natural selection is a mechanism for cross-species evolution. Natural selection can only perserve or eliminate traits that an species already has…it cannot produce new traits in a species that give rise to the creation of another species.

  Most people that believe in Darwinism have not really thought about the issue…they are just talk it’s “Science” and thus it must be true. For example, how does Darwin’s theory of evolution explain the creation of the two sexes? I don’t see how random mutations could lead to a male sex and a female sex that are attracted to each other and this sex drive leads to reproduction. The ability to reproduce is not necessary for a creature to survive itself.

  I’d be interested to know how a bunch of random mutations all occured simultanesiously in the proper sequence to produce the eye, for example. The eye is incredibly complex, and complexity seems to rule out the notion that it occured through a series of random events. To believe in evolution, you have to believe the statistically impossible is not only probabble but actually has happeneed numerous times.

• 100 Dr. Tesla // May 23, 2009 at 4:38 pm

  I meant to say OJ Simpson, not Obama, murdered his ex wife. Don’t wig out, Obama cultists. It’s going to be ok.

• 101 Dr. Tesla // May 23, 2009 at 4:42 pm

  Franco,

  I made that point last night. He shoudl have named his article “Why They Hate Rush Limbaugh and Levin”, not Why They Hate Us.

  Frum is a Colin Powell Republican. They don’t hate Colin Powell Republicans.

• 102 sinz54 // May 23, 2009 at 5:24 pm

  Franco:
  First of all, the rule of two sexes isn’t universal. Some species of insects reproduce by parthenogenesis. Some species of fungi will reproduce either asexually or sexually, depending on environmental conditions.

  As to scientific theories as how sexual reproduction evolved, go here for starters:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sex

  You know, it’s not like scientists have been sitting around twiddling their thumbs for the past 150 years. Believe me, if you’ve wondered about an issue, so have they.

• 103 sinz54 // May 23, 2009 at 5:28 pm

  Dr. Tesla asks: “I’d like to know why liberals think we are interested in what they do in the bedroom. “

  Because for years, social conservatives supported state sodomy laws, until those got struck down by the Supreme Court in 2003. That case, Lawrence v. Texas, concerned the Texas sodomy law. The petitioners were two gay men who had been arrested by Texas police in their apartment, for engaging in consensual homosexual sex, which was considered a crime under the Texas sodomy law.

• 104 Realist // May 23, 2009 at 5:29 pm

  Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin are shock jocks, plain and simple. Like Howard Stern, they have a hardcore audience that keeps the money rolling in. If they are trying to persuade people of anything, it’s not working.

  I don’t understand why listeners get so defensive when their heroes come under criticism for over-the-top behavior. Do they not consider the effect this behavior might have on conservative voters who just don’t care for these sort of antics? Do they even care?

  If not, then these loudmouths will continue to be albatrosses around the GOP’s neck.

• 105 sinz54 // May 23, 2009 at 5:36 pm

  Franco: Evolution is a theory in the same sense that Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is a theory, or the germ theory of disease is a theory. Each is backed up by a century or more of evidence.

  A scientific theory is not a wild guess. It’s a hypothesis backed up by miles and miles of evidence. The theory of evolution is backed up by just as much experimental evidence as these other theories.

  DNA evidence (which was discovered 100 years after Darwin) shows exactly the type of evolutionary changes to the DNA genetic code that we also see in the fossil record. This is powerful confirmation that the theory of evolution is correct. It is easy to imagine that DNA could have shown patterns totally different from the patterns in the fossil record. But that isn’t the case.

  It’s exactly that type of confirmatory evidence that scientists look for in a theory.

  Much as nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors confirmed Einstein’s theory that mass could be converted into energy.

  Anyone who remains skeptical about the theory of evolution is being just as perverse as anyone who still claims that contagious diseases aren’t caused by germs.

• 106 sinz54 // May 23, 2009 at 5:41 pm

  ktward: I stand by my statement.

  I saw no conservatives taking pleasure in Elizabeth Edwards’ cancer, or Senator Ted Kennedy’s cancer.

  But I saw leftists all over taking pleasure in the deaths of Milton Friedman (a gentle soul if there ever was one), William F. Buckley, Ronald Reagan, and indeed just about anyone who was or is right of center.

  Just last week, Wanda Sykes said (in her attempt at a comedy routine) that she hopes Rush Limbaugh gets kidney failure.

  Well guess what, I’ve got kidney failure. For real. I just got back home from my dialysis session.
  And I didn’t find what she said one bit amusing.

  Go ahead. I’m willing to see you find examples of conservatives who cheered the personal tragedies of liberals, comparable to these examples I’ve cited.

• 107 Chitown Dem // May 23, 2009 at 6:13 pm

  Dr. T,
  Firstly, I am not a Democrat, I am a pragmatist/centrist who believes that lower taxes lead to more investment and creates more jobs, government intrusion into the private lives of citizens is unwarranted and is a violation of individual liberty.
  However, I also believe that we should not waste tax-dollars waging unconstitutional wars and that it is the Government’s prerogative to frame laws keeping the best interests of its citizens in mind while trying not to stifle entrepreneurship.
  However, because I am not socially conservative enough, I guess I am not Republican enough and have tended to observe that the Democrats do not demonize my kind and do have respect for my point-of-view.
  As far as failed marriages and spouse-cheaters go, there are a number on the Republican side, ‘Newt’ is a standard example, we have senator David Vitter and even Former candidate John McCain acknowledged that his first-failed marriage was his biggest moral failure in life.
  However, Newt Gingrich still holds a huge sway over the Republican party, David Vitter has not yet resigned and John McCain might probably yet again win another senate term in Arizona.
  The point I am trying to make is that a person’s own moral failings should not disqualify him/her from office, his record of service and his commitment to the American people should be what matters.
  From the list above, I have a massive amount of respect for John McCain, who I think has passed vastly important legislation during his tenure in the Senate. As far as Newt and Vitter are concerned, the less said about them the better. Though, I do admire Newt’s “Contract with America” and credit the republican party for reducing spending during Clinton’s second term.
  Either ways, I think John Edwards behavior is still inexcusable considering his circumstances and I will be very surprised that he will not be a major political force in the years to come.
  As far as Ted goes, I think he made a bad judgement call that cost a woman her life and should definitely have served time, but I would not go far so as to judge his senate career based on this single event.

• 108 Chitown Dem // May 23, 2009 at 6:15 pm

  think that Frum’s assertion that people like Rush and
  Levin are driving away people is absolutely correct
  Folks like John Edwards or Jesse Jackson do not hold sway over the Democrats as Rush, Sean or Levin do over the Republicans.
  In fact, there is a reason why Republican politicians rush to soothe and apologize to Rush Limbaugh every time they speak ill of him and I do listen in to Rush, Hannity and Levin every now and then.
  As far as evolution and global warming go, skeptics pounce on a few events that warrant further scientific explanation and try to discredit the entire notion.
  This is a case of selective information selection and propagation by organizations that oppose more environmental regulations. Let me give you a parallel to the industry’s ‘Tobacco Hypothesis’
  We all now know that smoking causes lung cancer and there have been a plethora of scientific studies that show and prove the same.
  However, not all smokers die of cancer and not all lung cancer deaths are caused by smoking. This does not imply non-causation and does not negate our earlier hypothesis.
  There is an overwhelming consensus among climatologists that ‘Global Warming’ is indeed a valid phenomena and that we ought to do something about it.
  Scientists are dedicated to their work and do not let ideology trump facts. Being an engineer myself, I have worked with scientists who religiously attend mass every Sunday and come back to work doing what they do best.
  There is a reason people use the term ‘Leap of Faith’, there is no such thing as a Leap of Science. I believe in the existence of God, the notion of heaven and hell and in an after-life where I will be judged for acts in life.
  My Faith helps me be a better husband to my wife and a better son to my parents and a better engineer/scientist at work.
  However, one should not confuse faith and religion with science. We should not be teaching invalid and discredited theories such as intelligent design which are masquerading as science and pose a threat to freethinking, creativity and the future of mankind itself.

• 109 dhampton100 // May 23, 2009 at 7:43 pm

  II just have one question for every person on this blog: WHY DO YOU HATE MY COUNTRY? Answer me WHY DO YOU HATE MY COUNTRY? YOU KNOW YOU DO COME ON; WHY DO YOU HATE MY COUNTRY–What do you mean you dont know what Im talking about? ANSWER ME OR I WILL WATERBOARD YOU—WHY—-WHY—WHY DO YOU HATE MY COUNTRY? Oh my bad, you do never even said anything about my countryI need to take my medicine.OK WHY DO YOU HATE MY COUNTRY—-YOU KNOW WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT,,,,ANSWER ME.ok Im tired now, let me go pick up my paycheck, Im going home now.20 minutes later at home.hello honey how was your day.WHAT.how was your day, honeyWHY DO YOU HATE MY COUNTRYANSWER ME..YOU KNOW WHAT I TALKING ABOUT..honey your off the air now..eat your dinner honey—WHY DO YOU HATE MY COUNTRY?.. Kids walk inhi daddyWHO ARE YOU AND WHY DO YOU HATE MY COUNTRY.. And the Republicans cannot figure out why they are losing members? Ask me Ill tell you.its because you sound crazy.thats why!

• 110 Dr. Tesla // May 23, 2009 at 8:40 pm

  When you have to post a link to freakin’ Wikipeida to explain how the male and female reproductivie systems came about by evolution, I think it’s pretty clear you cannot personally discuss the issue of evolution inteliigently.

  This notion that evolution has been proved is laughable. Show me the evidence that one species evolved into a completely new species. You can’t! You can say over and over that it is true, but you can’t prove it. Leftwingers want to make evolution into a Scientist vs. Christian debate, but that’s identify politics. Nobody is quoting scripture here, and beliving something to be true just because a group that you don’t like, Christians, believes it to be false, is not the scientific method. I don’t get the Left’s absolute hatred of anybody that has a healthy skepiticism of far fetched theories like global warming and evolution via natural selection and random mutations.

• 111 Dr. Tesla // May 23, 2009 at 8:45 pm

  I’m a mechanical engineer.

  I have a proven scientific aptitude that I suspect that few if any of you in here have demonstrated. I know Frum and his merry band of columunists have no scientific credentials.

  31,000 scientists signed just one petition that they did think that science backs up the theory of man-made global warming.

  Alarmism and fearmonger over the environment is not science,…it fact, it’s using science as a prop to advance a political agenda of raising taxes and more government regulation of those eviillllllllllllllll corporations.

  From the 1940’s to the 1970’s, carbon loading increased almost exponentially, yet there was a global cooling trend, leading to the global cooling scare of the 1970’s, lead by magainzes like Newsweek (Frums favorite) that are now promoting global warming.

  ANybody that thinks we are going to die from “too much” CO2 in the atmosphere needs to be in a pyschiatric ward. Even the people who claim there is an environmental doomsday coming, like Al Gore, do not live their lives that way.

• 112 Dr. Tesla // May 23, 2009 at 8:50 pm

  AMERICA SUCKS, BUSH LIED, KIDS DIED, AMERICA IS AN EVIL RACIST BIGOTED COUNTRY THAT KILLS INNOCNET PEOPLE FOR OIL. AMERICA IS A IMPERIALISTIC COUNTRY HELLBENT ON TAKING OVER THE WORLD AND RAPING THE WORLD”S RESOURCES AND BEING A BULLY AND CREATING TERRORISTS AND GLOBAL WARMING. AMERICA IS ARROGANT WITH A BUNCH OF STUPID BIGOTS.

  This was the lady that Mark Levin was talking to, and the lady that Frum wishes to make out as the salt of the earth.

  If you want to be around a person like that, which is at least 1 out of 3 Democrats, that’s cool, but I think most people are with Levin on this one. I’ve got no time for some leftwing jackass that mindlessly bashes this country. And I don’t see the purpose in flogging ourselves for the practice of slavery practiced by other Americans that died a long time ago.

• 113 Dr. Tesla // May 23, 2009 at 8:53 pm

  Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are token Democrats. It’s amusing to me how white Democrats are so quick to throw them under the bus. Where do Jesse Jackson and Obama differ on politics? I just don’t see it.

• 114 Chekote // May 23, 2009 at 9:10 pm

  Franco,

  Check this out:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8

• 115 Dr. Tesla // May 23, 2009 at 9:11 pm

  My point wasn’t that all Republicans are saints. My point was that Frum asserts that Rush Limbaugh, an opionated, charismatic popular radio talk show host, is driving moderates away from the Republican Party, yet he doesn’t seem to notice that the American people didn’t have much a problem with all of Clinton’s scandals and sexual harrassment, and all of the other examples that I gave of egregious misconduct by Democrats. Edwards was vice president in 2004, and had a shot to be the Democrat nominee this year, and he cheated on his wife with CANCER! The press hardly even covered it….the National Enquirer basically forced them to give a little attention to it. I’m pretty sure Media Matters still denies Edwards had an affair.

  There are other examples, such as Bill Maher expressing his hope that Cheney be killed overseas (Frum appeared on the Bill Maher Show, just to underscore that guy’s hypocrisy). There’s Wanda Sykes wishing Rush Limbaugh would die. There was some liberal Democrat back in the day wishing Clarence Thomas would die of a heart attack. THere were movies by leftist movie directors about assasinating Bush. It goes on and on and on, yet Frum is suggesting the “hate” on Rush’s and Levin’s show drives moderates away from the GOP to the Democrat party? I just don’t get that reasoning if you know anything at all about Democrats and liberals.

• 116 Dr. Tesla // May 23, 2009 at 9:22 pm

  To compare Limbaugh to Howard Stern is laughable. STern was only on about 40 stations before he went to satellite, and LImbaugh is on 600 plus stations. Limbaugh talks about politics and current events, Stern just talks about how aroused he is by some bimbo who is ostensibly standing naked in his studio.

  Anybody can do what STern does…there are a thousand local shock jocks on the radio now in the morning just like Stern.

  No leftwinger has proven they can get ratings like Rush. Air America hosts are all failures. The other conservative talk show hosts are not even in the same league as Rush.

  I don’t know what Ted Kennedy has done in his senate careeer that makes up for his DUI, the resulting death of a woman that he was going to the beach to have sex with although he was married at the time. The fact that he fled the scene and did not report it until the next day….the fact that many people believed the young woman survived for several hours after the acccident….that she actually died from lack of oxygen in the car, not drowning, and her life could have been saved if Ted Kennedy arrogance ass wasn’t more concerned about saving his political careeer.

  Ted Kennedy deserves the lowest rung in hell. The fact that liberals apologize for this jackass and rally around him and put him forth as some kind of role model just underscores my point that if Ted Kennedy doesn’t drive people away from the Democrat party, how the hell can Frum assert Rush drives people away from the Republican party? He’s never killed anybody.

  Another thing I should point out is that Kennedy was driving that night even though is license had been suspended for previious DUIs in which he ran red lights, etc. What a man!

• 117 Chitown Dem // May 23, 2009 at 9:27 pm

  Dr T,
  You might want to look up documented cases of reproductive isolation, island dwarfism or island gigantism; where a single species develops barriers to breeding due to environmental factors and therefore evolve into a new distinct species. This process has been extensively studied through DNA analysis and there is a ton of scientific evidence supporting the evolutionary explanation of speciation.
  In fact, domestication is also another example of creating an entirely new species, the domestic sheep is now considered a distinct species that is incapable of producing a fertile offspring with its ancestor, the wild sheep.

• 118 Dr. Tesla // May 23, 2009 at 9:37 pm

  No
  Chitown

  The challenge for you is to explain to “the people” this evidence that you think exists in a way that we can understand. Pretend we are colllege students that are eager to learn, and it’s your job to teach us. Your approach seems to be to throw out a bunch of stuff in a vague sense, not go into specifics or elaborate, but instruct me to go look up these “documented cases”.

  Again, the human body is an extremely complex machine. Do random mutations just happen to occur in such a sequence that produces something useful like an ear or an eye? Do you really believe that is statistically possible, and not only that, but probable and has occurred over and over numerous times?

  It seems to me that an ear or an eye would have to be something set out to achieve by a designer, as random mutations could not “know” that vision would be useful to a creature.

  Again, I do not see how the theory of evolution can explain the development of the male and female reproductive systems. Again, there is a purpose, a function of reproductive systems, and it seems amazing to me that people believe that they just randomly evolved and the male and female just happened to be sexually attracted to each other and able to produce offspring. It’s just common sense that random mutations would not lead to something more complex and something with a purpose that must be thought of in advance, like reproduction, vision, and hearing.

