Buy Text-Link-Ads here
Recent Comments

    follow OlbyWatch on Twitter

    In

    John Gibson Welcomes Back the Infamous, Deplorable Keith Olbermann

    tonyome wrote: <a href="http://twitchy.com/2014/07/28/voxs-laughable-praise-of-keith-olber... [more](11)

    In

    Welcome Back, Olby!

    syvyn11 wrote: <a href="http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/keith-olbermann-reviving-worst... [more](9)

    In

    Former Obama Support/Donor Releases Song Supporting Romney/Ryan: "We'll Take It Back Again" by Kyle Tucker

    syvyn11 wrote: @philly I don't see that happening. ESPN has turned hyper left in recent... [more](64)

    In

    Blue-Blog-a-Palooza: Ann Romney Edition!

    djthereplay wrote: By mkdawuss on August 29, 2012 6:17 PM Will John Gibson be having a "Red-B... [more](4)

    In

    No Joy in Kosville...Mighty Olby Has Struck Out

    djwolf76 wrote: "But the FOX-GOP relationship (which is far more distinguished and prevalen... [more](23)

    KO Mini Blog



    What's in the Olbermann Flood Feed?
    Subscribe to Olbermann Flood Feed:
    RSS/XML

    KO Countdown Clock


    Warning: mktime() [function.mktime]: It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EDT/-4.0/DST' instead in /home/owatch/www/www.olbermannwatch.com/docs/countdown.php on line 5
    KO's new contract with MSNBC ends in...
    0 days 0 hours 0 minutes

    OlbermannWatch.com "My Faves" Set

    OlbermannWatch.com Favorited Photos from other Flickr Users

    Got OlbyPhotos? See some on Flickr? DO NOT email us. Send us a FlickrMail instead. Include a link to the photo. If we like the photo you will see it displayed in the Olby Flickr Flood above.

    New to Flickr? Sign up for a FREE Flickr account!


    Got some OlbyVideo? See some on YouTube? DO NOT email us. Send us a YouTube Messages instead. Include a link to the video. If we like the video you will see it displayed in our favorites list in our YouTube page.

    New to YouTube? Sign up for a FREE YouTube account!

    Red Meat Blog
    Keith Olbermann Quotes
    Countdown Staff Writers

    If they're not on Keith's payroll...

    ...they should be...

    Crooks & Liars
    Daily Kos
    Eschaton
    Huffington Post
    Media Matters for America
    MyDD
    News Corpse
    No Quarter
    Raw Story
    Talking Points Memo
    Think Progress
    TVNewser
    Keith Lovers

    MSNBC's Countdown
    Bloggerman
    MSNBC Transcripts
    MSNBC Group at MSN

    Drinking with Keith Olbermann
    Either Relevant or True
    KeithOlbermann.org
    Keith Olbermann is Evil
    Olbermann Nation
    Olbermann.org
    Thank You, Keith Olbermann

    Don't Be Such A Douche
    Eyes on Fox
    Liberal Talk Radio
    Oliver Willis
    Sweet Jesus I Hate Bill O'Reilly

    Anonymous Rat
    For This Relief Much Thanks
    Watching Olbermann Watch

    Keith Olbermann Fanlisting Site I
    Keith Olbermann Fanlisting Site II
    Keith Olbermann Links
    Olberfans
    Sports Center Altar
    Nothing for Everyone

    Democratic Underground KO Forum
    Television Without Pity KO Forum
    Loony KO Forum (old)
    Loony KO Forum (new)
    Olberfans Forum (old)
    Olberfans Forum (new)
    Keith Watchers

    186k per second
    Ace of Spades HQ
    Cable Gamer
    Dean's World
    Doug Ross@Journal
    Extreme Mortman
    Fire Keith Olbermann
    Hot Air
    Inside Cable News
    Instapundit
    Jawa Report
    Johnny Dollar's Place
    Just One Minute
    Little Green Footballs
    Mark Levin
    Media Research Center
    Moonbattery.com
    Moorelies
    National Review Media Blog
    Narcissistic Views
    Newsbusters
    Pat Campbell Show
    Radio Equalizer
    Rathergate
    Riehl World View
    Sister Toldjah
    Toys in the Attic
    Webloggin
    The Dark Side of Keith Olbermann
    World According to Carl

    Thanks for the blogroll link!

