DIATRIBE WARNING! What have we done (or not done) to “deserve” all the Christine O’Donnells in politics?

The best thing we could do is switch off our tvs. The media stirs this hysteria up. It is a sad state of affairs.

But this won’t happen. People will continue watch and watch uncritically.

I didn’t think it would get worse after Palin….lol, I honestly didn’t. I assumed people would think it was all a huge mistake and make more of an effort to investigate people they vote for. But then again, look at the people who are voting…..People like us (people that can think) are still the minority :(

O’Connell can’t be elected. She is even losing her Republican base. This election is further evidence that we fell into Bizarro World sometime in the late 1990’s.

why at such pains to avoid politics?

“Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you”

get with the program

There are two traditional, christian, easy ways to test reliably if she is a witch:
1. Torture her.
If she confesses, she is a witch, burn her. If she does not confess under torture, the devil gave her strength, thus she is a witch, burn her.

2. Bind her, tie a rope to her feet and throw her into a lake.
If she sinks and drowns, she is innocent. If she floats, she is a witch, burn her.

I have come to the conclusion that you are all either insane, or are so steeped in liberalism/soclialism that you can consider no other path as being viable.

Obama was one of the LEAST known politicians to ever be elected to office in America. No one even checked to see if he met the minimum eligibility for office. You could at least get real and tell the truth.

“No one even checked to see if he met the minimum eligibility for office. You could at least get real and tell the truth.”

Which is why we need to shut off our tvs.

Pardon me, @mammal, but I take NO pains to avoid politics. In fact, I embrace the topic. Just not here on Fluther, where debates can turn from civil to nasty on the turn of a dime.

Quite frankly, I wouldn’t trust a career politician from EITHER party as far as I could THROW them! And I’d LIKE to throw them in the East China Sea!

I’m totally with @CaptainHarley on the first response he gave to the O’Donnell political ad. She may not be electable; she may have some bad ideas; she may be simplistic and simply wrong in her policies, but what the hell could anyone find wrong in that ad?

She’s being attacked for things that have nothing to do with her policies and ideas or even her character. And piled on here.

I’m with him in the second answer, too, now that I see it.

@CyanoticWasp

Thank you! : )

It is a sad state of affairs. Unfortunately O’Donnel has been attacked unmercifully for attending a meeting with her boyfriend IN HIGH SCHOOL. The problem seems to be that the Democrats can’t afford to talk about the issues. They can’t talk about the economy, jobs, debt, or even foriegn affairs. So attack anything you can find about the other person and try to keep the debate off what has been happening the past two years.

Take a look at how much you know about Coons, her opponent. There is virtually no information other than he is a self described Marxist. The media wants to talk about O’Donnell. I’m sure their motives are pure.

Who’s afraid/ and/or incapable of discussing issues? She could have talked about the issues. Instead O’Donnell chose to talk about witchcraft in her ad.

Which may be necessary, because her voters are the kind of people who think witches are a real danger in the US today.

“The media’s motives are pure?”

Aaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

@Austinlad I’m confused. You don’t want her to put out an ad saying she’s not a witch but then you call her a witch and want her to fade away?

I think that this is a symptom of clinging to the two-party system like stink on shit. Right now, everybody is fed up and doing things in moderation hasn’t fixed anything, so we must go to extremes, thus extremist candidates from both sides are the only way to win over the vast majority of people who are more interested in sound-bites and the bread-and-circuses than in critical thinking. And our political arena is less Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and more WWE Raw as a result of our taste for drama over actual government.

It makes me want to facebrick

@CaptainHarley I think I speak for a lot of people here when I say that we prefer Obama over someone who is batshit insane, regardless of political affiliation.

@Jaxk The Republicans do a lot of that too, so I can’t help but be reminded of the pot and the kettle. Lets just call all politicians on both sides a bunch of mudslinging morons and call it a day?

@Jaxk Trust me, less than a year ago, no one in Delaware would have or could have imagined in a million years the that race for Joe Biden’s vacant Senate seat would end up being between Coons and O’Donnell. It was going to be, it was supposed to be, a race between Beau Biden (Joe’s son and Delaware’s current Attorney General) and Mike Castle. Our heads are still spinning.