• 119 Chitown Dem // May 23, 2009 at 10:01 pm

  Dr T,
  First of all, I do not think I am vague in any sense, I have supported my case with specific examples and have even explained what the terms mean.
  Secondly, you seem to be upset that I have negated your earlier points about showing you evidence that one species evolved into a different species.
  Second of all, Evolution does not support your notion that ‘Things just happened randomly’, this is just false propaganda that can be attributed to ‘Intelligent design’ proponents who would want to gain traction for their agenda. Complex systems like the ‘Eye’ did not suddenly appear in humans or other organisms through a series of mutations, but rather evolved during the ‘Cambrian Explosion’ through a series of sequences to what we know it today.
  Also, it would help if you do some background research and support your assertions instead of going on a diatribe against evolution.
  It is obvious from your posts that you lack the intellectual curiosity to check facts and figures and it is equally astounding that you claim to have a proven scientific aptitude, while demonstrating a condescending ignorance of even the most simple and basic facets of evolution.

• 120 Dr. Tesla // May 23, 2009 at 10:09 pm

  Name one species that evolved into another species. I want the specific name of both species, and the proof that that the first evolved into the other.

  No pressure.

  To assert that I’m not intellectually curious is laughable, as I’m asking intelligent questions about Darwinism, and you are waffling away and unable to articlate a defense of anything but to throw out some random things you read on Wikipedia. You got to do better than that.

  Again, if you think the body is so simplistic that it could just occur as the result of random mutations that all just happen to occur in such a sequence to propduce something useful, I do not think you can be considered a man of logic. This is like asserting that a car, machine much less complex than the human body, could just assemble by itself without any thought being necessary.

  You can ad hominem proponents of intelligent design all you want, but that does not prove their theory wrong, and to be honest, I’ve never read anything by the intelligent design scientists. If I’m basically supporting their hypothesis without reading it first, there is probably something to it.

  Why do leftwingers get so emotional about evolution? What’s it to you if I don’t believe it? Is it necessary to believe in evolution to be a successful engineer, physician, lawyer, etc? I don’t think so. You are so uptight and dogmatic about it that you come across as a zealot. I’m just poking holes in your little precious theory because I am interested in the truth.

• 121 Birdie // May 23, 2009 at 10:43 pm

  Mark Levin is overwhelming brilliant and caring; and, no one should tune in in the middle of his dissertations! While listening to him one realizes his concern that a “community organizer” — now president of the United States of America, is actively trying to ‘community organize’ the rest of the world at America’s expense! Hence Levin’s exasperation/stress-relieving humor which is not easily understood by the willingly fooled public.

• 122 Dr. Tesla // May 23, 2009 at 10:52 pm

  Yo Sinz,

  I didn’t realize the Republican Party platform included a central tenet of opposing sodomy.

  I would like to know exacly such laws against sodomy would be enforced. How did the cops just happen to know that two gay men were having anal sex in a hotel room in Texas and even catch them in the act? That’s all rather curious to me.

  I’m a social conservative, and I’ve never contemplated the idea that sodomy shoudl be illegal.

• 123 SFTor // May 23, 2009 at 11:30 pm

  Are there really creationists voicing their views here? Are they considered good Republicans? Serious-minded people here must realize that the Republicans only have another ball and chain to drag along with those people around.

  I’m a Democrat, but I want a strong and viable Republican Party.

  Creationists hold views suited for a distant time in history, and must simply be overridden. They have nothing to contribute.

• 124 SFTor // May 23, 2009 at 11:36 pm

  One comment on Mr. Levin’s comments:

  uncharitable and offensive, at a minimum? Especially to a caller who simply dared voice political disagreement

• 125 Dr. Tesla // May 23, 2009 at 11:39 pm

  Is SFTor’s intolerance of people that are skepitcal of evolution consistent with his assertion that Levin was intolerant of a liberal who “simply dared voice political disagreement”?

  Here’s why Frum hates Levin…..Levin destroyed him on radio:

  http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=291333

• 126 SFTor // May 23, 2009 at 11:40 pm

  One more comment, to Dr. Tesla: you seem fairly undogmatic. Why is it important to you to drag your religion into science?

  It doesn’t belong there.

• 127 SFTor // May 23, 2009 at 11:44 pm

  Mark Levin did not disagree with a point of view. He belittled and verbally brutalized the caller. That would be the essence of intolerance.

  I am not intolerant of creationists. I strongly assert that they need to keep their religion out of science, and out of the science classrooms.

  It has no business there.

• 128 Dr. Tesla // May 23, 2009 at 11:44 pm

  And yeah,

  I just want to go on record as saying that I’m for a viable Democrat party. Let’s all be dishonest, shall we?

• 129 SFTor // May 23, 2009 at 11:46 pm

  Please don’t call me names.

  I will defend your freedom to believe any day. I will not stand by and watch archaic belief systems mixed in with scientific efforts to understand the physical world.

• 130 SFTor // May 23, 2009 at 11:47 pm

  This country needs at least two parties to maintain any serious pretense of a functioning democracy.

• 131 Dr. Tesla // May 23, 2009 at 11:48 pm

  SFTer,

  Where is the transcript of what the caller said? I don’t see that anywhere, just Levin’s response. Do you think Frum may have a reason for leaving out that part?

  You leftwingrs love to bash America, and then play the victim when people criticize you for it.

  I don’t think you’ve done anything here to make the case for evolution. Stating it’s science does not make it so. Again, name a species that evolved into another species, and provide the proof. YOu can’t do it, and if you can’t prove it, it’s not science, it’s dogma.

  So, keep your evolution religion out of the classrooom, guy. Or leave it in, I don’t care, either way. A belief in evolution is not necessary for success in this life, as liberals seem to think.

• 132 SFTor // May 23, 2009 at 11:49 pm

  Dr. Tesla, do you believe that the world was created by a Supreme Being?

• 133 Dr. Tesla // May 23, 2009 at 11:49 pm

  Why does the county need two parties, if you believe the Democrat vision of high taxes, out of control spending, global warming alarmism, nationanlized healthcare and everything else, etc, to be the way to go?

• 134 Dr. Tesla // May 23, 2009 at 11:51 pm

  SFTer,

  I don’t believe that the complex human body is the result of random mutations taht all just magically occurred at the same time in the right sequence to produce something useful, like the eye.

  But since you are the Champion of Science, let me bend over and grab the ankles for my unacceptable skepticism.

• 135 Dr. Tesla // May 23, 2009 at 11:53 pm

  Oh, that’s right, Democrats need two parties so they can blame the other party for the failures of the Democrat’s own policies. If there’s just one party, it’s kind of hard to place blame elsewhere.

• 136 Dr. Tesla // May 23, 2009 at 11:55 pm

  But seriously, guys, I want a vibrant Democrat party. I just love losing elections to people that I oppose on every issue. This is not the least bit disingenous and smarmy on my part.

• 137 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 12:01 am

  Dr. Tesla, do you believe that the world was created by a Supreme Being?

• 138 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 12:01 am

  Right now, Democrats controll both the Executive Branch and the Congress. Unemployment is at 10%.

  Is this the change we were waiting for?

• 139 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 12:03 am

  SFTor,

  I think there is a God, creator, designer of some sort, of human life. I don’t know if there is necessarily an after-life though, as thouse evil Christians you hate so much believe.

• 140 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 12:06 am

  So you oppose the Obama Administration on sending more troops to Afghanistan? Or not using the listing of polar bears under Endangered Species Act as a means to cut greenhouse gases?

• 141 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 12:10 am

  SFTer,

  I don’t oppose every little thing Obama does. I do oppopse his out of control spending, his power grab govnerment takeover of the auto and financial industries, his desire to do the same with healthcare, his desire to raise taxes, his opposition to drilling for oil in America, etc. I oppose his bizarre desire to release pictures of soldiers ostensibly engaged in torture…what purpose and good does this serve the soldiers overseas now? I oppose his bizarre desire to release terrorrists in Guantaonomo into the United States prison system and to treat them as though they were no different than some kid caught smoking pot.

• 142 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 12:16 am

  You have every right to believe that there is a God. But that is religious faith. To mix it with scientific inquiriy is absurd. Science explores the physical world, and the physical world only. Once you introduce a Supreme Being into science you corrupt its core mechanisms.

  I am also not so sure that you want science to come meddle in your Church.

  To your questions, especially the one about whether one species has turned into another: it is not uncommon. A simple example is the long succession of species that ancestors of the modern horse. It started with Eohippus (and before Eohippus the Condylarth.) There are several others in that chain. Yet this is not the same as one species “turning into” another. It is more about groups of a species becoming isolated from each other. Over time they develop far enough from each other that they no longer interbreed. One species may then die out, or not.

• 143 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 12:22 am

  Again,

  I have not brought God into the evolution debate. You did.

  You want to play identify poolitics here…your premise is that if a person believes in God or is a Christian, than he must be anti-science. This is absurd, as many of the laws of physics were discovered by Christians and other men of faith.

  Being an atheist does not mean you understand science by default.

  How did the eye occur via evolution? How did the male and female reproduction systems develop? How do random mutations lead to organs and systems that have a certain function that would seem to be more the result of purposeful design rather than the happy result of random mutations?

  Being a bigot does not make you a man of science, guy, and you do have some intolerance of Christians and people that believe there is a god. I’d lose that if I were you. Nobody likes an intolerant redneck.

• 144 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 12:23 am

  You have every right to believe that there is a God. But that is religious faith. To mix it with scientific inquiriy is absurd. Science explores the physical world, and the physical world only. Once you introduce a Supreme Being into science you corrupt its core mechanisms.

  I am also not so sure that you want science to come meddle in your Church.

  To your questions, especially the one about whether one species has turned into another: it is not uncommon. A simple example is the long succession of species that ancestors of the modern horse. It started with Eohippus (and before Eohippus the Condylarth.) There are several others in that chain. Yet this is not the same as one species “turning into” another. It is more about groups of a species becoming isolated from each other. Over time they develop far enough from each other that they no longer interbreed. One species may then die out, or not.

• 145 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 12:25 am

  Didn’t he post this already?

• 146 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 12:26 am

  So you are saying that you are simply criticizing the theory of evolution, as it exists, because you do not see that it explains biological history well?

  Or are you saying that you fundamentally disagree, and that only a Supreme Being could have been able to create the world as we know it?

• 147 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 12:27 am

  What part of my arguement against evolution has to do with my belief there is a God.

  Where do I assert that evolution is wrong because there is a God?

  I have poked holes in the theory of evolution from a scientific standpoint. It’s amusing to me that leftwnigers are so dogmatic about evolution that they think that it cannot be challenged…..the theory has never been proven. You can’t name one species that evolved into another species, and provided undeniable proof of it.

• 148 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 12:31 am

  I criticize the theory of evolution of many fronts.

  First, I do not believe natural selection can be a mechanism of cross-species evolution, as Darwin proposed. Natural selection only perserves or eliminates traits that an organism already has. Thus, it cannot be a mechanism for the generation of new traits and by default, the creation of new species.

  Secondly, I do not beleive greater complexity happens as the result of random mutations. This defies logic.

• 149 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 12:31 am

  So you are saying that you are simply criticizing the theory of evolution, as it exists, because you do not see that it explains biological history well?

  Or are you saying that you fundamentally disagree, and that only a Supreme Being could have been able to create the world as we know it?

• 150 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 12:34 am

  Why does this guy post everything twice?

  WHy does this guy post everything twice?

• 151 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 12:34 am

  I don’t know what’s going on with my postings, they show up twice. I hit the send button once.

  So does your criticism of the theory of evolution lead you to believe that the world was created by a Supreme Being?

  Did you hold that belief before you started your criticism of the scientific theory, or did your distrust come first, and your faith second?

• 152 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 12:37 am

  Why is it so important to liberals that everybody believe in evolution? So what if people don’t believe in it…how does that affect you? I don’t get this hatred that the Left has for us heretics that dare be skeptical of theory that has not been proven, and I’ll be so bold as to say, it never will be proven true. It’s not science if you can’t prove it. Just speculation…not all that different from religion….an article of faith.

• 153 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 12:38 am

  Your assertion that evolution is unable to generate new traits and organs is incorrect, by the way.

  There are several mechanisms that can lead to new traits. If my memory serves me one of them is called gene duplication. It is well documented.

• 154 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 12:38 am

  Why can’t you defend your Darwinism without bringing up my personal belief in God?

• 155 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 12:40 am

  It is not important to me that anyone believe in evolution. If a new theory comes along that better explains the history of life on this Earth, so be it. What is important to me is that religion be kept out of science and science education.

  It has no business there.

• 156 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 12:42 am

  I asked you whether you criticize the theory of evolution based on your perception of it being unsatisfactory, or because it is in conflict with the Bible.

  Which is it?

• 157 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 12:42 am

  Of course, all Darwininsts throw out terms like “gene duplication” and “genetic drift”, but I can never get them to elaborate. But you always claim it’s well documented.

  Darwin’s theory, which you subscribe to, was that one species evolves from another via natural selection and random mutations. Do you deny this? This is what I’m debating, not evolution via “gene duplication”. You seem to be desparate that evolution be true, and you are not particiularly concerned as to what mechanism.

  IF I were to logically show that your “gene duplication” could not lead to evolution, you would simply replace that wiwth another mechanism. You want to believe evolution no matter what. I understand that. But I have always wondered why….are you afraid that there might be a God? If so, why?

• 158 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 12:44 am

  SFTer,

  I think the answer to your question is obvious, if you listen to what I post. I have no quoted Scripture have I?

  Again, why are you unable to discuss evolution without bringing up my views on religion? It’s amusing how liberals always make it about the person they are debating rather than the theory of evolution.

• 159 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 12:47 am

  Prediction: He’s about to throw Darwin under the bus, but still assert evolution is true.

• 160 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 12:47 am

  I asked you whether you criticize the theory of evolution based on your perception of it being unsatisfactory, or because it is in conflict with the Bible.

  Which is it?

• 161 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 12:51 am

  Again,

  I asked you to show me where I quoted the Bible, as I never did, and the question makes no sense. Why are you dragging religion into this, other than a transparent attempt to descredit me as a “Christian”, and thus “anti-science”, in your simplistic logic?

• 162 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 12:52 am

  This is not about evolution, it is about religion and science, and religion and the public space. Teaching creationism or any variant of it is in breach of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

  That’s the point.

• 163 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 12:55 am

  Um, I’m not talking about teaching creationism or evolution in schools. You keep bringing that up.

  I’m talking about the theory of evolution, which I do not believe has been proven. There’s no evidence of cross species evolution via natural selection and random mutations as Darwin contended in his theory.

  I don’t care if they teach evolution in schools, but I don’t think it shoudl be taught as science, just a theory that has not been proven. SPeculation is not science, and has no place in science courses. I would move Darwinism over to philosophy /religion types of course.

• 164 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 12:57 am

  I am not trying to discredit you for being a Christian. There are many good Christians, scientists among them.

  The truth is that you are arguing against the theory of evolution because it conflicts with your faith.

  This country was founded by people who were smart enough to forbid the establishment of religion by the State. That is why your religion has no place in the science classroom, and that is why you are free to believe and worship as you see fit.

• 165 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 12:58 am

  It would seem that if cross specices evolution was so indisputable, that Darwinists could rattle off numerous species and the ones that they evolved from and provide the evidence that each case of evolution is true. I have yet to see a Darwninists be able to do this.

• 166 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 1:00 am

  The truth is, you are trying to read my mind rather than refute the logic that I post in here.

  You want to make it about religion. I want the discussion about the the scientific merits of Darwinism and evolution. That’s not a debate you seem to want to have, so we are just going to go in circles here.

  Been fun.

• 167 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 1:03 am

  The scientific looks at evolution as a given. It is demonstrated every time a microbe becomes resistant to a drug. It is demonstrated whenever adult Scandinavians drink milk with no ill effects, whereas Pacific Islanders can’t. It is demonstrated when you look at 99% of species having walked the Earth are today extinct, after having existed for millions of years in many cases. It is demonstrated when moth species in the Midlands change color, permanently, to darkening of tree bark from industrial soot.

  The current theory will be added to and altered as research data dictate.

• 168 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 1:05 am

  A microbe becomes resistant to drugs through natural selection, not cross species evolution.

  If you don’t even understand the difference between natural selection and evolution, you are truly ignorant and you should go educated yourself before you start lecturing people on things you don’t understand.

  Geez.

  It’s amazing how many liberals conflate natural selection with evolution.

• 169 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 1:10 am

  Not each member of a species is alike. Some members within a species have traits that are beneficial in a given environment while others do not. Some bacteria within a specices are resistant to a drug due to certain traits they have…the bacteria without these traits die, and the ones that survive do not become resistant via evolution to a new species…they are resistant because they have a genetic trait that the other members of their species do not.

  Natural selection IS not evolution. Liberals, you need to get this fact right before you start talking about evolution.

• 170 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 1:11 am

  You seem to be requiring specific data points from people you discuss with on a web site. Have you ever sought out the information on your own, from books that explain biological evolution? I can recommend The Ancestor’s Tale by Richard Dawkins. It’s quite thorough.

  And if you’d like me to run along to find supporting data for the theory of evolution, would it be OK to ask you to list some positive evidence for Creationism? “They eye is too complicated, it had to be God” just won’t do. That is not proof of a Creator. That is proof of your disagreement with biology. I am talking about a trace in nature of the Supreme Being’s Act of Creation. Let’s say, for instance, some indication that the entire biosphere was created in its present form at a particular time, “and it was good,” and it hasn’t change since. Do you have any such evidence?