    Age of Treason
    Bane Rants
    The Blue Site
    Cabal of Doom-De Oppresso Libre
    Chuckoblog
    Conservative Blog Therapy
    Conservathink
    Country Store
    Does Anyone Agree?
    The Drunkablog!
    Eclipse Ramblings
    If I were President of USA
    I'll Lay Down My Glasses
    Instrumental Rationality
    JasonPye.com
    Kevin Dayhoff
    Last Train Out Of Hell
    Leaning Straight Up
    Limestone Roof
    Mein BlogoVault
    NostraBlogAss
    Peacerose Journal
    The Politics of CP
    Public Secrets: from the files of the Irishspy
    Rat Chat
    Return of the Conservatives
    The Right Place
    Rhymes with Right
    seanrobins.com
    Six Meat Buffet
    Sports and Stuff
    Stout Republican
    Stuck On Stupid
    Things I H8
    TruthGuys
    Verum Serum
    WildWeasel

    Friends of OlbyWatch

    Aaron Barnhart
    Eric Deggans
    Jason Clarke
    Ron Coleman
    Victria Zdrok
    Keith Resources

    Google News: Keith Olbermann
    Feedster: Keith Olbermann
    Technorati: Keith Olbermann
    Wikipedia: Keith Olbermann
    Wikipedia: Countdown
    Wikiality: Keith Olbermann
    Keith Olbermann Quotes on Jossip
    Keith Olbermann Photos
    NNDB Olbermann Page
    IMDB Olbermann Page
    Countdown Guest Listing & Transcripts
    Olbermann Watch FAQ
    List of Politics on Countdown (by party)
    Mark Levin's Keith Overbite Page
    Keith Olbermann's Diary at Daily Kos
    Olbermann Watch in the News

    Houston Chronicle
    Playboy
    The Journal News
    National Review
    San Antonio Express
    The Hollywood Reporter
    The Journal News
    Los Angeles Times
    American Journalism Review
    Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
    St. Petersburg Times
    Kansas City Star
    New York Post/Page Six
    Washington Post
    Associated Press
    PBS
    New York Daily News
    Online Journalism Review
    The Washingon Post
    Hartford Courant
    WTWP-AM
    The New York Observer
    The Washington Post


    Countdown with Keith Olbermann
    Great Moments in Broadcast Journalism
    Great Thanks Hall of Fame
    Keith Olbermann
    MSM KO Bandwagon
    Olbermann
    Olbermann Watch Channel on You Tube
    Olbermann Watch Debate
    Olbermann Watch Image Gallery
    Olbermann Watch Polling Service
    OlbermannWatch
    OlbyWatch Link Roundup
    TVNewser "Journalism"

    July 2013
    September 2012
    August 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009
    October 2009
    September 2009
    August 2009
    July 2009
    June 2009
    May 2009
    April 2009
    March 2009
    February 2009
    January 2009
    December 2008
    November 2008
    October 2008
    September 2008
    August 2008
    July 2008
    June 2008
    May 2008
    April 2008
    March 2008
    February 2008
    January 2008
    December 2007
    November 2007
    October 2007
    September 2007
    August 2007
    July 2007
    June 2007
    May 2007
    April 2007
    March 2007
    February 2007
    January 2007
    December 2006
    November 2006
    October 2006
    September 2006
    August 2006
    July 2006
    June 2006
    May 2006
    April 2006
    March 2006
    February 2006
    January 2006
    December 2005
    November 2005
    October 2005
    September 2005
    August 2005
    June 2005
    May 2005
    April 2005
    March 2005
    February 2005
    January 2005
    December 2004
    November 2004

    Google

    Olbermann Watch Masthead

    Managing Editor

    Robert Cox
    olby at olbywatch dot com

    Contributors

    Mark Koldys
    Johnny Dollar's Place

    Brandon Coates
    OlbyWatch

    Chris Matthews' Leg
    Chris Matthews' Leg

    Howard Mortman
    Extreme Mortman

    Trajan 75
    Think Progress Watch

    Konservo
    Konservo

    Doug Krile
    The Krile Files

    Teddy Schatz
    OlbyWatch

    David Lunde
    Lundesigns

    Alex Yuriev
    Zubrcom

    Red Meat
    OlbyWatch



    Technorati Links to OlbyWatchLinks to OlbermannWatch.com

    Technorati Links to OlbyWatch Blog posts tagged with "Olbermann"