@jerv

But, as far as I’m concerned, Obama IS “batshit insane!”

Right @CaptainHarley cause thats what you learned through actually reading what he has accomplished for this country. The president of the United States of America has been the most Centrist president ever. But in this batshit insane media you believe it’s patriotic to call a Constitutional professor insane. Cause I’m sure with your vast intelligence you can certainly tell me that the other candidate, who really wasn’t born in the United States would have saved this country from destruction.

I think that this thread full of people who are (or at least represent the pool of) registered voters is a perfect illustration of what we have done to deserve the situation we are in now. We are too busy attacking each other to stay on topic, yet in a weird way, we are staying on topic as we are answering by means of demonstration.

@CaptainHarley Compared to Sarah Palin or a fair number of your fellow Teabaggers, I believe that Obama is quite sane. Maybe not entirely effective, but definitely not batshit.
I disagreed with many of W’s policy decisions, but never thought he was batshit. So let us separate those you disagree with from those you honestly feel need to be held under secure psychiatric care, or at least have no business in office, not even as a member of the PTA.

And @CaptainHarley Do you honestly, really think that someone could become the President of the United States (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) without a whole bunch of someones checking “to see if he met the minimum eligibility for office” let alone without having the most incredibly extensive vetting and background checks possible done on him? Completely and thoroughly done by an army of professional checkers and vetters? Background checking that would, at the very least, start before he even became a candidate. No party major, or even minor political party would support a candidate that didn’t meet the minimum eligibility for the office. Do you really think that? Do you think that this country is so lax about the laws that govern it and national security that it’s even possible for that to happen? That it’s possible to have a someone even run for the office let alone assume the office of President without meeting the minimum eligibility requirements for that office? You may not think he’s qualified or has enough experience, that’s something altogether different but to claim that he somehow doesn’t meet the “minimum eligibilty” for office is just kind of, well, unreasonable. The minimum requirements are that 1. the person must be a natural born citizen of the United States (or born abroad to parents who were both U.S. citizens 2. Be at least 35 years of age. 3. Have been a permanent resident of the United States for at least 14 year. What minimum requirement are you saying Obama does not meet? He was born in Hawaii in August of 1961, a full two years and some change after Hawaii was admitted to the union as a state so he is a natural born citizen. He was sworn into office in January of 2009 at the age of 47 so he meets the minimum age requirement 3. If you have any evidence that Obama was not a permanent resident of the U.S. for at least 14 years prior to his inauguration, I would like to see it.

Actually, @lillycoyote, the question of qualifications to be President is a very good one. Who does all of this checking that you say “a whole bunch of someones” does? And who are the “someones”, and why should I believe them?

I really think it’s a Constitutional oversight that now that the US is a more cosmopolitan nation, and more people from families that haven’t been here for 300 years or more are running for office (which I think is a good thing), it seems to me that we do need a Constituationally approved / appointed body to do the certifications so that “a whole bunch of someones” doesn’t have to.

It’s astonishing to me that in light of Obama’s contretemps with the issue that a bill hasn’t been put forth to do exactly this. And as much as I disagree with the President on most issues, I think that he is right not to produce his birth certificate to every Tom, Dick and Harry who requests it, because there is no requirement that he should have to. But this has to be settled.

I don’t want to have to vet everyone that might be nominated to particular office, and they don’t want me (and every other potential voter) to have to—or to have the means to. Now that we’ve matured as a political entity to where this can be an issue, it needs to be addressed via the Constitution.

One of two things is true: either Obama is totally inept as a leader and public office holder, or he is deliberately attempting to destroy the United States of America.

And, I would just like to see a copy of his birth certificate, and I do NOT mean the “Certificate of Live Birth,” but a real, live honest-to-goodness birth certificate. Until I do, and I can establish its authenticity, I will continue to doubt that he meets the minimum qualifications to be President.

@CaptainHarley I take it that you are not familiar with Hanlon’s Razor. Personally, I live by it since the alternative is to assume that the world really is a conspiracy that is out to get me.
Which do you find more comforting; being surrounded by idiots or being completely paranoid?