• 171 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 1:14 am

  Wrong, Dr. Tesla.

  Change over time on the micro level is part of evolution. Sorry, no need to discuss that one further.

  The rest of your argument is God of the Gaps stuff. I’d be careful with that one. One day there will be so few gaps left that you’ll lose him altogether.

• 172 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 1:21 am

  SFTer,

  I think you are projecting, my friend. You are the one that seems hung up on “dem der” Christians.

  Instead of engaging in irrational bigotry toward the Christian folk, maybe you should spend a little time understanding basic biology and the difference between natural selection and cross specices evolution.

• 173 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 1:21 am

  OK, I’ll try this one more time. You are still on your speciation kick.

  Condylarth to Eohippus to Mesohippus, to several others, to Hippus Hippus, the modern horse.

  Is that enough speciation for you? Or do you need to see a dog turn into a cat in the lab?

• 174 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 1:26 am

  Natural selection is the driver in evolution, Dr. Tesla.

  No natural selection, no evolution in most historical cases. Natural selection is however not the only driver of evolution.

  I am sure you can name a couple of others for me, right?

  I am still waiting for positive evidence of creationism. Unless you can tell me that you do not believe the world was created by a Supreme Being.

• 175 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 1:33 am

  Still thinking up some good insults, Dr. Tesla? They are always so effective in a discussion.

• 176 danbmil99 // May 24, 2009 at 1:35 am

  Franco:

  “To just find some fossil and date it at 47 MILLION years old…. I mean, it is mind boggling! I can’t get my head around 47 million years, it flirts dangerously with pure belief.”

  What are you gabbing on about? It’s carbon dated. That’s science, settled science. Elements have isotopes, with half-lives. The fact that you can’t get your head around it means — you can’t get your head around it.

  “I doubt that we know very much scientifically though in the grand scheme of things, so to act and believe like all this is settled is very un-scientific.”

  No one is saying everything about evolution is settled. What *is* settled, except for nutjobs or the ignorant, is the fact that evolution did take place, and that there is a clear chain of evolution from single-celled organisms up to all the species found on earth today, including humans. To believe otherwise at this point is really very similar to insisting the world is flat, or the sun revolves around the earth.

  The problem with this kind of mamsy-pamsy talk — you don’t even sound like you really believe it — but everyone on the right spouts it to keep the fringers happy. That’s bad policy. In return for keeping your base happy, you lose *all* credibility with anyone who has an education and knows a bit about what science really is.

  Then, when you want to make some reasonable arguments about climate change, no one believes you, because you’ve stuck up for non-science once too often.

• 177 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 1:40 am

  Ah, he’s playing the victim card now, after his arrogant approach to this debate (Your’re just a dumb Christian), despite my never claiming to be Christian or using any kind of religious argument against the theory of evolution.

  You let your hate of Christians dictate what you believe. If the Christians in general think something is not true, such as evolution, you automatically think it is true. This is identity poiltics, not approaching a subject with an open mind.

  You simply don’t understand basic biology that is crucial for a person to understand if he wants to talk evolution, but yet you want to hold yourself up as a man of science. You are ignorant, and even worse, you are arrogant in that ignorance. You need to be insulted, or you will never learn to take the time to study things before you comment on them.

  Drug resistant bacteria is proof of cross species evolution!!!!!! You said that.

  I’m just pointing out what you said, so if you consider it an insult, maybe you should try to be less ignorant in the future.

• 178 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 1:41 am

  Here is the truth about you, Dr. Tesla:

  you had the Bible spoon-fed to you at some point in your life. Now you have found a scientific theory that has given you some heartburn, because it seems to contradict the mythology of this very old book. This bothers you a great deal. By misrepresenting the theory and twisting the words of people who discuss with you, you feel at liberty to call them derogatory names. You believe this is winning. The reality is that it is why you and people like you have lost all power in national government. A majority of Americans, the smartest and best people in the world, have decided that you cannot be trusted with power, because you lack the intellectual honesty, no the plain honesty and decency, to wield it wisely. Those are the facts on the ground, as they say.

  Still looking for that positive evidence of creation by Supreme Being by the way?

• 179 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 1:41 am

  There goes Dan the Man, whose thesis is evolution is true because it’s settled science. No proof required.

• 180 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 1:45 am

  Here’s the truth about you SFTEr.

  You are this redneck trailer trash leftwinger who thinks that by being an atheist, people will think you are a “smart” guy. But your anti-Christian bigotry does not confer intelligence upon you, and the fact that you think that drug resistant bacteria is evidence of evolution proves you are dumbass.

  I’m a mechanical engineer. You are a loser anti-Christian bigot redneck who conflates natural selection with evolution but looks down his nose at religious people.

• 181 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 1:47 am

  danbmill, I am a Democrat. I find your point of view refreshing. My concern about AGW is from the left. The environmental movement is being dishonest, and it’s going to come back and bite all of us. It is losing what little credibility they have by crying wolf over this. The scientific establishment is losing its credibility by not taking a clear stand against the alarmism.

• 182 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 1:51 am

  “The scientific looks at evolution as a given. It is demonstrated every time a microbe becomes resistant to a drug” SFTor, Guardian of Science and Obama supporter

  Gobama!

• 183 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 1:55 am

  So you no longer think I said “cross-species evolution” anymore, Dr. Tesla? You would be better for it if you didn’t misrepresent other people’s. I simply gave you known instances of the evolutionary process that we can observe. You probably know that speciation is a very slow process, but it doesn’t suit your argument, so you ignore it.

  A mechanical engineer? Oh my.

  I think Nicola Tesla would object to your rudeness to other people. He was known as a dyed-in-the-wool gentleman, albeit a little kooky. I wonder if he would have endorsed creationism? I think we know the answer to that one.

  Once you are done insulting people I for one am ready to hear your positive arguments for creationism, and most importantly, why they are not based on religious belief.

  If you think back that was the point. You want to commingle religion and science, I am happy to know that this country will not let you do it.

• 184 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 1:58 am

  I think Nicola Tesla would object to you using him as a prop, as I think he would understand that drug resistant bacteria results from natural selection, not from evolution, as you ignorantly asserted.

  You can attack religious people all day. That only demonstrates that you hate religious people, and it doesn’t override the fact you are one stupid jackass.

• 185 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 2:02 am

  Evolution is demonstrated by bacteria evolving new traits.

  It’s rather telling that you have a problem with that. It is not speciation, but it certainly is evolution.

  I have given you one perfectly fine example of speciation, and you ignore it.

  It’s good to see that you don’t believe in scientific dating methods. Good one. I suppose you believe that God created the Earth and all that’s in it around 4670 BC. Would that be about right, Dr. Tesla?

  I wonder how often your boss thinks about firing you.

• 186 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 2:06 am

  You keep coming back with this bewildering statement that natural selection and evolution have nothing to do with each other. Natural selection is at the heart of the theory of evolution. Evolution happens because of natural selection, in most but not all cases.

  What is it about that that you don’t understand?

• 187 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 2:07 am

  You said this: “The scientific looks at evolution as a given. It is demonstrated every time a microbe becomes resistant to a drug”

  Drug resistant bacteria have not evolved from another species of bacteria. It’s simply bacteria within the species that has a certain trait that makes it resistant to the drug.

  You assert this is evolution. It’s not. It’s natural selection.

  I know….blah blah “you’re a creationist” blah blah. Why are atheists so militant and angry? I don’t get it.

• 188 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 2:09 am

  Um,

  You confuse natural selection with evolution. You think the two are the same thing. You have to think that if you believe drug resistant bacteria is proof of evolution. Drug resistant bacteria has not evolved into another species as you seem to think. This is so ignorant it’s funny.

• 189 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 2:12 am

  Are we done, perhaps?

  No signs of the Creator anywhere in the fossil record?

  Darn.

• 190 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 2:14 am

  SFTer,

  I have to concede that you are the greatest evidence that Intelligent Design may not be logical.

• 191 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 2:16 am

  If there is a Creator, he really dropped the ball when he was creating this SFTer hick. This guy just doubles down when his ignorance has been exposed.

• 192 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 2:19 am

  No, Dr. T.

  Natural selection is the removal of the bacteria that do not have resistance. You are left with the bacteria that have resistance. They reproduce, and over time you have a population of bacteria that is resistant to the agent. That is evolution. It is not speciation, and I never said it was.

  I am not angry about you being a creationist. First of all, if you believe that God created the Earth as we know it, I think you should come out and say it. It would be the honest thing to do.

• 193 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 2:24 am

  Um,

  Evolution is the theory that one species originates from anothers species through natural selection and random mutations.

  A species becoming more resistant to a drug is not evidence of evolution, as, obviously, the species is still the same.

  THere is no such thing as evolution within a species. Changes within a species is natural selection, not evolution.

  I think the honest thign for you to do is just admit you hate Christians and you are a bigot. You are no different from a racist, sexist, homophobe, it’s all bigotry aimed at different groups of people. I understand you don’t like being mocked, but since you like to attack religious people, I can’t help but ridicule you for being so ignorant on what natural selection is vs. what evolution is.

• 194 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 2:25 am

  Mr. T:

  To watch you work hard to come up with ostensibly clever insults gives interesting insights into your inferiority complex.

  Do you notice that you do this yourself, or is it compulsive?

• 195 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 2:25 am

  “The scientific looks at evolution as a given. It is demonstrated every time a microbe becomes resistant to a drug” SFTor, Guardian of Science and Obama supporter

  Gobama!

• 196 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 2:31 am

  You are misrepresenting the theory of evolution. What you are talking about is speciation. That is certainly a main feature of evolution on a longer time scale. On a shorter time scale the accumulation of small changes within a species is what evolution is all about. Geographical separation, environmental factors, predation or lack thereof and many other circumstances will lead to such slow changes, and eventually to a new species.

  I’m not going to repeat myself. Look it up.

• 197 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 2:31 am

  SFTer,

  You like to play the victim, but hasnt your whole little tact been “I’m smarter than you because you are one them Christians”?

  If you are going to be an arrogant redneck, it does help to have a grasp of the science that you assert that you understand and that religious folk oppose. You have asserted several times now that I oppose evolution simply because I’m religious, although I have not made any religious arguement against evolution, nor have I stated that I’m a Christian or religious. I did state that I beleive in god, but if that discredits me on evolution, why doesn’t the fact you are an atheist also discredit you on evolution? It’s much more important to you that evolution be true than it is for me for it to be false. You seem to fear a possiblity of a god, which I find amusing.

• 198 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 2:35 am

  STer,

  You can spin this all you want, but changes within a species is not evolution in anyway. Changes within a species as it adapts to it’s environment is NATURAL SELECTION. Commit this to memory.

  I know your ego won’t let you admit you didn’t understand the difference b/t the two, and maybe you still don’t, but man, you need to go get your GED or something. I can’t believe you even graduated from high school.

• 199 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 2:37 am

  I know it’s a little lazy, but I took this from Wikipedia for you:

  “In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Though the changes produced in any one generation are small, differences accumulate with each generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the organisms. This process can culminate in the emergence of new species.[1]“

  Perhaps this helps clarify things?

• 200 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 2:39 am

  No, because I reject the theory of evolution.

  That statement also doesn’t assert that drug resistant bacteria is proof of evolution, as you asserted, which is false and ignorant as hell.

  You are lazy as hell, and you do get most of your information from wikipedia and that might be why you are so ignorant of science.

• 201 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 2:43 am

  It is not true for me whether evolution is true or not. What is important to me is for religious belief not to be injected into the science education in the United States.

  It’s unconstitutional and counterproductive.

  The theory of evolution is supported by a mountain of scientific evidence. It is a sound scientific theory. It belongs in science education. Creationism is only supported by religious belief. It should therefore not be taught in science classrooms.

  This country cannot make choices about what science to teach based on religious objections.

• 202 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 2:48 am

  Dr. Tesla:

  Can you read? If you can, please re-read the quote I posted. If you understand what it says, you cannot possibly make the statement you just did.

  If you want to make up your own definitions, please go ahead. If you understand that this puts you on another planet from the rest of us but still insist on doing so, then you are a neurotic. If you don’t you are psychotic, and belong in a nice padded cell.

• 203 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 2:50 am

  “change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.”

  Get it? Population of bacteria. Gain resistance to a chemical agent??? Yes??

  Let me ask you this: is a bacterium an organism?

• 204 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 2:52 am

  You have not proven evolution here. You don’t even know the difference b/t natural selection and evolution, so if anything, you’ve hurt the Darwinist cause.

  Darwinism belongs in the religion classroom, bcause it has not been proved, and it never will be. You want to believe it, but that’s simply an act of faith, no different from a Christian wanting to believe in God and an afterlife.

  Most schools are run by leftwingers like you, and share your intolerance of the intelligent design theory, so I’m not sure why you are so worked up over intelligent design being taught as a theory along side evolution in a science classroom. Liberals are excellent at censoring things that they don’t want young people to be exposed to, and excellent at forcing young people to watch things, like Al Gore’s movie, that agrees with their political agenda.

  I personally see nothing wrong with a science teacher letting students make up their own minds about evolution and intelligent design. All they have to do is teach what each camp believes about the origin of lives and not take a position on either, as neither has been proven true. Both theories are speculation, despite your dogmatic insistence that evolution, something that you clearly don’t even understand, is the truth.

• 205 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 2:56 am

  Ok, one more time, and I’m done. You just are not a bright guy. I only do so much for the stupid.

  Changes within a species is not evolution. That’s natural selection….members of a species that have certain traits conducive to an envirornment survive and thrive and the others die off.

  Evolution is a theory that one species can transform into a completely different species over time.

  Drug resistant bacteria does not EVOLVE, IE it does not become a new species of bacteria. It’s just the members of one species surviving because they have a genetic trait that makes them drug resistant. This is NATURAL SELECTION, not evolution, as you continue to assert.

• 206 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 2:58 am

  Apparently the discussion is over.

  Endnote: without sanity and intellectual honesty and rigor in the Republican party it will go nowhere. This includes rejecting religious dogma as a basis for any and all parts of the national science curriculum.

  I believe this is non-negotiable to the majority of Americans in the foreseeable future.

• 207 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 2:59 am

  I see Obama getting bounced in 2012 with unemployment over 10%.

  The discussion never began with you because you dont’ even understand the basics of biology.

• 208 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 3:01 am

  Oh yeah, and SFTER, if you want people to think you are intelllectually honest, you might not want to make smarmy comments about how you want the REpublican Party to be viable. You want the end of the REpublican party.

• 209 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 3:06 am

  Tesla, please read the definition of evolution that I was nice enough to provide for you. Just do it. It’s not that hard. Absorb what it says in plain words, and you will realize that you are arguing against the facts.

  It states plainly that evolution is the change in genetic properties between generations in a population of organisms. If you don’t understand that this is exactly what we are talking about, then you can’t be helped.

  One more time: small genetic changes within a species is evolution. Full stop. Period.

  The other thing somebody needs to tell you is this: you do not have the capability to insult people. You just don’t. You don’t have the standing.

• 210 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 3:08 am

  This country needs the Republican Party.

• 211 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 3:16 am

  Mr. T:

  I don’t hold any of your beliefs against you. You are a Christian. I respect that. You are a creationist. I find that to be misguided.

  I do hope that the Republican Party will marginalize people like you until you have no power or ability to hold back education or scientific progress in this country. You are actively trying to subvert the Constitution and establish a religion. That’s not America, and it never will be.

  You live in the past. Maybe it’s not such a bad place to be, but the rest of us have to get on with living in today’s world. Good luck.

• 212 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 3:25 am

  OK. Seems like we can put this one to bed.

• 213 Bulldoglover100 // May 24, 2009 at 3:57 am

  People can say whatever they want, the GOP is not dying a slow death nor is it being killed off….by allowing the nut jobs to run things it is committing suicide.

• 214 sinz54 // May 24, 2009 at 6:05 am

  SFTor: “Dr. Tesla” is free to believe whatever he wants.

  But I don’t want any political movement or party of which I am a part, to be *led* by scientific illiterates.

  Let’s remember that our Founding Fathers were scientifically literate; Benjamin Franklin was a scientist among many other talents; and they had a deep abiding respect for Europe’s Age of Reason. They would be disappointed in us, if they saw us being led by scientific illiterates.

• 215 ChristianMiller // May 24, 2009 at 6:50 am

  Dan

  “It’s carbon dated. That’s science, settled science. Elements have isotopes, with half-lives. The fact that you can’t get your head around it means — you can’t get your head around it.”

  I wasn’t questioning the scientific method of carbon dating, I was saying that 47 million years is a lot of time. You apparently can’t see past your own prejudices to read what I typed. If I wanted to question the method of carbon dating I would have said so.
  You heard 47 million years and you just went unconscious when you heard that time span. You really think you can understand and conceptualize 47 million years?