    Combined Feed
    (OlbyWatch + KO Mini-blog)

    Who Links To Me


    Mailing List RSS Feed
    Google Groups
    Subscribe to Olbermann Watch Mailing List
    Email:
    Visit this group



    XML
    Add to Google
    Add to My Yahoo!
    Subscribe with Bloglines
    Subscribe in NewsGator Online

    Add to My AOL
    Subscribe with Pluck RSS reader
    R|Mail
    Simpify!
    Add to Technorati Favorites!

    Subscribe in myEarthlink
    Feed Button Help


    Olbermann Watch, "persecuting" Keith since 2004


    May 14, 2007
    Countdown with Keith Olbermann - May 14, 2007

    "COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN" (8:00 P.M.-9:00 P.M. ET)

    Host: Keith Olbermann

    Topics/Guests:

    • IRAQ POLITICS: Dana Milbank, Washington Post national political reporter and MSNBC political analyst
    • ELECTION 2008: John Harwood, Wall Street Journal senior contributing writer and CNBC chief Washington correspondent
    • ADVICE FOR PARIS HILTON: Paul F. Tompkins, VH-1 contributor and comedian

    Ugh! I sat down to review Countdown on my TiVo and discovered that it recorded "House" on Fox for my wife so I am going to have to record the midnight show of Countdown and write up the show tomorrow.

    Let me take a stab at it without having watched the show at all. Based on the guest list and a quick scan of the New York Times web site and Media Matters...I am going with this...

    Keith Olbermann portrayed the search for three American soldiers in Iraq as another sign that the surge is not working. Dick Cheney alienated everyone he met in the Middle East and interfered with Condi Rice's diplomacy. The Bush administration is bad for planning high level meetings with Iran, Karl Rove wanted the U.S. Attorneys fired in order to suppress voter turnout among minorities.

    Keith interviewed Dana Milbank on Iraq politics and worked in a question Mitt on Romney. Milbank agreed with everything Keith said and was "great thanksed" by Keith.

    Keith interviewed John Harwood on Election 2008 with a focus on Mitt Romney who is, you know, a MORMON and a flip-flopper on abortion. Something about Bill Clinton helping Hillary probably with some b-roll of a Hillary 2008 ad - just another "donation" to the Clintons.

    For sure the video of the reporter screaming at the guy from the Church of Scientology. Words of wisdom for Paris Hilton from Tori Spelling's mom and lots more on whether or not Paris will really go to jail with all the earth-shattering ramification which that entails.

    WPIW Worse - Terry Keenan of Fox News Channel because she works at Fox, she's a woman and she said something less than supportive of "carbon credit", Worser - Neil Boortz for insulting a woman, Worst - Rush Limbaugh for blaming Bill Clinton for the Fort Dix Six.

    Let me know how I did. I will have to a real write up tomorrow in the early AM.

    UPDATE: OK I've watched the show. Looks like I did pretty well. I've added video.

    Justice resignation (McNulty) - this broke too late for me to notice
    Karl Rove involvement in GonzoGate - check
    Cheney on Iran, contradicts Condi Rice - check
    3 Missing soldiers - check
    BBC scientology screaming match - check
    O'Reilly's "newstalkers" - missed this one
    Candy Spelling - check
    Patti Hearst - missed this
    Michael Jackson/American Idol connection - missed this

    Pete Williams - unwilling to engage in OlbySpin, we learn that McNulty did not "step down" but rather announced he will be leaving in several months which he had indicated long before the current controversy existed. This was not sudden, no shock, coming for some time. No "great thanks" for non-cooperating witness Williams.

    OLBYPOCRISY ALERT - Karl Rove "targeted" U.S. attorneys who were not cracking down on voter fraud. On OlbyPlanet voter fraud is the most urgent threat to our democracy and likened the 2004 election to the Ukraine and the Orange Revolution: here, here and here.

    Joanthon Turley - Likens Gonzales to Capitain Queeg, there are "chalk outlines" on the floor in McNulty's office (except he is still there and will be there for several months).