No, the only two “razors” of which I am aware are Occam’s razor, and the one I use in the mornings. : )

@CaptainHarley

I tend to agree with you. At this point it doesn’t really matter about the birth certificate but it should never have been an issue in the first place. There are constitutional requirements and they should be verified. I would think the FBI but maybe another similar organization should certify eligibility. And it should be done early in the process.

@lillycoyote

I have no problem with that. There are a lot of races currently underway that nobody would have anticipated the candidates. I’ve never seen an election like this one. It is truly “throw the bums out”. They’ve said that many times in the past but then go and reelect the same idiots. This time may be different.

@Jaxk I think we all should be used to the government dropping the ball by now.

was she at least a “community organizer” in the past? That seems to be the bare minimum now.

@CaptainHarley Spouting Birther nonsense is not going to do a great job of defending Tea Party lunatic candidates. In fact, candidate Obama did submit a certified copy of his Hawaii birth certificate. After right wing blogs speculated that it was a forgery, it was examined and found to be legitimate. Even the conservative Republican Governor of Hawaii vouched for it after reviewing it in the state’s hall of records.

Now, to the question @Austinlad asked. We have let an anti-government, anti-science mindset begin to take greater and greater hold of our country. We have, as an electorate, voted for fairy-tale stories like tax cuts eliminate the national debt, so let’s always cut taxes. Government is bad, so lets cut taxes so much we kill it off, then everything will run itself smoothly.

Because we wanted something for nothing, and kept convincing ourselves something-for-nothing schemes really work, we have allowed an ever more extreme set of political lies gain a foothold in American politics. Now add an economic disaster just short of the Great Depression, and the fear it provokes brings out a wild group of snake-oil salesmen who sense the time is right to sell sheer lunacy. Add a public angry at both parties and all Washington insiders, and bat-shit-crazy candidates at least are clearly different from the good-old-boy network of Washington insiders.

Who cares that their ideas would utterly wreck this great nation if they were put into action. I do, for one, and it’s looking more and more like I am not alone.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that most people in this country view politics as something you’re involved in only once ever 2 or 4 years.

It’s almost an asset to be a moron in this current election.

That’s so much bullshit. I’m not a moron, nor am I ingnorant of politics. I belong to the Libertarian Party and the Tea Party Patriots. If you want to attack something, attack the Libertarians, since they at least have a coherent approach to politics in America, but the Tea Party is simply for smaller government, lower deficits, and lower taxes. WTF is wrong with THAT?? Obama and his cronies have very nearly driven this Country into bankruptcy! How could anyone else with new ideas POSSIBLY be worse? I don’t like his idea of “change” and never will.

@CaptainHarley What’s wrong with the wish list is it won’t work. You can’t pay down the National Debt by cutting taxes. Smaller government won’t let you do that. You could shut down the entire Federal Government outside of entitlements and defense, and we would STILL be writing red ink. Some on the right are honest enough to say they want to privatize Social Security and eliminate medicare and Medicaid so they can give the rich their next great tax break. But I really don’t think America’s millionaires and billionaires are so much in need of help that we should let seniors and the poor starve to help out the wealthiest 2%.

I’m open to discussing what cuts to government make sense. We could save a bit. But the Tea Party hasn’t put forward anything that appears workable to me.

we watched SNL and The Daily Show… and thereby encouraged them with ratings… I watched so I’m partly to blame

@ETpro Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Obama recently call them out by basically telling them to stop complaining and start offering detailed, workable solutions? I’ll have to find that link now…

@cockswain – re “It’s almost an asset to be a moron in this current election.”

Sadly, true. My local city news outlet (formerly a paper, now a website) sends out questionnaires to political candidates and prints their answers in a voter’s guide each election season. Back in the day, one of the comedic staples was the challenge of the questions by various third party candidates. The Libertarians, for example, quite often tried to explain why their arrests for drug possession weren’t disqualifiers. Today, the Republican running for the State House says, in part:

Education/Degrees: WDYTTIR? Why do you think this is relevant? Are we to believe that someones opinion on a matter is better served by courses attended and degrees received, or should we consider that such may serve them a greater ability to lie and mis-inform the public about those issues to which they sound “more educated” and about themselves in general?...