  People who don’t question that which they are incapable of conceiving become great drones – the left loves drones. 47 million years, and danny boy is nodding his head like he knows what they are talking about. Carbon dating explains it all for him. 47 million is between 46 and 48 million which we all understand of course…. think about it and get back to me on how you can come up with a valid conceptualization.

  What came between 47 million years ago and now is sketchy to say the least, but these pseudo-scientists (and these usually aren’t the real scientists who conducted the study who usually are more circumspect when it comes to drawing conclusions, but the journo-scientists who need to embellish the narrative to get readers)- they have a theory, and this theory is espoused with the absence of millions of years of data, but that doesn’t stop them. Was the earth visited in that period by other life forms from other parts of the universe? How would that effect various species? Perhaps we ourselves have evolved or were created elsewhere and came here. Could be, we don’t know, do we?

  All these questions are scientific questions that no one knows the answer to, yet are crucial in understanding a time-frame of 47 million years.

  This all becomes scientific hearsay. That is when non-scientists lacking skeptical minds simply believe what they hear in the scientific zeitgeist.

  I watched an hour long documentary on “the Big Bang” theory recently. I love these kinds of shows, they expand my conceptual base. The show spent the whole time explaining how the Big Bang happened, when, where, what, pictures, graphics, movies, you name it.

  Of course anyone who has a skeptical module of a child will ask the question “What came before the Big Bang”? “Can something come from nothing”? And lo and behold a scientist, a PhD physicist, lets the cat out of the bag at the end of the documentary. He said of the theory “Of course , we really don’t know, and we probably will never know”

  But people go around talking about the “Big Bang” as if it was a fact, merely because that it what the scientific community is speculating and there are pictures and graphics etc. Before that, everyone believed in the “Steady State” Theory equally dubious.

  Here is my theory which most scientists will agree: WE DON’T KNOW.

• 216 sinz54 // May 24, 2009 at 6:55 am

  Dr. Tesla sez: “The only coalition that has been proven to beat Democrats is the Reagan coalition of social conservatives, economic conservatives, and national security conservatives.”

  But that coalition has fallen apart now. And like Humpty Dumpty, it can’t be put back together again.

  That coalition formed to oppose “atheistic” Communism. Each part of the coalition agreed with that goal, for its own reasons.

  But with the collapse of Communism and the end of the Cold War, that coalition came apart.

  You’ve got paleoconservatives like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan who are isolationists.

  You’ve got social conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Mike Huckabee attacking free trade.

  You’ve got the Wall Street Journal advocating free trade with Saudi Arabia, management of U.S. ports by Arab-owned companies, and ownership of billions of dollars of American assets by Arab sovereign wealth funds. While national security conservatives are appalled at American dependence on Islamist regimes.

  You’ve got national security conservatives like Frank Gaffney demanding that the production of flex-fuel vehicles be mandated by the Government, while economic conservatives oppose the Government mandating anything, even when there’s a clear national security interest.

  You’ve got economic conservatives, particularly those of the libertarian variety, opposing a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution as unfree and irrelevant.

  It’s going to be real hard to devise a platform that all these factions can agree on.

• 217 sinz54 // May 24, 2009 at 6:58 am

  Oh, one more: You’ve got economic conservatives demanding immigration reform that supplies business with an unending supply of cheap Hispanic immigrant labor. Needless to say, social conservatives don’t like that.

  The Reagan coalition is dead.

  We need a new coalition, organized around some new themes.

• 218 ChristianMiller // May 24, 2009 at 7:13 am

  Back to Mark Levin – I listen to him nearly every evening, you can also listen to his shows online for free either podcast or streaming, just google his name and you’ll get his site.

  Or you could read his bestselling book, Liberty and Tyranny.

  Seven weeks #1 on the NY Times bestseller list and not a peep from the mainstream media. Somehow this book got to be #1 without any hyping from Oprah, Matt Lauer or any reviews from the Times or other lefty newspapers.

  If it were full of diatribe and invective, you bet Frum and others would be publishing excerpts. But Frum is a weakling on substance. He is kind of a policy wonk who enjoys planning for others with the conceit that he can “help” people. Most of those are Democrats, but there are quite some number in the ranks of Republicans.

  So how come Frum doesn’t go after Levin on substance and not cherry-picking quotes from hours of radio dialog?

  If indeed Levin was so obnoxious all the time he would not have any listeners. This is why Air America failed. They think talk radio is cheap shock-jock banter and they tried to emulate the badly conceived stereotype. In short they projected. Nobody wants to listen to hate,. This may be one reason why Obermann has such low ratings.

  Levin has literally 25 TIMES more people listening to him than KO.

• 219 LouStool // May 24, 2009 at 7:21 am

  I understand how you teach evolution in the classroom, but how would you teach creationism?
  I guess in math class you could give both sides of the 2+2 debate. Let kids who believe 2+2=5 have equal time.
  “I personally see nothing wrong with a [math] teacher letting students make up their own minds about 2+2=5 and 2+2=4….” Teaching something that is not true or that has not been proven is silly.

• 220 midcon // May 24, 2009 at 8:06 am

  Franco. Perhaps you could enlighten some of us by explaining why you listen to him every evening. Is it to obtain information? Entertainment? Does it provide you with a sense of solidarity (i.e. I’m not alone in the world?).

  I routinely watch Seinfield even though I have seen every show several times. I find that there are subtle and nuance bits of humor that I had never noticed before. I also watch Lou Dobbs several times a week. I think that’s the extent of anything I do every evening, except brush my teeth.

  So what is so compelling about Levin that you watch him every evening? Please share, since I have never seen/heard the show.

• 221 PincheMK // May 24, 2009 at 9:12 am

  Yeah- the repubs that want immigration (ones who own all sortsa businesses and want cheap labor) versus the ones that are anti-immigration (cause they actually have to work and are adversely affected by the illegal workforce) is really the big rift I see in the party. All the rest of it is whatever. yeah more liberal repubs on social issues arent ever going to see eye to eye with the super conservatives i guess.

  but the real thing is, who cares? Yknow, the democrats have managed to link up interest groups that have absolutely no business in bed with each other at all. Yet they have basically given them all the common hope and common goal that one day, Barack Obama will mail them a monthly check just for being them, so the dems manage to stay together.

  I mean for christs sake, if the dems can get:

  Unions and Illegals/minorities in the same camp,
  Blacks and Mexicans (take it from a Mexican, those two groups detest each other)
  George Soros (the very rich) and the very poor
  etc.etc.

  The difference between our factions and those factions is that each of our factions has some sort of conflicting beleif which causes friction and theres no common denominator (like we all want a check in the mail signed by barack obama) –

  well newsflash people, our way of life is officially in jeopardy .. being legally educated, i beleive gays (for better or worse) have the constitutional right to marry. but yknow what, i dont really care if you think otherwise, I drive a pickup truck and own assault weapons. If you drive a hybrid and hate guns, thats perfectly fine with me. (I may make fun of you some, but oh well)

  As long as you believe in lower taxes, the constitution, and understand that government is the problem and not the answer, then your in my party, as far as im concerned.

  The republicans need to shape up and remember what it is they stand for. If they ever did that, they would have a total resurgence i think – I have also heard tons of grumbling among democrats i know about obama turning us all into commies.

  Hence, i am tentatively considering the unthinkable – that the republicans arent actually finished for the next 50 years, but that if they can manageto get it together enough to take advantage of the backlash that may very well follow obamas commie agendas, they would win back most or all of the ground they lost.

• 222 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 9:46 am

  Sinz,

  The Reagan coalitions NEVER agreed on everything. Yet it still found a way to win. Reagan won two landslide victories, and if I’m not mistaken, Bush won the most votes in our history in 2004, although Obama may received more this year.

  I think it’s absurd to suggest that the Reagan coalition cannot win again simply because we lost one election. The economy, high gas taxes, and the housing crisis put Obama in the white house, not his policies and belief system. And I personally believe the fact that he has black skin was a huge factor in why so many people voted for him. Many white people just wanted to see a black person in the white house.

• 223 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 9:49 am

  I like how you say we need a new coalition organized around new themes, yet you don’t spell out what those themes would be, and the logic behind how they would beat the Obama Democrats in 2012.

  Throwing the social conservatives under the bus and supporting higher taxes, as Frum supports, puts all 50 states in play for Democrats.

  One could argue it was the national security conservatives like Frum that cost us the election, as Iraq wasn’t too popular at the end. I personally supported the war, but since the only thing Frum seems to be a conservative on is national security, it’s kind of amusing that he thinks he can build a new majority. He supported Bush’s most unpopular decision, which was to invade Iraq.

• 224 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 9:54 am

  Sinz,

  Do you agree with STFer that drug resistant bacteria is proof of evolution, or do you agree with the fact that drug resistant bacteria has not evolved…it’s still the same species.

  This notion that you understand science and that I’m anti-science simply because I dont’ support and agree with your dogmatic emotional attachment to theory that has never been proveen, is laughable.

  All your liberal buddy did was accuse me of being a “creationist” and a “christian”, although I never quoted scripture or brought up religion. You guts want to make it a Christian vs Scientist debate….I just want to debate the issue of evolution on scientific grounds. That’s not a debate that liberals want to have.

• 225 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 10:00 am

  What I don’t get is, why faux Republicans like sinz, just don’t go join another party, if they don’t like the REpublican party.

  I have no use for global warming alarmists or people so intolerant of other people that simply do not believe in evolution. Why is it so damn important to the Darwinists that everybody believe in evolution? It’s laughable that sinz says he doesn’t want to be a part of a party that has a diversity of ideas on evolution! Is your belief on evolution something that really matters from a political standpoint?

• 226 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 10:04 am

  I recommend people watch Ben Stein’s movie No Intelligence Allowed, to get a handle on how intolerant leftwingers are of other scientific theories regarding the origins of man. Dismissing intelligent design as just religion is just not rational…they are not basing their hypothesis on the Bible or any religion. To suggest this is dishonest and smarmy and indicates that you don’t want to have to defend evolution on it’s scientific merits, but you know it’s on shakey ground.

• 227 GoramFirefly // May 24, 2009 at 10:24 am

  In re: Stein’s “No Intelligence Allowed”

  Skeptic did a series of four articles debunking various claims made in Ben Steins film:

  http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-04-17#part1

  http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-04-17#part2

  http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-04-23#part3

  http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-04-23#part4

  All well worth the read.

  As well as this site:

  http://www.expelledexposed.com/

  “Welcome to Expelled Exposed, a detailed look at the Ben Stein movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. We’ll show you why this movie is not a documentary at all, but anti-science propaganda aimed at creating the appearance of controversy where there is none.”

  Have fun.

• 228 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 1:22 pm

  Hello I thought I’d stop by and see whether there was a discussion going on. I also see that Dr. Tesla questions whether genetic change within a species is considered evolution.

  I know there’s a general mistrust of Wikipedia, but this question is so basic that I don’t think it will hurt to use their definition in this case:

  “In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Though the changes produced in any one generation are small, differences accumulate with each generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the organisms. This process can culminate in the emergence of new species.[1]“

  This answers the question of whether development of drug resistance in bacteria is considered evolution. It is.

• 229 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 1:23 pm

  Yes,

  But of course, you don’t post Stein’s and other’s rebuttal of all these “debunkings”.

  That’s how you liberals play the game. It’s debunked if you say it’s debunked.

  This notion that Stein is anti-science is just laughable, and it undermines your entire crediblity. I think that’s one of the poitns that Stein makes…that if you are skeptical of evolution, liberals angrily assert you are anti-science.

  You are just engaging in ad hominen attacks on Stein, and you don’t seem even able to discuss evolution vs intelligent design yourself….you have to go link to somebody’s else “debunking” of Stein, and we are to accept your silly premise that they are right and Stein is wrong.

  Browbeating people with you evolutino dogma isn’t the way to persausive way to approach it. I’ve asked intelligenet questions in here about evolution, and I’ve yet to see you leftwingers and faux conservatives offer logical explainations. You guys think drug resistant bacteria is evolution! and we are suppose to look to you as the source authority on the subject. I think not.

• 230 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 1:28 pm

  Wikipedia is not a valid source for anything, and a causual glance at their website indicates they suppport the Darwinist theory of evolution. Posting what they claim is the truth does not make it the truth…science is science, and nobody has ever proved cross-species evolution to be true.

  I’d like to know how man is the only species to have self awareness and how man is so vastly superior to other animals in intelligence. It seems if we go by the logic of evolution, there would be other species that had self awareness, intelligence on the level of humans, etc.

  How did we evolve from a common ancestor of primates when we are superior to all other primates?

  There’s one hell of a gap between man and other species, and that’s one hell of a missing link, which dogmatic Darwinists will never explain, and rather conveniently for them, they don’t think it’ necessary. Darwinism is true because you say it’s true. That’s not science, it’s dogma.

• 231 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 1:29 pm

  STFer,

  There is no such thing as evolution WITHIN a species. Evolution implies one species arises from another over time.

  You are stuck on stupid, and I’m not going to talk to you anymore.

• 232 sinz54 // May 24, 2009 at 1:32 pm

  Dr. Tesla: Let me repeat what I said in my earlier post:

  You are free to believe whatever you want. It’s a free country.

  But the GOP shouldn’t be formulating policy based on scientific illiteracy.

  If we want to understand whether global warming is real, we should ask the American Academy for the Advancement of Science, or the American Geophysical Union. We should NOT ask Rush Limbaugh or ExxonMobil.

  On the one hand, you say that we should all understand what we stand for–lower taxes, limited government and Constitutional originalism. But then you tell me to leave and go to some other party. Are you suggesting that I don’t stand for those things? EXACTLY what aspects of conservatism do you claim I don’t support?

  Can ANY major figure in the GOP give a major policy speech that discusses just those three issues: Taxes, the intrusiveness of government, and Constitutional originalism. And NOT discuss: Abortion, gay marriage, gun rights, or immigration.

  It was done before. Ronald Reagan’s historic “A Time for Choosing” speech never once mentioned abortion.

• 233 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 1:35 pm

  “Was the earth visited in that period by other life forms from other parts of the universe? How would that effect various species? Perhaps we ourselves have evolved or were created elsewhere and came here. Could be, we don’t know, do we?”

  In science there is a principle known as Occam’s Razor, which basically posits that the simplest solutions is usually the best. That is why hypotheses of this nature don’t get much attention.

  I have always wondered why Ben Stein did that video presentation. Being in the financial world I thought he would be very concerned about his credibility.

• 234 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 1:39 pm

  The problem you have is that the majority of American people are for gun rights, gay marriage, and illegal immigration. A new poll has shown a majority of people are against abortion, and liberal Democrats own rhetoric rather indicates they know it’s wrong, or why would they abortion should be rare but legal? If there’s nothing unethical about abortion, why should it be rare? Why not encourage even more of it?

  You dont like social conservativism. I get that. Vote for the Libertarian party or the Democrat party. The party does not have an obligation to adjust to you, as the world does not revolve around you. The majority of the Republican party is with me on social issues, not you.

  A Republican party that rejects the social issues that you listed is a Party that puts all 50 states in play for the Democrats. Democrats WANT us to drop those issues.

  Gay marriage has been slapped down in every state including California, not exactly the Bible Belt.

• 235 Robrend // May 24, 2009 at 1:42 pm

  Tesla,

  All aspects of Intelligent Design are considered debunked when you’ve conducted and repeated numerous experiments with results that are consistent with what evolution theory states to expect. It’s anti-science to debate evolution in the manner by which Stein does in his film because ID itself is unscientific. It calls itself a theory when it is a mere hypothesis based on observations experimentally explained by evolution research. Formulating such a hypothesis is simply not possible without overwhelming pre-existing religious conditioning regarding the Judeo-Christian mythos. If you want to dismiss the religious aspects of ID, Tesla, than you must ignore the hours of testimony and thousands of pages of documentation made by ID’s authors and proponents. To hypothetically do this, you’d end up with an argument against evolution with no scientific or logical basis.

  On another note, Tesla, are you Larry?
  (mechanical engineer, uses same flawed arguments against evolution, hates wikipedia, rude/abrasive personality, same level of cognitive dissonance regarding the religious aspects of your arguments, etc)

• 236 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 1:42 pm

  I’m done talking about evolution. It’s not really that important of a subject to me. You believe what you want to believe about it. I don’t get why liberals get so emotional and angry about evolution though….I’m merely skeptical of a theory that’s never been proven, and in my view, is impossible to prove, much like we most likely will never be able to prove there is a God or not a God. Humans like to think they know everything but the reality is we still know very little.

• 237 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 1:46 pm

  You want to believe there is no God. That’s part of your belief system as an atheist, and that’s okay, but that doesn’t mean evolution is true. You have not proven evolution to be true, and you even think that drug resistant bacteria is proof of evolution.

  It’s okay not to know something. But when you don’t know that you don’t know something, that’s a problem. Natural selection does not equal evolution, as you must believe, if you think drug resistant bacteria is proof of evolution.