    Keith does report that the Wolfowitz report submitted to the World Bank board today. Keith does not bother to mention that last Monday he was reporting that the report would be filed "as soon as tomorrow" (must have been a tip from David Shuster). Last week Olbermann and his guests repeatedly portrayed Wolfowitz as lacking White House support yet the President, the Vice President and the White House Press Secretary have all done so and did so again on the day the report was submitted to the board. Keith failed (again) to mention ANYONE who has come out in support from Wolfowitz ranging from board members, leaders of African governments and administration officials.

    4th story begins with a typical Olbermann cheap shot. President Bush spoke today in the Rose Garden about greenhouse gas omissions. Normally for Keith this would be a good thing for a President to do but on OlbyPlanet when Bush does its bad. Why? Because it means he doesn't care about the three missing soldiers in Iraq. Duh!

    Meanwhile, Cheney is making a speech on on board the USS Stennis, an aircraft carrier "150 miles off the Iranian coast" and "warning that country the U.S. and its allies, if any allies there are left, will keep it from restricting sea traffic as well developing nuclear weapons". Just another version of an OlbyLie - a dash of truth, one fib and a lot left out.

    This from the U.S. Naval Forces Central Command:

    The USS John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group (JCSSG) entered the U.S. 5th Fleet area of operations (AOO) Feb. 19 to conduct Maritime Security Operations (MSO) in regional waters, as well as to provide support for ground forces operating in Afghanistan working alongside coalition partners, including a French nuclear-powered aircraft carrier and its strike group.

    A highlight of JCSSG operations thus far in 5th Fleet, was Stennis’ interaction with the French nuclear powered aircraft carrier, Charles de Gaulle. Upon Charles de Gaulle’s arrival to the region March 16, the two ships provided support to the ISAF on the ground in Afghanistan, and conducted bi-lateral exercises at sea and personnel exchanges between the strike group ships.

    A trip down Olbermann Lane shows that following the release of the Baker-Hamilton Commission plan, Olbermann pilloried the Bush administration for not engaging Iran in diplomatic talks. When Bush begins exactly the type of dialog recommended by the commission, Olbermann portrays such talks as a bad thing. When Bush emulates Teddy "talk softly and carry a big stick" Roosevelt and uses the oldest trick in the diplomatic playbook - "carrot and stick" that's portrayed as "schizophrenic". Olbermann has been pushing for the U.S. to pay more attention to Afghanistan but when Cheney visits the carrier group that is supporting the mission in Afghanistan he leaves that part out. When the American and French navy conduct joint training exercises, Olbermann leaves that out altogether and snidely questions whether the U.S. even had allies.

    So, let's see if we've got that right?

    Democrats recommend talking to Iran - GOOD
    Bush talks to Iran - BAD

    Democrats recommend more attention to Afghanistan - GOOD
    Bush pays more attention to Afghanistan - BAD

    Democrats recommend following the Baker-Hamilton recommendations - GOOD
    Bush follows the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton plan - BAD

    Democrats call for better relations with our European allies - GOOD
    Bush fosters better relations with our European allies - BAD

    Democrats for diplomatic initiatives in the Middle East - GOOD
    Bush authorizes new diplomatic initiatives in the Middle East - BAD.

    Glad we have Keith to clear all that up for us.

    Dana Milbank - Cheney is a "loose cannon" undermining Bush foreign policy. A statement by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell shows that the White House is now contradicting itself except that McConnell is a U.S. Senator and not a member of the Bush White House and the White House sent Cheney to deliver the same message to the Iraqi government on his recent trip to Baghdad. Milbank explains that Bush had a "good reason" for talking about greenhouse gases today and apparently it has nothing to do with no longer talking about Iraq or not caring about the three soldiers missing in Iraq. He's "great thanksed" anyway so once again Olbermann is not actually listening to the answers from his guests.

    Oddball - Samurai marathon, Indian police laughing

    Newsmakers - Tommy Thompson on firing gay employee, Lisbon ad agency, guy arrested for marijuana

    #3 Decision 2008 - Keith talks about Hillary getting the support of most of the top elected officials in her "native state....her 'current' native state", Romney did not have pre-marital sex but Romney's grandfather had five wives, Gingrich leaning towards running, Hagel talking to Bloomberg, voters who voted for both Bloomberg and Guiliani in New York favor Bloomberg for the White House (except that Bloomberg's not running).