Personally, if a candidate is running on a platform of “why do you care how or where I was educated?” it makes me fear for my country. The rest of his answers were equally batshit insane. And this guy is one of the “big two,” running as “lunatic fringe.”

To answer the question, what have we done to deserve this? Our fellow citizens have encouraged this!

@jerv – Is this what you’re looking for?

“The problem that I’ve seen in the debate that’s been taking place and in some of these Tea Party events is, I think they’re misidentifying sort of who the culprits are here,” said Obama. “As I said before, we had to take some emergency steps last year. But the majority of economists will tell you that the emergency steps we take are not the problem long-term. The problems long-term are the problems that I talked about earlier. We had two tax cuts that weren’t paid for, two wars that weren’t paid for. We’ve got a population that’s getting older. We’re all demanding services, but our taxes have actually substantially gone down.”

“So the challenge, I think, for the Tea Party movement is to identify, specifically, what would you do?” he added. “It’s not enough just to say get control of spending. I think it’s important for you to say, I’m willing to cut veterans’ benefits or I’m willing to cut Medicare or Social Security benefits or I’m willing to see these taxes go up. What you can’t do, which is what I’ve been hearing a lot from the other side, is we’re going to control government spending, we’re going to propose $4 trillion of additional tax cuts, and that magically somehow things are going to work. Now, some of these are very difficult choices.”

@CaptainHarley please explain then how smaller government would have fixed the problems that confronted our nation over the last two years and please be specific.

I want smaller government… I want less taxes… (poof) your taxes are lower under this administration, so please explain how and I will gladly walk beside you.

@laureth Yep! Thank you!

An interesting quote which I believe pertains to the discussion at hand:

“There is no nonsense so gross that society will not, at some
time, make a doctrine of it and defend it with every weapon of
communal stupidity.”
—Robertson Davies

@laureth That is exactly what I had in mind when I said that. People are running campaigns alleging they don’t need education or “college smarts” to do the job.

@CaptainHarley I wasn’t targeting you with my comment nor calling you a moron. However, if you claim you aren’t ignorant of politics yet believe the utter bullshit that is the birther movement and that “Obama and his cronies are bankrupting America”, you have incredibly selective politics.

Further, there’s nothing wrong with the basic philosophy of smaller government. The problem with the Tea Party is it is full of idiots who frequently have zero economic or legal experience, yet think they are qualified. They know they are full of shit, like O’Donnell, and are just taking advantage of the ignorance of the average idiot that thinks they actually have a clue how to effectively accomplish and run a smaller government.

I hate the stupidity and lies so fucking much.

@cockswain One great exaple was all the Tea Party people who went to the event on the Washington Mall complaining bitterly that there weren’t enoug trainsa on the Washington subway system. Now of course, these same people want massive tax breaks and want all public transportation projects killed—except when they want to use them

But nothing will ever top all the teabagger with signs telling the government to keep their hands off their medicre:
http://www.relentlesslyoptimistic.com/2009/09/keep-your-government-hands-off-my-medicare.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8936909&mesg_id=8937273

Yes, and anyone that has ever called Obama a socialist, a communist, a nazi, a racist, a Muslim, or compared him to Hitler or Stalin has invariably been associated with the Tea Party. I’m not even going to touch the vile racist posters I’ve seen at those rallies.

In their defense, they have some intelligent, true Libertarians in their midst. But they aren’t all on the same page with the rest of the movement and it is largely just an embarrassment for our nation.

@cockswain If you think this nonsense is an embarrassment for our nation, try being a resident of the State of Delaware and having to answer for having unleashed Christine O’Donnell on the rest of you. Though, I didn’t have anything to do with it personally, I can’t vote in the Republican Primary.

we’ve got Ken Buck and Dan Maes in Colorado. Plenty embarrassing on their own merits.

@cockswain You have my condolences.:-)

What a surprise…..O’Donnell makes a fool out of herself again: http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/13/delaware.senate.debate/index.html?hpt=Sbin

“O’Donnell backed Republican positions such as calling for tax cuts and spending cuts to balance the budget, and she repeatedly said tough social issues such as abortion rights and teaching creation theory in public schools should be state or local issues instead of federal decisions.”

Hey O’Donnell, the Bronze Age called and said they want their ideas back lol.