  My last post on evolution. I promise.

• 238 Robrend // May 24, 2009 at 1:53 pm

  Seems to me the only one here angry is you, Tesla. Evolution is not the reason why you perceive liberals to get angry and emotional about. It is the illogical and self-serving state of mind by which conservatives use to dismiss scientific research in favor of their own self-serving agendas.

  Regarding your last point, do you believe that in accepting evolution as true, you somehow cease to believe in God?

• 239 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 2:06 pm

  Everybody has an agenda, but me.

  This is the liberal mindset.

• 240 Robrend // May 24, 2009 at 2:08 pm

  Really? From what I’ve heard, that’s more of a conservative one… always whining about the “godless liberal agenda” and whatnot…

• 241 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 2:18 pm

  I lied.

  From a website called the Darwin Papers http://www.thedarwinpapers.com

  First of all, let us define our terms. What was it that Darwin meant when he was addressing the subject of natural selection? He wrote in the Origin Natural selection acts exclusively by the preservation and accumulation of variations, which are beneficial under the organic and inorganic conditions to which each creature is exposed at all periods of life. The ultimate result is that each creature tends to become more and more improved in relation to its conditions. This improvement inevitably leads to the gradual advancement of the organization of the greater number of living beings throughout the world . . .But if variations useful to any organic being ever do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterized will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life: and from the strong principle of inheritance, these will tend to produce offspring similarly characterized. This principle of preservation, or the survival of the fittest, I have called Natural Selection. i

  Notice that Darwin only mentioned the preservation of favorable characteristics, not the origin of those characteristics, but Darwin extrapolated natural selection to mean that indefinite variation could occur that would eventually cross the species barrier, which evolutionists have done ever since.

  He had no evidence of this, for he wrote to F.W. Hutton two years after the publication of his OriginI do not pretend to adduce direct evidence of one species changing into another, however he stated that he preferred this theory because it suited his fancy. (Letter to F.W. Hutton on April 20, 1861, Complete Correspondence of Charles Darwin; also Online Correspondence of Charles Darwin, # 3122) In Physical Anthropology Philip L. Stein and Bruce M. Rowe of Pierce College, Los Angeles reveal that natural selection has nothing to do with the origin of any species, it only has the ability to preserve what already exists, merely eliminating those unfit for survival, thus reducing the gene pool, not increasing it: “Note that an animal does not evolve characteristics in order to survive, but must possess in advance characteristics that will allow it to survive

  Howells agreed with this: “The implication that practice makes perfect in evolution, or that usefulness can call a bodily feature into being is purely figurative speech, a device which I shall have to use again for the sake of simplicity. There is actually no evidence or explanation for the phenomena of adaption: even natural selection could explain only the modification of organs or features that already exist.” (6)

  So we find that an animal does not evolve a new organ or characteristics in order to survive, it must possess in advance those characteristics that enable it to survive. Natural selection can only preserve and/or reduce the number of already existing kinds of organisms, it cannot originate a new type of organism. What is in many cases called speciation, or “micro-evolution” is in most cases merely variation within a created kind.

  In Darwin’s theory of the supposed “struggle for survival,” the number and variety of species should be increased through natural selection, not reduced, but the facts show that just the opposite is the case: natural selection reduces the amount of genetic variation instead of increasing it.

• 242 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 2:20 pm

  As a general comment I think the ground is shifting under the Republican Party.

  I think for instance the party will have to come to terms with discussing national health care as a strategic and macro-economic asset. There seems to be a fair amount of evidence that the country is being weakened and disrupted by not having some sort of reliable and universal health care system.

  I don’t expect any Republicans to blindly agree to this proposition, but I would suggest that there must be some who see that there is a need for a real discussion.

• 243 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 2:22 pm

  I dont know too many religious Democrats, except when election time comes around…they all get religion every four years. Just a coincidence, I’m sure.

• 244 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 2:28 pm

  I’m getting pretty tired of this, Tesla, but here’s a definition for you from the Biochemistry Department at Northwestern University:

  “The process by which the genetic structure of populations changes over time.”

  Can we please be done with this soon?

• 245 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 2:32 pm

  Another funny observation from The Darwin Papers website:

  A wing is a marvelously intricate instrument for flight, composed of delicate feathers and hooks and barbules to give the bird every advantage for soaring in the air, but of what advantage would a half formed wing be in survival value after it was no good anymore to use as a forelimb for climbing, running, and defense, yet before it had been fully developed into an appendage for smooth and swift flying?
  In the chapter Difficulties Of The Theory ( which would have been a vastly better title for his entire book than The Origin of Species ) after a very prolonged and obtuse dissertation on the different varieties of birds, Darwin wrote: “”We are profoundly ignorant of the cause of each slight variation or individual difference . . .” etc. of the various species of birds and other animals.(15)

  Darwin does give us his amazing theory on how wings may have formed. He wrote: “. . . It is conceivable that flying-fish which now glide far through the air, slightly rising and turning by the aid of their fluttering fins, might have been modified into perfectly winged animals.” (!)(16)

  Going on in this manner, according to Darwin, if you and certain members of your family began to run about through the neighborhood swooshing your arms and screaming out bird sounds, well who knows? Your descendants could very well have wings after a few thousand years, or at the very least be sprouting feathers after a few generations.

  As far as the real evidence of wings forming in this way, after a brief diversion, he wrote: “. . . Thus to return to our imaginary illustration.”

  These types of infantile arguments are typical throughout the entire Origin.

• 246 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 2:38 pm

  I like this excerpt too from the same website:

  Darwin plied this same technique noted above, appearing to answer an unanswerable objection to his theory, with his amazing story of the evolution of the eye, and present day evolutionists are even taking his pathetic argument and trying to perpetuate the myth that Darwin somehow actually proved that the eye could have and did evolve through random natural selection.
  An eye is an incredibly intricate organ, if every part of it were not working in perfect harmony, fully developed from the very beginning, then total blindness would be the result, a half formed eye would be useless, and so when Darwin wrote in the Origin: (20)

  “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree”,
  then any person of reasonable intelligence might think, “Well, here, that is settled, Darwin has finally admitted the utter, miserable failure of his theory,” but such was not the case with our man Darwin.

  In a remarkably cunning turnabout, Darwin used this argument against his theory as evidence for his theory. The key to his uncanny strategy is in the use of the word “seems”, from which he launches a devilishly clever ploy to convince the reader that it did occur (actually “might” occur, Darwin was always shrewd in the way he couched his language), and he took the unlucky reader on a rambling story of just how it “might” have happened:
  “Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable to our imagination, can hardly be considered real.”

  On the basis of developing a rambling “just so” story of how something might have happened, constructing a simplistic scenario entirely crafted from his own imagination while skipping over the multitude of complex chemical and physiological changes that would be involved in this extraordinary process, and coming nowhere near to offering any real, definitive, fossilised or actual living proof that it occured, Darwin had the brazenness to write “The difficulty” for the evolution of the eye ” . . . can hardly be considered real”, and evolutionists are claiming that Darwin did prove his case, which has about as much evidence to back it up as the cow jumping over the moon!

• 247 Robrend // May 24, 2009 at 2:40 pm

  Is there a point you are trying to make with this, or is it now time to mock biblical scholars thought that the earth was an immobile object in space based on their interpretation of scripture?

• 248 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 2:46 pm

  More on our brilliant Darwin and his belief that an eye could evolve:

  But Darwin has more than one argument up his sleeve to demonstrate that the impossible is actually possible, and he helps those who cannot see with the clear eye of logic that he was gifted with to understand that despite the utter improbability of it, the evolution of the eye makes perfectly good sense, and he uses the incredible comparison that since the sun only appears to rotate around the earth, but in fact it is the earth that revolves around the sun, then this is obvious proof to substantiate his rediculous theory!

  However, attempting to equate a fanciful story of the eye evolving with the entire science of planetary motion, thus to compare Darwin’s yarn, lacking any facts at all, about how the eye might have evolved with Copernicus’s scientific evidence that the earth, despite appearances, revolves around the sun, which later provided the basis for Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion and for Newton’s Laws of Celestial Mechanics, is extrapolation of such ludicrous proportions that, using Darwin’s method of reasoning, one might just as well use the example of the sun’s apparent rotation to propose that leprechauns keep their pot’s of gold at the end of rainbows (more on this later concerning Newton’s Law of gravity and Darwin’s “theory” of evolution).

• 249 Robrend // May 24, 2009 at 2:50 pm

  Then how is not the argument for Intelligent Design the embodiment of all that you find ridiculous about Darwin’s assertions?

• 250 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 3:02 pm

  I do not see you or any of the Darwinists stepping up to explain how these absurd Darwin assertions are logical.

  You promote and prop this Darwin guy up as this intellectual whose theory of evolution cannot even be questioned, yet whe you look at some his assertions, one has to wonder why anybody even gave Darwin the time of day. The guy just asserted some kooky things, never proves any of it, and somehow it’s Science?

• 251 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 3:11 pm

  Tesla,

  enough of you. Why are you quoting Darwin when the scientific field has advanced past his contribution for 120 years? Why are you “debating” evolution with yourself to supposedly “weaken” it? You must understand that you are in no position to weaken biological evolution as one of the cornerstones in modern science. There are entire fields of medicine, and entire sectors of our industry who use knowledge gained by evolution research every day to provide care for patients, develop crops and livestock that are better suited to our needs, design medical and pharmaceutical products, and the list goes on.

  Your resistance to this is quaint. You are fighting an argument against the real world as it exists today. Guess who is going to win that one?

• 252 Robrend // May 24, 2009 at 3:14 pm

  Way to side-step the argument when you’ve written yourself in the hole… Did that fall from your pedestal hurt? So now it’s back to “you show me yours and I’ll show you mine”?

  Biologists don’t promote the kind of Darwin idol worship anti-intellectuals such as yourself would have us believe. In fact, it’d be really something if one were able to experimentally discredit Darwin’s theory. Decades of research and experimentation later, that has yet to happen. This is what we’ve presented as our side of the argument. It’s been shown. IDers have yet to deliver.

• 253 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 3:19 pm

  Tesla, here is why nobody is interested in explaining anything to you: your agenda is to get ID taught side by side with evolution theory in the science curriculum. This is a retrograde notion that reasonable people will not consider.

  To deal with you quoting chapter and verse from ID web sites is a waste of everybody’s time.

• 254 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 3:27 pm

  I’ve made my case against evolution. I think it’s a persuasive one that open minded people not emotionally invested in the theory will accept.

  No big deal to me either way.

  For the kids watching at home, always question everything. A true scientist always questions everything, and a true scientist does not take it personally if someone points out a flaw in his theory, as a true scientist is seeking the truth, whatever that may be.

  None of the Darwinists here have ever read anything written by proponents of intelligent design. Yet they quickly assert that the intelligent design proponents are wrong. Being close minded to other theories is not the hallmark of a true scientist.

• 255 ChristianMiller // May 24, 2009 at 3:31 pm

  If I may interject here. Tesla is not saying that one theory is true and the other false he is saying that they are not being treated equally in schools. Evolution is an unproven theory. Intelligent Design is also a theory unproven, so we are really talking about belief here.

  Schools should not be promoting belief systems they should cover them, but not promote, or exclude as they are doing with this issue.

  There could be intelligent design and it might not be “god” that did it but another civilization 100 times more advanced than ourselves. We ourselves are now at a point where we can create robots and some computers have passed the Turing test. So it is entirely possible that we were created by another entity or are a result of some biological experiment (gone wrong?) I would not rule anything out. So why is evolution the only possibility schoolchildren are allowed to imagine?

• 256 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 3:32 pm

  by the way Tesla, biology has a full record of the developmental stages of the eye, from light-sensitive spot to an organ with the complexity of the human eye. The evolutionary process of the eye is pretty well understood.

  Also keep in mind that the human eye is a somewhat compromised design. There are better eyes out there than human ones.

  What am I talking about? The blood supply of the human eyes run through the retina instead of under it. This makes human eyes prone to injury and disease, such as retinal vein occlusions and diabetic retinopathy. Not something you’d expect from a Supreme Being, when you think about it.

• 257 Robrend // May 24, 2009 at 3:39 pm

  Problem is, it’s a weak case full of unsubstantiated claims. I do agree with your notion of questioning everything. Problem is, you apply this standard to intelligent design and you are left with unanswered questions. The literature behind ID HAS thoroughly reviewed, by both the scientific community and legal experts alike. It’s labeling as pseudoscience and thinly-disguised religious dogma was not done without justification. I’ve said before, there are ways to scientifically debate the validity of evolution, but every argument and evidence you’ve presented fails to do this. Deep down, I’m sure you know this, which is why you insult us, berate us, and make accusations of questionable conduct. You speak of logic but resort to arguments that defy your own definition of logic. In the end, you aren’t presenting an argument for debate at all. You’re just making inflammatory statements and feeding your own persecution complex.

• 258 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 3:42 pm

  Franco:

  It is possible that we were brought to Earth by aliens. This is true. I hope you can agree that this is a very remote possibility. There are however greater odds that the building blocks of RNA or even microbes may have come to Earth with meteorites or comets.

  The reason we are not seeing an active debate on the notion that aliens brought us here is that there is no suggestion of nor need for it to explain in our biological history. Evolution theory is a sufficient framework to explain physical life as we know it.

  I’ll simply need to repeat myself. There is no place for ID in the science classroom. It is not a scientific theory. There is no evidence at all for it. Again, negative evidence (”the eye is too complicated, it must have been God”) is not positive evidence, just inference from the negative. When I speak of positive evidence I am talking about something that would lead us to believe that the entire biosphere was created in one act, with plants and animals fitting into a balanced and stable system. This would be good evidence for creation.

  What we see is the exact opposite: instability, change, and disruption. I am sure you will agree that this does not match up well with the famous words “And he saw that it was good.”

• 259 Robrend // May 24, 2009 at 3:53 pm

  Franco,

  Okay, I get what you are saying. However, do you consider both evolution and ID to be unproven to the same degree? Should the various aspects and mechanics of evolution theory which are scientifically proven through developed and refined experimental techniques still be compared to the (hypothetical existence of intelligent designer) verified by (yet to be discovered experimental technique used to detect existence of hypothetical intelligent designer). Since we are talking about inclusion into an academic science curriculum, are the scientific methods behind evolution theory unproven as well? Is there any science behind ID at all? Why should ID be given equal time and consideration if it has none of these. On the same note, why not remove quantum mechanics from Physics? String theory? Pfft!

• 260 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 4:00 pm

  If Franco and Tesla are Christian they would also be well advised that there are a large number of creator gods that may need to be included in ID teaching if the deity is actually going to be mentioned.

  Brahma, Allah, Yahweh, et al. Take your pick.

• 261 ChristianMiller // May 24, 2009 at 4:43 pm

  “It is possible that we were brought to Earth by aliens. This is true. I hope you can agree that this is a very remote possibility.”

  I understand this isn’t a “normal” view but it isn’t “remote” if we look objectively. We either were or we weren’t, and we have no way of calculating the odds, because there are too many unknowns.

  What are the odds of a pair of dice rolling a thirteen? If they are normal dice it would be zero, but if one of the dice was a seven instead of a six, well then the odds just increased dramatically from impossible, to every now and then. This is a similar situation. We don’t know what is written on the cosmic dice we only know our very local, in time and space, experience, so we cannot calculate odds of anything. It sounds more plausible to you (and me) that RNA came from comets, but that still is not a scientific view because we don’t have much to go on.

  It is like an American Indian in the 1400’s wondering if there is any land on the other side of the ocean and if people live there, but then dismissing the idea that settlers would come because he knows it is nearly impossible to cross the ocean in a canoe, therefore the odds are extremely slim.

  It isn’t scientific to conclude that what we don’t know doesn’t exist, but we tend to do that in our everyday minds.

  We simply don’t have enough scientific data to call it remote or not. We don’t know ANYTHING about the billions of other planets in our own galaxy except for the few nearby, and just because those particular planets don’t (other than our own) means nothing at all.

  In fact I could argue that since there is life on one out of nine planets the odds are that every solar system has an 11% probability that there is a planet with life on it. That would mean billions of planets with life. But really there isn’t enough data, we don’t know even if we are an anomaly or just one of billions.

• 262 ChristianMiller // May 24, 2009 at 5:14 pm

  SFTor,

  I am a default Christian, probably like you. I say default because Christianity is more than a religion, it is a word-view and you have it whether you like it or not.

  But I’m not for religion being taught in schools and intelligent design isn’t a subject I’m interested in myself. However I am not for anti-religious teaching or reactionary secularism, and there is evidence of that in the teaching of evolution in exclusion of other theories. If ID was “taught” it should be represented as a belief along with evolution as a partially formed theory. There is no need to label “god” in a secular way or translate the word into other languages, which is essentially what you have done. ID is that something someone or group created life. Who created them? Good question. It all leads back to the same mystery and teaching kids unsettled science as fact is wrong.