    John Harwood - Bill will overshadow Hillary but he's a great asset to Hilllary. Romney looks great the more he is seen.

    Top 3 soundbites -Bush at Jamestown, Conan on Free Paris Hilton rally, Keith Olbermann promotes Football Night in America on NBC.

    #2 - Church of Scientology shouting match

    Keeping Tabs - Michael Jackson, Simon Cowell, Donald Trump

    WPIW - Teachers that scared kids, Ann Coulter did not falsify her voting records (but more bashing of the FBI from Keith "save me from the soap flakes" Olbermann, Bill O'Reilly attack #183 for sending a producer to interview an elected official at the Vermont state house while he was (gasp) eating breakfast!

    #1 - Paris Hilton gets advice from Candy Spelling and Patty Hearst

    Paul F. Tompkins gets another try out as Michael Musto's replacement.

    BONUS Countdown Roundup from Ed Schatz...

    The infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann gave an incredibly long opening spiel. It was going to be a long night in the Spin Zone. Gonzales-Gate [Ding!]. Vice President Cheney on Iraq. A report on our missing soldiers in Iraq. Shocking. I wonder if Herr Olbermann will use it as a chance to beat up on the administration. Olbsession O'Reilly's "ambush." Scientology. Paris Hilton, Michael Jackson and puppet theater. Dear Lord, help me.

    #5: Gonzo-Gate! Paul McNulty resigns. Devious links between the White House and the Justice Department on the "scandal" [Ding!]. Oralmann uses scandal more times than I can count. Olby mentions Sen. Schumer (Far Left-NY). Pete Williams from HQ comes to rescue Keithy from his ignorance on the story. Williams says McNulty never even planned to stay on the job for more than two years and that the consternation over the firings accelerated his departure. Of course, this is not what Fat Ass wanted to hear. It should have been: He resigned because he tarred by scandal! Olby asks a poignant question about how all of this is affecting the Justice Department. Much to my surprise, it's making business more difficult to conduct! Thanks for asking that one! I was so confused. Just a "thanks for staying late with us" Pete. Learn to be a better sock puppet.

    The Perfessor comes into parrot Jabba's need to prove the eeeeeeevil conspiracy between Karl Rove, the White House, the Justice Department and everyone else at the RNC to supposedly only prosecute voter fraud that "seems" to benefit Democrats. Very upsetting for Keith when Democrats engage in voter fraud and don't get away with it. Back to McNulty, who was expected to leave and was not a shock, Keith states is a shock. Whatever. OlbyPlanet conforms to its own rules. The "decks are cleared" now that McNulty is gone with just Gonzales left. Great Thanks for some of your time.

    Witz End? Adam's Apple manages to squeeze in a quick attack on Paul Wolfowitz and his girlfriend. Hm. The irony. I'll leave it at the end.

    #4: Apparently, the administration is more interested in having wars than winning them, according to the esteemed Olbermann. The President talks about something very near and dear to a far left person like Olby, greenhouse gasses, but instead attacks "Mister" Bush for being more worried about said gasses than the kidnapped soldiers. Really? The President is getting regular updates. http://www.recordpub.com/news/article/1997591 Welcome Dana Milbank, sans splashy suit, here to mock the Vice President being on a battleship. Milbank manages to insult the Vice President's weight by saying they didn't have a flight suit big enough for him. Weight jokes are the pinnacle of good journalism. Edward R Olbermann and Milbank manage to have fun with each other saying not much of consequence. Everything is going to hell. Iraq is a disaster. More suggesting that talking about greenhouse gasses is really a "change in rhetoric." The President wants his own Oscar. Unusual for Milbank, he reminds Keith of how bad gas prices are and that the President might be concerned about that. Any more recapping will cause you to drop dead from boredom and redundancy. Great thanks.


    Oddball: Samurai Marathon, Police in India (Keith reminds us he was on Family Guy - what an honor)

    Newsmakers: Tommy Thompson, Lisbon Ad Agency, some guy who grows marijuana - but he has a funny last name - Stoner! HA!