@Blackberry I don’t understand why you attack the wrong thing about her, too. In fact, it seems pretty common throughout this thread (and the mind-numbing list of similar threads throughout Fluther). What’s wrong with her saying that these things should be local instead of federal decisions?

In fact, the quoted comment from the interview that “What I believe is irrelevant. What I will support in Washington, D.C., is the ability of the local school system to decide what is taught in their classrooms.” mirrors the defense that JFK gave when people were ‘afraid’ to elect a Catholic as President… fifty years ago. What she believes is irrelevant.

So many of these stupid threads (and this is another in a long line) concentrate on the wrong things about candidates and their ideas, for the wrong reasons.

No wonder we have the government we have. No wonder at all.

@CyanoticWasp You are correct, I should have more tact when presenting my opinion on these issues. I have no problem at all with local decisions such as these. This is simply my opinion, but I feel something is inherently wrong when a person (especially a person in such a powerful position) sees no problem with allowing young students be taught something like creationism. It is quite a conumdrum, but you’re right, the locals can run their schools however they wish, I just feel bad for the people in the area.

Allowing “the locals” is what created sergregation in the first place. I’m sure the more we leave it up to the locals the more everyone will get a quality education.

The problem with her and the debate is the substance of her positions, or lack thereof. Nothing but sound bites without solutions, typical republican response. If we let republicans regain power this will be the prevailing attitude and NOTHING will get done, and the only people that will suffer will be WE the people.

@thekoukoureport

I’m sure hat argument will gain some democratic support but it doesn’t hold up to close scrutiny.

The Department of Education was created in 1979, began operation in 1980 (the brainchild of Jimmy Carter). At that time we ranked number one in the world for education levels of high school grads and number one in the world for college grads. Since that time we have slipped to 9th for high school level and 7th for college level as shown here. Centralizing our education system has certainly been a boom for our children.

I suspect as we become less and less educated we will cry for more and more federal involvement. We’re moving in the wrong direction (again). It would seem O’Donnel got it right.

Yup. It’s Carter’s fault. Not what lazy sacks of easily distracted crap we are.

@CyanoticWasp The problem is that many of those in the political arena with crazy ideas attempt to use their office to promote those crazy ideas, so what many politicians believe is important.

@Jaxk While I don’t dispute your facts, I have to wonder if you are confusing correlation with causation. I mean, there are a lot of other things that have happened since then. You could blame the Internet just as easily, or the declining role of religion in our society, Hell, with the way industry operates, it could be something in the water!

@jerv It’s the fluoride in the water. Damn commies!

You’re partly right, @jerv, but we never question the candidates on everything they believe—and couldn’t process the answers even if we did ask the question and could / did receive meaningful answers, which won’t happen. So in that sense—and also in the sense that a US Senator has about as much influence on public school curricula as I have on the Catholic liturgy—it’s a mostly meaningless attack.

@CyanoticWasp I disagree. Or are you not familiar with the (since repealed) Butler Act and the historic trial that ensued when it was challenged?

Legislature can enact laws that force their views (religious or otherwise) on schools, companies, citizens…. basically everyone. Therefore, what they believe does matter, though not nearly as much as their professionalism and ability to keep those beliefs from unduly influencing them in their duties. For instance, would you want a politician who wanted to pardon (or outright refuse to prosecute) people like Scott Philip Roeder, Shelley Shannon, or Michael Frederick Griffin?

@jerv you’re talking about a state statute, but the candidate in question is running for the US Senate. If we were talking about a candidate for the state legislature then I might agree with you.

@CyanoticWasp So the level of the office somehow attracts a different type of politician? One incapable of having ulterior motives or agendas? I don’t buy that.

@jerv I don’t know where all of this is coming from. All I said was that a US Senator has very little influence—none, in fact—in local school curricula. And further, that questioning a candidate for office on all of his or her beliefs would be fruitless, pointless, and of no value. (I’ll bet if you asked, you might find a few Senators even now who don’t believe in gravity. And I’ll bet that 95% of all Senators couldn’t find the area of a circle, compute the volume of a cube, or solve a quadratic equation. But so what? They don’t have to.)