  But since we don’t “know” and evolution is NOT proven, other beliefs should be represented.

  Because there is no evidence of ID or aliens or anything does not mean that those theories are untrue and conversely because there is some evidence of evolution doesn’t mean it is true. There is no objective way to weight half a theory with a plausible but unsubstantiated belief. It is plausible that there was some kind of intelligent design right? And the theory of evolution may also contain intelligent design, ever think of that? Perhaps there is intelligence in DNA or RNA – whatever, that are actively at work thus proving both evolution and intelligent design. Gotta go now to evolve my dinner.

• 263 Robrend // May 24, 2009 at 5:58 pm

  How is teaching a scientific theory to the exclusion of non-scientific ones anti-religious? Are you one of those who believe that in accepting evolution, one forsakes God’s existence? Evolution theory by itself does not argue for or against the existence of a god nor makes a case for or against the validity of any religion. Only Christians who absolutely must believe that the stories in Genesis are literal have a problem with this.

  The mechanics of evolution ARE scientifically proven to the point where even some die-hard creationists readily accept it (see micro/macro-evolution distinctions). Hardly unsettled in my opinion, but then again, I would like to know what, in your opinion, constitutes an “unsettled” science. Does ID even qualifies as an “unsettled” science? Perhaps you can give an example other than evolution.

  BTW, Franco, your remark about a possible intelligence behind DNA/RNA is NOT Intelligent Design. It’s more along the line of theistic evolution.

• 264 Matleng77 // May 24, 2009 at 6:09 pm

  I find this current thread fascinating. From my limited observation of the controversy it seems that ID’ers always resort to “teaching the controversy” and trying to demonstrate the inadequacy of evolution instead of demonstrating the practicality and usefulness of the ID hypothesis. Why is that? If the ID hypothesis is so much better than evolution, why not demonstrate the great explanatory power the concept contains?

  For example, how does ID explain the phenomenon of extinction? Why has the Great Designer seen fit to wipe out so many of his creations over the span of geologic time? Were they colossal failures, or mistakes? Why do we have horseshoe crabs in our oceans today, but don’t have their cousins, the trilobites? What was wrong with the cute little trilobite? (Well, I guess some weren’t really that little…) Why is the coelacanth, a fish that first showed up in the Devonian, still around in our oceans today, while their contemporaries, the trilobites, disappeared by the end of the Permian? What design criterion does the coelacanth satisfy that trilobites don’t?

  ID is not necessarily bad science, it’s just that it’s dead science that’s now obsolete. Why should we give an obsolete concept the same weight as current theory? The real reason why the concept of a designer got left behind in the scientific dust some 200 years ago is not because of some leftist, atheist plot, but because the concept of design has failed to adequately explain the evidence we now have and continue to discover. Lyell, Darwin, and others of that time couldn’t make sense of the fossil record when viewing it from a Biblical perspective. That is why the evolutionary idea developed and why it is still used today.

  It would be very nice to see a real refereed paper on ID that actually explained something like extinction. But I guess if you’re not on intimate speaking terms with the Designer, you can’t really know what the design criteria are that permit one species to survive and another to die out.

  I don’t think evolution is really a liberal or conservative idea, it is a scientific idea. It just happens to be the only way we can make sense of the fossil record without leaving a lot of the data unanswered and unexplained.

• 265 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 7:35 pm

  Darwinism has been around for over 100 years. This is not “new science” and the case could be make that it’s the old stale obselote theory proposed by a kook named Charles Darwin. Seem my previous posts for some examples of the things he believed to be true.

  It seems to me many Darwinists like this Matleng77 guy think that “intelligent design” means that each member of a species is automatically going to be perfect without any genetic mutations. I don’t think intelligent design makes that assertion. Intelligent design is essentially that the human body and all the complex physiological processes that must occur to sustain life could not just come about by random mutations. An eye must be formed all at one time…an partially formed eye would serve no function. And moreover, how would random mutations “know” that vision would be useful for a creature to have…it’s just not logical that an eye and the vision that it grants us but we take for granted would just would just randomly occur rather than it being the conceived prior to it’s creation.

  This guy, Matleng, suggests that ID is obsolete, but it’s a relatively new theory compared to Darwinism. He predictably says it’s the same thing as creationism and it’s just religion, but of course, he hasn’t read any books by scientists that know much more than he does about genetics and biology that advocate intelligent design.

  I have not asserted that intelligent design can be proven. I have asserted that evolution has not be proven, and I don’t see any feasible way in which it can be proven. Natural selection does not lead to the creation of new traits, it only perserves or eliminates traits that a species already has, so it’s just common sense that natural selection cannot be a mechanism of cross-species evolution. Random mutations would not lead to great complixity as complexity requires order and events to occur in sequence to produce something useful. Even the flagella on a cell would be an impossile result of random mutations as it contains several different parts.

  I get so tired of leftwingers dragging religion into this debate. They simply cannot defend evolution on it’s merits so they try to discredit the skeptics by saying they are religious, why they ironically are dogmatic in their belief of evolution. It MUST be true, they say. We say, why must it be true? Why can’t there be another explaination for life, and why are you so fearful of other theories regardin origin of life, when you have not even proven Darwin’s theory?

• 266 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 7:45 pm

  Tesla: “I get so tired of leftwingers dragging religion into this debate. They simply cannot defend evolution on it’s merits so they try to discredit the skeptics by saying they are religious, why they ironically are dogmatic in their belief of evolution.”

  You are a proponent of Intelligent Design. Who, in your mind, is the Intelligent Designer? Do you have an opinion you would like to state for the record?

• 267 Dr. Tesla // May 24, 2009 at 7:58 pm

  SFTer,

  I don’t know who or what is the “intelligent designer”. I don’t pretend to have all the answers about the origins of life as you do. I’m not the arrogant. I’m simply asserting that the human body is too complex to just occur via random mutations and/ or natural selection from a less complex organism.

  I think that I rather made it clear to you last night that I have no desire to talk to you anymore. You stated that drug resistant bacteria is prove of evolution when it is not…that is natural selection. You are ignorant, and I think you are a bigot as well. I don’t care if you are an atheist, but this irrational hatred that you have of religious people isn’t something that I want to listen to. Take your religious bigotry elsewhere….I think America is about the tolerance of religion, and you don’t ’seem to at that place. And again, I have not approached the topic of evolution from a religious or theological standpoint, and I have also said that I think there is a god, but that I cannot prove it, but intelligent design sure makes more sense than this notion humans are the result of random mutations that all just happened to randomly occur in such a sequence to form all sorts of complex organs like eyes that serve a useful function. In my humble opinion, a complex organ that serves a useful function such as the eye and vision must have been “thought” of in advance, hence, the product of a purposeful design, not random luck.

• 268 Matleng77 // May 24, 2009 at 9:21 pm

  Hmm, if I believe in evolution, then I can’t, by definition, hold conservative principles or be located on the right wing of the political spectrum. Dr. Tesla posits an interesting thesis. It appears that conservatism and a belief in ID are required in Dr. Tesla’s eyes for membership in the Republican party. Funny, the Party’s letters asking me for donations don’t seem to make that requirement, they just want me to be a good conservative.

  By the way, Dr. Tesla, I am very familiar with the work of Dr. Behe and Dr. Dembski, and like yours, I just don’t find their arguments convincing.

  Regarding your statement that ID is a new theory, and not religiously motivated, why do you then quote Dr. Paley’s argument for the design of the eye (Natural Theology, 1802) as a defense for your statement that Intelligent Design is a modern secular theory and not a religious one? Isn’t ID just a rehash of Paley’s argument for God in modern secular clothes?

  Your argument for adoption of ID would be so much stronger if you were to demonstrate to me the predictive power and ability of ID, and it’s current focus of work, say, in medicine, or paleontology. By the way, what is the focus of the current ID scientific research program of the Discovery Institute? What is the current funding level of their research program?

  I personally find it hard to reconcile the idea of irreducable complexity and research. If one has already decided, a priori, that an object is irreduceably complex, and it’s individual components cannot function apart from the whole, then how do you go about designing an experiment that explores how those components work either singly or in various combinations?

  Why would one even bother to run an experiment to increase one’s understanding of a given cellular function if one has already decided that it can’t be reduced past a certain point and the individual components won’t function without the whole?

  Again, I ask you Dr. Tesla, what is the concrete proof that ID is superior to evolution? Why should I accept ID as a basis for my research and not some other hypothesis, such as the Flying Spagetti Monster? Your arguments really haven’t demonstrated that it is a better alternative than evolution.

• 269 Robrend // May 24, 2009 at 9:34 pm

  Tesla,

  Having previously claimed that biologists and scientists have flat out ignored literature on intelligent design, I seriously question if you aren’t guilty of the same offense. Intelligent design has been presented as a scenario where all organisms were formed by the intelligent designer at the same time with all modern anatomical features. There are numerous revisions of textbooks produced by pro-ID organizations such as the Discovery Institute which contain this assertion (not to mention the glaring references to Christian creationism). It’s all a matter of public record for those who wish to find it. In the end, your assertion on complexity is just an opinion. A person largely ignorant of geochemistry and geology might mistake some natural mineral formation as artificial just as you, who I’m betting has little or no knowledge of biology and an obviously flawed understanding of evolution theory, might reach the conclusion that some complex physiological features could not form through evolution, pointing to intervention from an outside entity. Why should we be teaching this opinion as a scientifically derived theory in the classroom when it is neither scientific nor a theory? Do you even know how a scientific theory is developed? The claims made by ID are NOTHING BUT humble opinions, arrived at through thinking and methods lacking in scientific reasoning.

  The fact that most pro-ID movements are moving to terms such as “academic freedom” or “religious tolerance” should indicate to you that they have realized the futility of trying to present ID as a science. This brings me to my next point: Tolerance. Tolerance is pointless without mutual respect. Freedom of religion also includes freedom FROM religion, and government-funded institutions such as schools must not promote any particular faith. ID is and will always be linked to the Christian religion because it was derived from the Judeo-Christian creation mythos. This is an inescapable FACT, and will always be a legitimate reason for keeping it away from public schools. Students have a right to not be preached to, and the US constitution states that this right must be respected.

  To make a case for tolerance on a personal level, you would have to indicate that evolution somehow denigrates or oppresses your religious beliefs. If evolution as YOU understand it, contains assertions that you feel is insulting to your personal religious convictions, then either

  A) you have a deeply flawed and factually incorrect understanding of evolution

  B) you subscribe to an extremist literal interpretation of the bible, particularly Genesis.

  You can’t continue to pretend that you are neither of the two possible scenarios because from your choice of arguments and the way you’ve presented yourself, there aren’t any other possibilities.

• 270 SFTor // May 24, 2009 at 10:11 pm

  Tesla,
  it will be just fine not to speak with you. I will however take the trouble to read your posts and point out misstatements and misrepresentations that should not be allowed to stand. Your understanding of evolution is a strange mixture of invention and misunderstanding. You refuse to be taught, and you ignore facts presented to you as you see fit. You really have no place in a discussion forum.

  You have been offensive, and you have been wrong. You will not operate in a public forum like this without being called on it.

  If you remember the movie A Fish Called Wanda, there is a scene when Jamie Lee Curtis is berating Kevin Kline for his considerable denseness. “Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not “Every man for himself.” And the London Underground is not a political movement.” Remember that? Your’e Kevin, Larry. You really are.

• 271 GoramFirefly // May 24, 2009 at 10:41 pm

  Intelligent Design is religion.

  In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, John E. Jones III (United States District Judge) found that (among many other things along the same vein) in regards to Behe, ID and religion:

  “Moreover, in turning to Defendants lead expert, Professor Behe, his testimony at trial indicated that ID is only a scientific,as opposed to a religious, project for him; however, considerable evidence was introduced to refute this claim. Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God. (P-718 at 705) (emphasis added). As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific propositions validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behes assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition.”
  And there is more along those lines.

  http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

• 272 GoramFirefly // May 24, 2009 at 10:43 pm

  ID and Science:

  Again from Kitzmiller v. Dover:

  “It is notable that defense experts own mission, which mirrors that of the IDM itself, is to change the ground rules of science to allow supernatural causation of the natural world, which the Supreme Court in Edwards and the court in McLean correctly recognized as an inherently religious concept. Edwards, 482 U.S. at 591-92; McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1267. First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to change the ground rules of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. (28:26 (Fuller); 21:37-42 (Behe)). Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces. (38:97 (Minnich)).

  Prominent IDM leaders are in agreement with the opinions expressed by defense expert witnesses that the ground rules of science must be changed for ID to take hold and prosper. William Dembski, for instance, an IDM leader, proclaims that science is ruled by methodological naturalism and argues that this rule must be overturned if ID is to prosper. (5:32-37 (Pennock)); P-341 at 224 (Indeed, entire fields of inquiry, including especially in the human sciences, will need to be rethought from the ground up in terms of intelligent design.).”

  There is much, much more in this decision (it runs 139 pages). For a systematic take down of ID as religion and unscientific, as well as the illegality of requiring it’s teaching in public school science classrooms (as it relates to the Dover Area School District at least) it is well worth reading.

  http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

• 273 GoramFirefly // May 24, 2009 at 10:45 pm

  Judge Jones concludes:

  “To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID. We will also issue a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants actions. Defendants actions in violation of Plaintiffs civil rights as guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. 1983 subject Defendants to liability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs attorneys services and costs incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs constitutional rights.”

  http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

  John E. Jones III is a judge for the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. He was appointed to the Court in 2002 by President George W. Bush.

• 274 danbmil99 // May 25, 2009 at 12:16 am

  I can’t be bothered to read all 150 or so comments, but I get the drift. To the “why can’t you accept that some of us don’t believe in Evolution?” crowd:

  The issue is not what you believe. The issue is what you would have the state teach every child. Confusing a 4th grader by putting a well-established theory with almost complete scientific consensus on the same footing with an anti-scientific hodgepodge of irrational, uninformed criticism of said accepted theory, would only serve to confuse and misdirect said kids.

  The reason we get so mad about that is that it is absolutely, 100% unequivocally obvious that the *reason* you want to do this is not to further science, but to hold back science, in the interests of your personal religious views. The real fight here is that you do not want your children to be taught the real science; you want that confusion and doubt, to leave room for your own religious indoctrination.

  Well, see, that is not my problem — it’s yours. And it is more than crazy to expect a political party, in this day and age, that wants to be mainstream, to support such a misguided, disingenuous goal.

  The key to building a “bigger tent” is to filter out the special interests that are so off the reservation that they are non-starters to others who may want to join the tent. Messing up our children’s education to appease your fragile religious sensibilities is in that category.

• 275 danbmil99 // May 25, 2009 at 12:24 am

  SFTor: “The environmental movement is being dishonest, and it’s going to come back and bite all of us. It is losing what little credibility they have by crying wolf over this. The scientific establishment is losing its credibility by not taking a clear stand against the alarmism.”

  You’re 100% right about that. What I fear is that the left has decided that it’s easier, or perhaps even necessary, to persuade through alarmism and cherry-picked science, because people have become so jaded that they don’t believe anything unless it’s marketed in sound bytes and shoved down their throats.

  And, in a sense similar to the ID’ers, there is a group whose ideology is so strong that they are willing to bend science to their ends. They feel that it’s OK to play with the facts a bit, as long as the outcome is people sacrifice to reduce carbon emissions.

  What sacrifice, for what benefit? That’s a discussion they seem unwilling to have. They are doing the typical left thing (well the right does it too, but the left invented the move) of trying to make any discussion of the subject proof that you are a bigoted, useless moron who should be shouted down.

  There really is not much tolerance for respectful debate anymore.

• 276 SFTor // May 25, 2009 at 1:11 am

  Global alarmists will be fought. I endure countless accusations of being a conservative toady of the oil industry, and soldier on.

  I am a liberal and an environmentalist, and I am sure we will find plenty of things to disagree on. But global alarmism has grown to proportions where you can read articles on HuffPo where Obama’s climate adviser, Dr. Holdren, is suggesting direct interference in the weather system to bring down global temperatures (by injecting sulphur particles into the troposphere (!)), which you and I know stand at about 0.4 degrees Celsius above a particularly nasty cold period in recent history, and is currently dropping, although the trend has a short history (not unlike the warming trend, by the way.)

  The mind boggles at this hijacking of good will and human enterprise towards a project that is quixotic in the extreme. To pile on the metaphors: we look like a bunch of Aztecs in a solar eclipse. I keep asking posters on Huffpo: where is this runaway, catastrophic climate change? Why are there five times more polar bears today than forty years ago? Why do we love ice so much? Why do I have to remind people that glaciers have been receding since 1750, after expanding during the Little Ice Age? Why do I continuously have to educate people on the reality of 10,000 Vikings living and farming on Greenland between 980 an 1340 CE? (Greenlanders are getting their first local cabbage crops again in the southern coastal areas. They are smiling all the way to their kitchen pots.)

  Any reasonably thorough reading of the available data shows that the warming trend is weak or nonexistent, and very much based on your starting point. Every analysis shows that whatever it is we are seeing is well within historical trends. Every review of history shows that warming in the range we are most likely talking about is beneficial. CO2 is probably still well within historical ranges (anyone heard of 450 PPM numbers for the years 1800 and 1940?) and most likely beneficial, and unable to cause any significant mischief.

  I am tired of the hyperbole and the antagonism. I just want to get together with people of good will who care about this country and the rest of the world for that matter, and help, to the minuscule extent I can.

  But we need reason, and dialogue.

• 277 Naomi666 // May 25, 2009 at 1:34 am

  Ultimately, the DrTesla’s of our country sacrifice the education of their children on the altar of their short-sighted need to protect their faith. In our society, employers will overlook graduates of inadequate/incompetent colleges and universities that matriculate ill-educated students. (Although we did see some amazing accomplishments under Bush2: more than 50 placements in his administration from one “accredited” college — Liberty University!)

  To say nothing of the perception of our much-vaunted “brain trust” throughout the rest of the literate world…

  We have a lot of work to do to reverse the damage done. It would be nice if the Dems had some help from the GOP (who have not yet acknowledged the part they played).

• 278 SFTor // May 25, 2009 at 2:13 am

  One more comment:

  “What sacrifice, for what benefit?”

  A lot of highly verdant people want to see people riding bicycles with bean sprouts growing in their handlebar baskets. (There’s an expression in Norwegian, which roughly translates into “hussytalk;” it denotes a certain kind of quasi-informed discourse. These people are talking hussytalk.)

  They mistake this for global solutions to global problems.

  People should ride their bicycles more to shed the extra pounds, and they probably should eat more vegetables too. They are good for you after all. But these things don’t do much for the world.

  If we want to get serious about some global problems we commit to the following:

  We bring back a judicious (indoor) use of DDT and other effective agents to combat malaria in the Third World. It’s cheap, it’s relatively harmless, and it works.

  We expand the teaching of family planning in the Third World, including teaching and distribution of contraceptives.

  We institute programs to get these people some potable fresh water that won’t make them sick all the time.

  We deliver affordable drugs to the Third World, including bacteriophages.

  This might help get some societies on their feet, reduce misery, and create new markets for American products.

• 279 SFTor // May 25, 2009 at 2:23 am

  Regarding bending the facts about global warming:

  several scientists in the alarmist camp have stated that it is OK to do so. It’s a radical departure from the usual prudence we expect from the scientific community, and should not be countenanced for a minute.

• 280 Cforchange // May 25, 2009 at 5:23 am

  Scanning through this, it is clear that the Dem’s could win forever. You creationist goofs really should keep that to yourselves, remember separation of chuch and state. We here are talking about issues of state and the problem we will have with our party perception because every “popular” Republican talking head is or can resort to nasty.
  Obviously the connections of faith and the GOP are dangerously tight and wars of religion are NEVER resolved. Maybe a new party or a party purge to the mid teens is necessary because talk like what appears below sends sound middle of the road citizens packing. For the most part this has alread occurred.
  All of this talk is irrelevant and distracting for the end goal – running a competant right sized government. Plus creatism talk makes the GOP look like not my party but a pack of wierdo’s – wonderful combo wierd and nasty, Hmmmm.

• 281 ChristianMiller // May 25, 2009 at 6:05 am

  Reading the reactions to Tesla’s post I see many here are INCAPABLE of understanding nuance and simple logic.

  Tesla is accused of being a creationist and of wanting to exclude people from voting Republican because he dares question the dogma of evolutionary belief. Yet he has never stated anything like that; he is merely questioning the scientific evidence of evolution as a decided fact once and for all.

  It really isn’t proven so it still qualifies as belief. Can’t you science geeks, who proclaim to be completely rational on all fronts, understand that? Things aren’t always either/or, as so many posts here imply.

  This whole thing started with someone referring to Rush’s tongue-in-cheek statements about the 47 million year old fossil as a “missing link”.

  Some people are skeptics – real skeptics, and Tesla is one of them. Tesla is the Gallileo and you guys are the Catholic Church here trying desperately to defend an unproven but popular premise. Tesla is merely holding out for other possibilities, but he is charged by the acolytes to Saint Darwin as a heretic for even putting forth other possibilities.

  For myself, what little I know about evolution and the theory, it sounds plausible and worthy of pursuit, but it is not worthy of blind adherence; and the level of defensiveness surrounding Tesla’s comments suggests more than an objective scientific approach to this issue.

  There is a political debate, and while I am not interested in throwing my support behind people who believe the Earth was created 6000 years ago, I am sympathetic to the abstract, which is the possibility of other theories be included in the curriculum, including something about the possibility of ID.

  Intelligent Design can’t be proven, and by the very nature of the claim it can’t be proven. It is outside of science and therefore scientists would not, and could not ply their trade with the theory. That is OK, but because something can’t be proven or disproven DOESN’T mean that it is impossible and should therefore be removed from consideration.

  An example would be the existence of UFO’s or life on distant planets. Let’s forget anecdotal info and area 51 conspiracy theories for now, and stipulate that there is NO evidence of UFO’s or life on other planets. This is an example of something that is plausible but has no evidence. If and when aliens do present themselves to us, it will seem as though people were silly to believe they DIDN’T exist. These ideas are brilliantly expounded upon in Nassim Nicolas Taleb’s “The Black Swan, The Impact of the Highly Improbable”

  “Our brains are wired for narrative, not statistical uncertainty. And so we tell ourselves simple stories to explain complex thing we don’t–and, most importantly, can’t–know. The truth is that we have no idea why stock markets go up or down on any given day, and whatever reason we give is sure to be grossly simplified, if not flat out wrong.”

  “The problem, Nassim explains, is that we place too much weight on the odds that past events will repeat (diligently trying to follow the path of the “millionaire next door,” when unrepeatable chance is a better explanation). Instead, the really important events are rare and unpredictable. He calls them Black Swans, which is a reference to a 17th century philosophical thought experiment. In Europe all anyone had ever seen were white swans; indeed, “all swans are white” had long been used as the standard example of a scientific truth. So what was the chance of seeing a black one? Impossible to calculate, or at least they were until 1697, when explorers found Cygnus atratus in Australia.”

• 282 sinz54 // May 25, 2009 at 6:28 am

  If the GOP takes it as a given that anthropogenic global warming is a “hoax,” it will be directly clashing with 99% of all the world’s climatologists. It will have positioned itself as an anti-science party, a party of true Know-Nothings.

  I’ll repeat what I said before:

  I don’t care what anyone believes personally. If someone here is a Raelian who believes that Man was created by space aliens, that’s fine with me too.

  But when OUR LEADERS in Washington are trying to decide questions of policy that require knowing the scientific truth, they should trust the scientific community over talk-show hosts or vested interests.

  Example:
  Was there a growing hole in the ozone layer in the stratosphere? In the 1980s, the scientists said yes. The aerosol spray industry, of course, tried everything to discredit what the scientists were saying.

  But President Reagan’s EPA administrator, William Ruckelshous, accepted the scientific truth. He agreed to work with other nations to ban halocarbons for most non-critical applications. And now the hole in the ozone layer has largely repaired itself. Problem solved. And industry adapted to the ban. We’ve still got spray cans today.

  That’s what I’m talking about.

  The question of how the world really works is scientific, not policy.

  Is there a hole in the ozone layer caused by halocarbons? What do the scientists say?
  Is the earth warming, caused by industrial CO2? What do the scientists say?

  A President should listen to the advice of scientists on such questions, not the advice of talk-show hosts or oil companies. He should set policy based on the best knowledge available.

  History has shown us that when governments make arbitrary decisions on scientific THEORIES, they invariably lose in the end. Stalin’s backing of Lysenko couldn’t stop the advance of genetic research worldwide. It only destroyed the USSR’s capability in that arena.

• 283 sinz54 // May 25, 2009 at 6:32 am

  There are still a very very few scientific skeptics of anthropogenic global warming. But their objections are scientific, not political. Unlike the GOP base, they do NOT claim that anthropogenic global warming is an “Al Gore hoax,” or that the world’s scientists are closet Commies who came up with global warming to take America down a few pegs.

  That kind of paranoia is also characteristic of a Know-Nothing party.

• 284 midcon // May 25, 2009 at 6:40 am

  Franco
  Even if evolution is merely a hypothesis and creationism a theory. It is arguing apples and oranges. Evolution seeks only to ask how it was done. Creationism is asking who did it. Science ponders how the natural world works. What processes were and are at play that got the natural world to this point and how things work in the world today. Perhaps when science arrives at proof there was a big bang (no longer just a hypothesis) which is the first something, they can ponder what there was before that first something.

  Creationism is this driving need to find proof of God, which should not be needed by those of faith (belief in the absence of proof). I have faith that there is a higher power. I do not need proof. Consequently, I can devote my energy to understanding how things work, without having to find the hand of God.

  There are those who espouse a literal interpretation of the Bible, which created a need to validate that belief. Unfortunately for them, their faith is tied to something tangible, without which they might question their faith. Creationism is the construct by which those of little faith seek to validate that their faith is not misplaced. Those true believers, (in the absence of proof), do not need science to prove or disprove the existence of God.

• 285 sinz54 // May 25, 2009 at 8:10 am

  midcon: The Big Bang is no longer just a hypothesis, but a well supported theory.

  Belief in a Big Bang was originally derived from Einstein’s equations on relativity. But later, in the 1960s, the discovery by Bell Labs of the cosmic microwave background radiation was exactly what had been predicted by the Big Bang hypothesis. More confirming evidence came from the distribution of light and heavy elements in the universe.

  There’s no longer any doubt in the scientific community that a Big Bang did start off the universe. Though there is still controversy about the details of how we got from there to here.

• 286 mpolito // May 25, 2009 at 8:18 am

  Any person who concluded that they should not be a conservative because of Mark Levin is too foolish to be a conservative. You cannot conclude that a “side” is correct because of the people on it. A person could just as easily tune into Mike Malloy (well, not just as easily, because he is hardly on any stations) and decide the same thing about the left. But in both cases, such a conclusion would be invalid. I would strongly suggest that you should judge ideas based on their merits and not the merits of those who embrace or reject them.

• 287 midcon // May 25, 2009 at 8:50 am

  I deliberately used the work hypothesis (an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument) vs theory ( the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another) in order to shift the focus. One does not have to agree that the Big Bang is hypothesis in order to agree that it is based on what and how versus Creationism, which is concerned with who. Creationism is neither hypothesis nor theory.

  While the physics community is convinced of the Big Bang, there are some difficulties with the hypothesis (which is why it remains a hypothesis). The key question that arises as a result of the BIg Bang is that during the Big Bang and equal amount of matter and anti matter were generated (negative and positive particles). If that is true (and they hypothesize that it is true). Where is all the antimatter? It’s not here because matter and anti matter would annihilate each other. So if we are here and the universe is here, where is all that anti matter? So while the Big Bang is not “settled science” (there really is no such term folks). It has been logically deduced. Now if we could just figure out where the heck the anti matter is, we’d be all set!

  I only bring this up because the research focus is only intended to identify the what and how – Does the Higgs Boson exist? How does it interact with other particles? Did God create particles as building blocks of the universe, maybe, but it is not the intent of science to examine that. Some how creationists seem to think that belief in God precludes acceptance of things like the Big Bang.

• 288 Bulldoglover100 // May 25, 2009 at 9:27 am

  Levin gives moderate Republicans the excuse they need to move in their political beliefs. Anyone who thinks it’s not hurting our party to allow people like this to remain as our mouth piece? Look at the steady decline in our numbers over the last 24 months and tell us why?

  We have allowed the idiot nutters free reign,..while telling someone like Powell to hit the road.

• 289 GoramFirefly // May 25, 2009 at 9:35 am

  Sins54 said:

  “But when OUR LEADERS in Washington are trying to decide questions of policy that require knowing the scientific truth, they should trust the scientific community over talk-show hosts or vested interests.”

  I agree. The science is the science. As political actors, we risk our credibility disparaging scientific conclusions. However, how we respond (policy wise) to these conclusions is fertile ground for debate.

  “The question of how the world really works is scientific, not policy.”

  Absobloodylutely!

• 290 ChristianMiller // May 25, 2009 at 10:17 am

  Bulldoglover100,

  First, you and Frum are engaging in “magical thinking”. You won’t be able to shut Levin up or Rush. They are private citizens with vast audiences.

  So the only thing elected Republicans can do is publicly repudiate them – constantly. Do you think THAT is a winning strategy?

  The decline in the last 24 months has been 90% due to conservatives no longer identifying themselves as Republicans, and I’m not talking just Bible thumping so-cons either.

  I think for a lot of people, including myself, who identified with Republicans and were fairly happy with the party, and are certainly against the alternative, began to see the mask come off many Republicans, including Bush himself, as statists and out of touch elitists.

  How? Harriet Meirs for one thing. I thought she was being rewarded for Bush loyalty with a SCOTUS appointment. That is wrong and dangerous, and it indicated an insularity and elitism. The scandals and the spending, along with a general lack of principle, conspired to alienate the base.

  Moreover, we were getting tired of defending Bush when he didn’t defend himself and still played nice with those who essentially called him (and his supporters) a traitor as “just politics”.

  Then the immigration debate started and the gloves came off. Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Bush turned on those who were their biggest supporters and essentially called them all bigots and xenophobes for wanting our laws and our Constitution enforced. That made us livid. It was then when I broke with the statist wing of the R party.

  Rush and Levin spent about 75% of their airtime for months on end, and I tuned in to listen, excoriating these Republicans, and people called up constantly, livid like myself at what was happening.

  So now that people like me no longer tell pollsters we are Republican, Frum and yourself go around mis-diagnosing the problem.

  Now that we are all gone from the polling numbers doesn’t mean Republicans even as they are now can’t win elections. Just because I and others have stopped identifying with the party doesn’t mean we are now voting for Democrats. But if the party continues to be spineless, PC, acting guilty for being old white men, having no principles and just trying like any politician to advance his own career, well then I and many others might just stay home.

  And for your and Frum’s info, neither Levin or Limbaugh claims to speak for the Republican party. Repeat – neither claims to speak for the Republican party.

  Levin calls Republicans “Repubicans” by the way, so I don’t see where these statist Republicans have to worry about distancing themselves from Levin since Levin himself has done so already.

  Rush last week bestowed the mantle of Republican spokesman squarely on Colin Powell’s shoulders – a joke for those of you who might not get it..

  The political reality? Republicans are nowhere without the conservative base, so unless you are a Democrat mole, your efforts will fail.

• 291 midcon // May 25, 2009 at 12:54 pm

  Franco, I would be interested in seeing the the poll for that statistic of 90% non-identification. Can you provide the url please. I’ve searched but I’m obviously not using the right search terms.

• 292 sinz54 // May 25, 2009 at 1:56 pm

  Franco claims that “The decline in the last 24 months has been 90% due to conservatives no longer identifying themselves as Republicans”

  The decline of the PARTY may be due to some conservatives leaving it (and presumably becoming Independents).

  But that is NOT why the GOP lost the 2006 and 2008 elections. This urban myth has got to be refuted once and for all–the GOP can’t cure its ills by starting with a wrong diagnosis.

  When they walked into the voting booth, those disenchanted conservatives still held their noses and voted for Republican candidates. The exit polls show that over 80% of self-described conservatives voted Republican in 2006, and 78% in 2008.

  The GOP lost those elections because of a massive defection of Independent voters. In 2000 and 2004, the Independent vote split roughly 50-50 between Bush and the Dem candidate. In 2006 and 2008, Independents broke strongly for the Dems.

  The GOP base is still laboring under this delusion that the losses of 2006 and 2008 were due to THEM–their staying away from the polls. There is absolutely no evidence that massive numbers of Republicans stayed away from the polls. There is plenty of evidence that the GOP lost the votes of just about everybody else but loyal Republicans. And the GOP has *never* been a majority party in my lifetime–it has always had to reach out to Independents and moderate Dems in order to win. If it couldn’t, it lost.

  Right now, Hispanics are the fastest-growing voting bloc in America–and the GOP can’t seem to win more than 30% of them. That’s going to tip elections to the Dems for years to come. Even if the GOP base is happy with its party again, as a percentage of the electorate, that base is small and shrinking steadily.

• 293 krove // May 25, 2009 at 3:50 pm

  Hispanics are one big reason however the youth vote is an even bigger problem. The Republicans have lost this demographic for generations. That is a real problem because the GOP is going to loose all those old white guys as they die off.

  So there is a two pronged problem and I don’t see a solution in the way the GOP and it’s supporters are treating the problem.

  To call the Current President a Socialist, then a Fascist, Then Marxist, then Hitler. Well, where is there to go from there, and we are only 4 months or so in. Maybe the next step is Satan! Call him Beelzebub Obama, that will work with the young people.

  You guys have peaked far too early in the name calling label stakes, you should have kept Hitler and Fascist in reserve, you have nothing left to throw unless you can invent some new words.