In fact, this leads me to an idea for what might be an excellent qualification test for office: If the candidate can’t compute his or her income tax return using the published materials from the IRS, a pencil and a pocket calculator, then he or she is disqualified from even running. At that point, I wouldn’t even care if the candidate believed in evolution or Santa Claus; I’d be impressed with one who would do that. And it might help us get to a simpler tax code that doesn’t try to reward and punish everyone via their tax return.

@CyanoticWasp Lets just agree to disagree on how influential Congress can be with the laws they pass; we could go back and forth for a long time and I don’t think either of us will be swayed.

On a semi-related note, my roommate believes that any law that cannot be fit onto a single letter-sized page in a 9-point font should not even be considered for debate. The simpler the law, the fewer loopholes and technicalities.

Let’s not forget things like ‘No Child Left Behind’ that have had disastrous results. Very expensive and a failure at best. What will work in an inner city environment doesn’t necessarily work in a farming community. The idea of federally run education simply doesn’t work.

You may want to blame the decline in our education system on everything but government but the fact remains that if the DoE was designed to improve our education, it didn’t work. The federal government spends about $100 billion/yr on education and it is a local issue. It is bureaucracy built on bureaucracy. We are no longer striving for excellence but rather teaching to the lowest common denominator. The federal government did that.

All a senator should have to know is that it’s not the job of the federal government to handle education.

@Jaxk Not quite; it’s just that I don’t blame the government for everything.

@Jaxk If there is a way to defend inequality or teaching BS, you Cons are sure to find it. When the Department of Education came into existence has NOTHING to do with the fact that it took Federal level action to desegregate the schools. And young-earth creationism would replace real science in biology classes many school districts across the land if we turn the decision over to local districts.

@jerv

Honestly, I don’t either. Only the things they screw up.

@ETpro

I’m not sure what point you’re making with the desegregation argument. Segregation cut across a lot of things, separate bathroom, drinking fountains, back of the bus, housing, and yes the schools. Are you blaming desegregation for the deteriorating schools?

I’ll give you guys one thing however, ya’ll have a real bean up your butts about creationism. Catholic schools have been around for quite sometime and actually produce some pretty good education. And frankly, with impact religion has had on world history, not to mention current history, I find it hard to believe anyone wants to ignore it in our education.

@Jaxk Creationism is a good example since some want it taught exclusively. I think I speak for a lot of us when I say that there is nothing wrong with presenting Creationism as one possibility; it’s only when all other theories are swept under the carpet that there are issues. After all, don’t we want people to be able to think and decide for themselves? I know I don’t want a generation of narrow-minded sheep.

@jerv

I don’t doubt you could find someone that wants it taught exclusively but there is certainly no movement for that. We pretty much settled this issue in the ‘20s with the Scopes Monkey trial. Whereas Scopes was found initially guilty (the verdict was overturned), the outlaw against Evolution lost in the court of public opinion. In 1968 the Supreme court ruled that it lost in law as well. Trying to reach back to the 20s for an argument that the federal government should take over education is quite a stretch. If there is an argument today, it is whether the pendulum has swung too far and that religion can no longer be mentioned.

Anyway, all this has been resolved long before the federal Government decided it needed to take over education. Hell, damned near a century now. I think you both may be grasping at straws.

The 20s? Sadly not the case. Peruse this link. The efforts to teach creationism (now called Intelligent Design) and discredit evolution have not stopped. I can’t remember the exact numbers on a recent poll, but somewhere like only half of Americans believe evolution.

@jerv I don’t think it’s reasonable at all to teach Creationism at all as an alternative to evolution. One is based on science, the other isn’t at all.

@cockswain

My guess is that you could look at any thing and get a mix of people for and against. for instance (from your link):

“In 2000, a People for the American Way poll among Americans found that:

29% believe public schools should teach evolution in science class but can discuss creationism there as a belief;
20% believe public schools should teach evolution only;
17% believe public schools should teach evolution in science class and religious theories elsewhere;
16% believe public schools should teach creation only;
13% believe public schools should teach both evolution and creationism in science class;
4% believe public schools should teach both but are not sure how.
(1% had no opinion)”

I’m not sure how federalizing the education system would change any of this. There are still questions about evolution and the universe that can’t really be answered. If you want to explain them as not yet discovered or as there may be another force at work here, really is your choice. Personally I believe Erich von Däniken. And believe he should be taught along with all the other theories.