  Best of luck jumping all over the SCOTUS non nomination as well. To kick up a stink when there isn’t even a nominee is dumb. And if you go down the road of destroying the character of a possible Hispanic woman well there goes a dual vote again.

• 294 midcon // May 25, 2009 at 4:56 pm

  Out of 2380 delegates at the Republican Convention, 36 were African American. That’s 1.5%! The Census Bureau assesses the overall percentage of the population at 12% African American. While I am not an advocate of affirmative action for the GOP, it is an interesting statistic.

  I don’t know if there were counts of other demographic groups but it is estimated that in 2050, non-Hispanic white Americans will only represent 46% of the population.

  It should seem clear to even the casual observer that the GOP must attract other demographic groups if it is to remain viable. But nearly every poster here who identifies themself as a staunch Republican (part of the GOP base), has expressed disdain for anything that might change the party’s future even to the point of wishing good riddance to those who are on the fence about staying or going.

  It reminds me of the late 40’s, early 50’s saying – Better dead than Red. Not a single staunch Republican poster seems to even care that the party is in decline. It is almost as is they would prefer its demise rather than consider change. Amazing!! If they are representative of the “base,” I am not sure there is anything that can be done.

• 295 krove // May 25, 2009 at 5:34 pm

  midcon.

  1.5% That seems high to me. I watched the GOP convention really closely and only saw 5 black faces the whole time, and one of those was Alan Keyes the well known nut case.

• 296 midcon // May 25, 2009 at 8:43 pm

  krove

  The count supposedly was 36. I did not watch the convention, so I can’t say one way or the other. Didn’t watch the other convention either. I was waiting for the independent convention but it must have been on after I went to bed

  And of course this statistic is not intended to suggest that the GOP should build more diversity, But it does suggest that only a narrow demographic is attracted to the GOP. And from what I can see in the news and on blogs and from many of the posters here, that’s just fine with them – it’s their party, love it or leave it. The fact that people are leaving simply means nothing to them.

  And since they don’t believe in evolution they can’t get their brains wrapped around the concept of adapt or become extinct.

• 297 SFTor // May 26, 2009 at 12:10 am

  Has anyone considered that the best thing for the Republican Party might really be to go away, just to get rid of the baggage? One could then start over with a New Republican Party, based on maybe Eisenhower Republicanism? (That would be my favorite dead hero for it at any rate.) I think the Democratic Party would shell off a lot of voters to such a new party, and tit would probably find favor with a lot of independents.

  Splinter groups like creationists and other authoritarians would form their own parties (The Republican Progress Party), and Libertarians would form theirs (the Libertarian Party.)

  It would bring multiparty democracy to the U.S., which may not be a bad thing. It could also break the lobbyist stranglehold on Washington. This in my opinion is the biggest problem we are facing: we are all dancing to the tune of K Street.

• 298 SFTor // May 26, 2009 at 12:15 am

  proporational representation would obviously need to be a part of the deal, by the way.

• 299 GoramFirefly // May 26, 2009 at 12:36 am

  SFTor said:

  “proporational representation would obviously need to be a part of the deal, by the way.”

  If by that you mean some sort of parliamentary system to seat House members; then that would require a Constitutional amendment. That would be an interesting fight to have, although there would be little chance of success.

  Personally, I would like to see us go to such a system. It would certainly bring many more views to the table, instead of only what the two majors decide is relevant.

• 300 SFTor // May 26, 2009 at 1:06 am

  errata: “proportional” representation of course. And yes, the chances of that happening are minimal.

  What I see is that this country is presently oscillating between two flavors of one-party rule. We are coming out of sixteen years of near-exclusive Republican rule–not a success. I don’t hold out much greater hope for the one-party rule we have in store. It doesn’t mean I don’t like the Obama Administration, I do, but I think there is every reason to believe that it will be co-opted by the usual lobbyist suspects over time.

• 301 ChristianMiller // May 26, 2009 at 6:00 am

  Because of the electoral college and other built-in rules, the USA will always be a two-party system.

  Also in multi party democracies it always boils down to two competing coalitions. Yin/Yang is everywhere.

  sinz,
  “…But that is NOT why the GOP lost the 2006 and 2008 elections. This urban myth has got to be refuted once and for all–the GOP can’t cure its ills by starting with a wrong diagnosis.

  When they walked into the voting booth, those disenchanted conservatives still held their noses and voted for Republican candidates. The exit polls show that over 80% of self-described conservatives voted Republican in 2006, and 78% in 2008.”

  But there is such a thing called TURNOUT. It worked very well for Obama and not-so-well for McCain.

  The 2006 election was a natural shift. The off-year election of any Presidents second term is historically won by the party that opposed the President. This was compounded by a couple of other factors, Republican scandals and the unpopular war along with the MSM actively salivating for Democrats.

  The 2008 election was between a charismatic young black man who was adored by the media and a bumbling old Senator who ran a lousy campaign, performed badly in debates and said the wrong things at the wrong times.

  One must be very careful when going by people calling themselves “independent”. I have often found them to be Democrats who hold the conceit that they think for themselves and look at both sides of the argument before choosing (to vote Democrat).

• 302 sinz54 // May 26, 2009 at 9:21 am

  krove sez: “Hispanics are one big reason however the youth vote is an even bigger problem. The Republicans have lost this demographic for generations.”

  Not necessarily.

  I remember when folks said the same thing about the “flower child” generation of the 1960s: They’re lefties and will remain that way forever.

  But when those young people suddenly lost their parents’ subsidies and had to fend for themselves, an astonishing thing happened: The children of the 1960s became the entrepreneurs and investors (”yuppies”) of the late 1970s and the 1980s.

  And in the 1980s, Reagan captured a majority of the youth vote.

  The GOP’s message of economic freedom and a strong America *can* resonate with today’s young people–again, as soon as they have to get real jobs and work for a living. It’s only the moral scolding of the social conservatives that has to stop. Each new generation is more sexually active and more tolerant of homosexuality than the previous. It’s the social conservatives who are losing the fight, and wrecking the GOP’s reputation with young people in the process.

• 303 sinz54 // May 26, 2009 at 9:23 am

  Franco: The exit polls showed that in the 2000 *and* 2004 elections, the Independent vote broke roughly evenly between the Republicans and the Democrats. The Independent vote has never swung strongly Democratic till 2006 and 2008.

  Write off the Independent vote as just a bunch of Democrats in sheep’s clothing, and you write off all future elections.

• 304 ChristianMiller // May 26, 2009 at 10:00 am

  sinz,

  There are factors that are impossible to control or understand when talking about self-identified independents and I take this into consideration when looking at these polls.

  Further there was reason independents went for Bush over Gore and Kerry. It is perfectly logical that self-identified independents would break in 2006 and why they would want to vote for Obama.

  As someone who has principles, do you ask yourself, “How can someone who has a choice between two opposite world-views fluctuate between the two election to election”?

  These people fall into two distinct categories. They are people who call themselves independents but vote the same way R or D every year, we can exclude those, because they don’t change. Then there are these oscillating independents being non-ideological, or ideologically ignorant, would be prone to vote for style over substance and/or be prone to voting on time-local issues. And wouldn’t these independent types be enamored of someone like Obama?

  There were many Democrats and independents who simply thought that Bush was better on terror (time-local issue re 9/11) and some who didn’t quite want to run away from Iraq with our tail between our legs. Both of those issues were for practical purposes gone by 2008. Bush was a better candidate than Kerry and Gore.

  In the case of 2000, that was a “change” election, and Gore was seen as more of the same. 2004 was about Iraq and terror.

  So this explains specifically why it may not be a trend and trying to use these elections as evidence of a trend is highly questionable. It is impossible to conclude this is a larger trend when you consider the very different candidates and surrounding current events.

• 305 ktward // May 26, 2009 at 12:12 pm

  sinz54 5/23, 5:41 pm:

  I’m glad this thread continues and you’re still here. Holidays and all.

  First and foremost, please know you have my genuine, personal best wishes for your health recovery. Very often, the rhetorical dynamics on blog threads mimic the characteristics of driving in one’s car: both are insulated from personal connection, so we will ’say’ things we would never say to a person standing in front of us. I do my utmost to keep this in mind, which at times means, in my car, I must keep my one-finger salute to myself.

  Having said that, allow me a thoughtful but realistic response:

  Wanda Sykes is an actor/comedian. Unlike Rush, she’s not considered a spokesperson nor representative voice by ANY political Dem/Left entity. Her ‘I hope his kidneys fail/20th terrorist’ remarks at the WHCD re: Rush were, in fact, thought by many on the Left to be crudely over a decency line, including [gasp!], Olbermann:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQnFtLRatiI

  Your quote:

  “I saw no conservatives taking pleasure in Elizabeth Edwards’ cancer, or Senator Ted Kennedy’s cancer.

  “But I saw leftists all over taking pleasure in the deaths of Milton Friedman (a gentle soul if there ever was one), William F. Buckley, Ronald Reagan, and indeed just about anyone who was or is right of center.”

  There are perverse voices, gross minorities, within both L & R extremes–the very point I was originally making, I believe. I am personally unaware of joyful comments (as you characterize) from the credible Left regarding the deaths of these Conservative individuals. Please kindly back up your contention with links, if you would.

  With all due respect, the blanket demonization of either ideology is, ultimately, dehumanizing to a significant part or our population. And gets us nowhere. We are better served to stick to substantive issues, and ignore volatile partisan distractions the likes of Sykes and Prejean.

• 306 sinz54 // May 26, 2009 at 12:30 pm

  Franco: There you go again, contemptuously dismissing Independents who can vote either Dem or Repub because you claim it’s out of “ideological ignorance” or because they prefer “style over substance.” I’m going to continue to resist your blatant attempts to define us away as unprincipled, ignorant, and swayed by emotion. It’s flat WRONG.

  There are other factors besides ideology when choosing whom to vote for. One is basic command of the issues–does the candidate know what he’s talking about? Will he be able to hit the ground running on his first week in office? And there is basic character too.

  I would rather vote for a competent liberal than an incompetent conservative. I would rather vote for an honest liberal than a corrupt conservative.

  Of course McCain was closer to my views ideologically than Obama. After the GOP convention, he was actually ahead of Obama slightly in the polls. (Which is pretty good, given the public’s disgust with Bush at that point.)

  But when the financial markets seized up and the U.S. economy went south, McCain didn’t seem to know what to say or do. He bounced around aimlessly. Plus, we voters remembered that McCain had said for most of the 2008 primary campaign what a strong economy we had. So did his economics adviser, Phil Gramm. And that turned out to be false.

  Those things took precedence over ideology.

• 307 ChristianMiller // May 26, 2009 at 3:27 pm

  sinz54, I can’t define a group I don’t have that power. If you vote independent and are different than what I describe, so be it, you need not take my general observations personally. Independents are not a monolithic group by any means – no group is, and independents even less so (because they are ahem, independent?) I am merely talking about a subset of independents. How can you say I am trying to define you “away as unprincipled, ignorant, and swayed by emotion. It’s flat WRONG.”

  Are you saying there is no subset of independents who vote this way? Did you take a poll at your independents meeting ? Is it somehow in the charter rules that independents can’t act like normal human beings ? And I do contend they are more likely to vote for style over substance if they have such a shallow sense of the differences between candidates. I.E that competence trumps ideology. I agree with your assessment of McCain and I withheld my vote for reasons I wrote about in the Colin Powell thread, but in retrospect can you see how Obama’s plan comes from ideology and that competence in steering the ship in the wrong direction is even worse than floundering around?

  You are also revealing to me what I consider some political naivete or perhaps ignorance of the realities of political parties and ideological goals. If you knew more about leftism, socialism and communism you might be a little more reticent to vote for the competent “liberal” as you call them.

  (I don’t like to contribute to the destruction of language – leftists are anything but liberal. They are the opposite of liberal in the literal sense. They are for State control and State power.)

• 308 echarles1 // May 26, 2009 at 4:49 pm

  Mark Levin cannot at heart be happy about his own behavior in this exchange. He does not mount a defense of it, but only call attention to liberals whose behavior is worse. He’s surely right that there are horribly behaved liberals out there but his behavior is his own. I can’t listen to the guy, as much as I agree with him.

• 309 barker13 // May 27, 2009 at 5:13 am

  Wow… I’m a couple hundred posts behind!

  (*CHUCKLE*)

  Allow me to address a few comments that were addressed to me the other day:

  Re: Sinz; 5/23/2009 10:24 AM –

  “barker13: The Dem base would reject me…”

  They’d try. That’s besides the point, though. I’m talking about what I’d like to see and I’d like to see more folks like you active in the Democratic Party. (You do realize that’s not an insult to you; it’s actually a compliment; your presence would make the Democratic Party a more conservative Party and thus from my perspective a better Party.

  Re: Chekote; 5/23/2009 10:32 AM –

  Thanks for the link to the transcript. The way I read Limbaugh’s comments, he wasn’t so much pooh-poohing evolution as he was making the case that evolutionary theory still has lots of holes and this latest find doesn’t fill each and every “hole” to the point where were understand evolutionary science any more perfectly than we understand all facets of climate change. Perhaps Rush doesn’t believe in evolution, but I’ve never heard him say that in so many words. If Rush was asked directly “Do you believe God created Adam out of nothing and then Eve from Adam’s rib and then out of their union the entire world was populated?” my guess is that he’d say no, that he’d basically make the case for “intelligent design.” I could be wrong. Still, until something that direct is brought to my attention where Rush flat out denies evolution… I’m sticking with my doubt that he denies it.

  Re: Chekote; 5/23/2009 10:34 AM –

  Fair enough. Basically we agree. (*SHRUG*)

  * To be continued…

  BILL

• 310 barker13 // May 27, 2009 at 5:15 am

  * Still addressing old comments

  Re: Midcon; 5/23/2009 10:58 AM –

  “…I’ll enjoy the majority position of being able to swing elections whichever way we independents decide… ‘

  But that’s just my point, Midcon – YOU don’t speak for “we” independents anymore than I do. (*SHRUG*)

  Re: Sinz54; 5/23/2009 11:57 AM –

  Quoting Rush: “Cross species evolution, I don’t think anybody’s ever proven that.”

  Well…??? Have they…??? Serious question… I last took biology in 10th grade. In any case, if you’re reading this you’ve already read my response to Chekote posting the link in the first place.

  Re: Ktward; 5/23/2009 12:18 PM

  “…do tell, why are you registered as a Dem?”

  It was the most powerful protest gesture I could think of to demonstrate my disgust with the RINO Congresses of 2001-2006 (I actually filed the paperwork in early ‘06, months and months before the elections) and post-re-election Bush. I went so far as to vote for Democrat “Leftist” John Hall in ‘06 in order to fire Sue Kelly (the incumbent RINO congresswoman).

  Re: Ktward; 5/23/2009 12:25 PM –

  GOOD CATCH! Thanks for posting that link.

  * To be contined…

  BILL

• 311 barker13 // May 27, 2009 at 5:17 am

  * Finishing up addressing old comments

  Re: Midcon; 5/23/2009 12:39 PM –

  “…my write in vote gets me just about as far as your vote for Bob Barr…”

  Which doesn’t deflect from my earlier point. (*SHRUG*)

  Re: Ktward; 5/23/2009 12:46 PM –

  “See? midcon demonstrates that I’m not the only one annoyed by your, uhm, ’style’.”

  Never! (*LAUGHING OUT LOUD*)

  Re: Midcon; 5/23/2009 1:46 PM –

  “I admit barker’s style makes his posts a little more difficult but if he can’t snort then I won’t be able to!”

  Ah-ha! (*WINK*) (*STICKING MY TONGUE OUT AT Ktward*)

  Re: Midcon; 5/23/2009 2:00 PM –

  “…he does maintain a degree of civility which is sorely lacking from so many other posters.”

  (*NOD*) (*BOW*)

  “Although my one wish would be eliminate some of the spacing between snorts and sentences. That affects the readability more than anything.”

  Midcon. Think of my posts as speeches. Read them as such. (Seriously… try it… try reading aloud.)

  Re: Franco; 5/23/2009 2:23 PM –

  “The only thing I don’t understand is the SNORT reference.”

  Really…?!?! Hmm… perhaps it’s a regional thing. I’m a New Yorker, how’bout the rest of you. We snort. (*SNORT*) = “…you dumb bastard…” but in a rueful sort of way – amused rather than angered.

  BILL

• 312 johnconnor // Jun 7, 2009 at 9:52 pm

  The conversation above is completely and without a doubt, proof that this country is in the toilet and being flushed. It’s amazing that none of you liberal socialist who have spouses are not widows or widowers. I have no idea how YOUR spouses have not killed themselves. Mark Levin is a great man and he had every right to say whatever he wanted to this worthless lady. Have any of you idiots heard of “freedom of speech” ???? I hope she thinks about her country before she votes again or opens her stupid mouth. If you don’t have anything important to say then don’t call and waste our time…..you dopes!

You must log in to post a comment.