I’m not implying that federalizing the education system would correct this. I was just responding to this statement: ”Anyway, all this has been resolved long before the federal Government decided it needed to take over education. Hell, damned near a century now. I think you both may be grasping at straws.”

But if there was a federal mandate that all schools that receive federal funding must teach evolution, and it is taught in science class, and creationism is optional to teach as part of social studies class in the context of religion, I would like that.

I’m unfamiliar with von Daniken. What does he say?

@cockswain
He postulated the hypothesis that aliens visited earth in your ancient history and were worshipped as gods by your even more primitive ancestors.

You have no idea how close he is to the truth, hehe

What the hell does that have to do with evolution, and why should we teach that as science to our children? Where’s the data on that one, beyond “well, those pyramids look pretty hard to build” or “those carvings on the Nazca Plain look like they were meant to be viewed from the sky”?

I don’t care if that is presented to kids in social studies as what some folks believe, but it certainly is not representative of the scientific method. Unless I’m about to learn a lot of iron-clad stuff I didn’t know, complements of @Jaxk and von Daniken.

@cockswain

If you haven’t read the book I’m not about to explain here. Suffice it to say it explains some of the gaps and contradictions between evolution and Religion. Anything further would be way off topic. Chariots of the Gods, it’s an interesting read even if you only look at it as science fiction.

@Jaxk Sorry to jump back in so late in the discussion. I was speaking exclusively of young-earth creationism, The Catholic Church does not embrace that view. And to believe in young-earth creationism, you have to believ that a very large amount of all scientific observations about the earth, its age, carbon 14 dating, the age of the universe, the validity of the expansion of the universe, all are completely false,; and that the Universe is not 13.73 billion years old, but no more than 10,000 and probably more like 6,000. You have to believe Noah had dinosaurs with him on the ark. If that gets inserted into teaching science, I don’t think science has much meaning. Because it means that ideological beliefs trump observed data, and observing data then explaining it in a falsifiable way is the very root of the scientific method.

@ETpro

Sorry you’re getting way too specific for me. Frankly I don’t know or have ever met anyone that wants creationism taught as a science in class. I do however know of some that wouldn’t mind seeing it used to explain that we don’t yet know everything and some would use intelligent design to explain those things we don’t know or can’t comprehend. Infinite space is one of those issues for me.

@Jaxk There have been many drives to teach young-earth creationism either alongside Darwin’s theory of evolution or in place of it.

Don’t dare drag me into a debate on space-time. That’s a topic I know much more intimately than politics. Space-time isn’t infinite, as mind boggling as that seems. Space-time is mostly flat, and is like the surface of an ever-expanding balloon whose skin isn’t thin like a balloon, but has some third dimensionality. There is no spece inside or outside the balloon. Nothing (with the exception of something outside out dimensions) can go there. However weird we think our Universe is, we don’t know the half of it. But that’s a discussion for some other thread. Now are we far enough off topic to stop beating this dead horse? :-)

Anyway, I love debating with you. You are articulate and well informed. It’s a breath of fresh air to hit that in someone so conservative.

@ETpro

Thanks for the compliment. And you obviously know more about space time than I do. Since I can’t really understand it I take it on faith, which was my real point about that. Maybe at some future point we could beat that horse.

I enjoy a good debate as well. Now if I could just drag you over to the Dark Side.

@ETpro Such are the dangers of assuming that the days referred to in Creationism are the 24-hour constructs we use rather than, say, the period between God starting to work on something and the point where he decided to rest which may have been millions of years by our time scale.

@Jaxk I concur; it is refreshing to disagree with someone who can actually use their brain.

@jerv

And no less refreshing to agree. Well, maybe a little less :)

@Jaxk Want to wind me up on a topic where we, as fellow small business owners, might agree. Let’s concoct a question on how the corporate tax rate and all the exceptions to it might best be changed to get America back in the business of creating more jobs than people.

@ETpro

I fear it may take more than a change to the corporate tax rate but that would be a start. I’ll think on it. Let me know if you come up with a good question.

@Jaxk Roger that.