    #3: Bill Clinton out hawking his wife for President. BJ Clinton on YouTube - wow. So exciting. Isn't the entire world on there yet? We don't just get a clip of it - we get nearly the entire thing. Following, Mitt Romney attacks on his changing of views and even though Fmr. Gov. Romney has only been married once and hates polygamy, Mr. Merlot needs to tell us about the Governor's father and grandfather who had very different attitudes (they had multiple wives). John Harwood enters the Spin Zone; tries to be funny. Admitting it's an old question, but going with it anyway, Olby wonders how Sen. Clinton can keep BJ from overshadowing her. No news here.

    #2: BBC vs. Scientology. If the BBC is biased against Scientology, I'm all for it. Regurgitated video from New York.

    #1: Attacks on as many women as possible. Paris Hilton, her mother, Tori Spelling, her mother, Patty Hearst on and on and on. Unusual. Paul F. Tompkins help out in the mockery. Keith laughs. I don't.

    Media Matters: Bronze goes to teachers who stage a fake. Silver: Anne Coulter not being charged with voter fraud. Gold: Bill-O's "minions" to "ambush" State Rep. Lippert. Oralmann clearly used this article as he claims the sex offender laws were just "tightened" though fails to mention that it's now a 5 year mandatory minimum, not the 25 years Jessica's Law calls for that Vermont has rejected repeatedly. Source: http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070513/NEWS04/705130395/1024/NEWS04 along with http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2007/05/14/ambush-interview/
    Keeping Tabs: Michael Jackson asks Simon Cowell for help. Donald Trump has a grandchild.

    Culture Warrior on Amazon: 730. Worst Person: 3,600 and selling for 6.99 (70% discount - ha!). Barnes and Noble #951, unranked, respectively.

    UPDATE: Video & Transcript

    Keith at the "upfronts" for Football Night in America


    Posted by Robert Cox | Permalink | Comments (242) | | View blog reactions
    user-pic

    242 Comments

    The Olby and the Perfessor segment is always much funnier than any segment with Paul F. Tompkins, the most unfunny "comedian" on the planet. He reminds me of a wax figure.

    Bush Supporters

    Bob - I missed House. Could you give a recap of that show instead? It was probably more interesting that Olbermann.

    "A man who's unable to drive a car after a bizarre subway accident could be House's toughest case ever."

    (Just a proposed Fox voice-over teaser for a future sweeps month episode....)

    So according to Keith, we shouldn't look for our three missing soldiers because it will make Al Qaeda mad? And we shouldn't attack Iran because they have promised to respond? Is Keith working for MSNBC or Al Jazeera?

    I just loved how Keith went on tonight talking about voter fraud as if it was no big deal. This after he has been screaming and screaming for years about voter fraud. Oh wait, that's right, voter fraud only matters when Republicans are involved. Silly me.

    Let's see, Bill O'Reilly is "The Worst Person in the World" because he's trying to get Jessica's Law passed in Vermont? Wow, Keith. Please don't tell me that you care more about protecting the rights of terrorists than you do protecting the rights of children.

    Bush Supporters!!

    Democrats: 'No comment'
    on terrorists' endorsement
    DNC, Clinton, Pelosi, Kennedy decline
    to discuss jihadists' vote of confidence

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Posted: November 3, 2006
    5:00 p.m. Eastern


    By Bob Unruh
    © 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

    Howard Dean, DNC chairman

    National leaders in the Democratic Party, including Howard Dean's Democratic National Committee, potential House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, possible presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and longtime party stalwart Ted Kennedy don't want to talk with WorldNetDaily about an endorsement their party has received.

    The endorsement came via a WND article by Jerusalem bureau chief Aaron Klein, who interviewed leaders of several prominent Mideast terrorist organizations, including Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and Islamic Jihad.

    "Of course Americans should vote Democrat," Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group, and infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, told WND.

    (Story continues

    Owwwoooh Bwooovine!

    You've really gone and got your hoof in the trap again.

    ---
    Democrats: 'No comment'
    on terrorists' endorsement
    DNC, Clinton, Pelosi, Kennedy decline
    to discuss jihadists' vote of confidence

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Posted: November 3, 2006
    5:00 p.m. Eastern

    ---------

    Say, Bovine!

    Which party lost control of congress in Nov, 2006?

    Let me put it another way, Bovine, do you think the American people, in Nov. 2006, voted Democrat because:

    a) the failures of Moron in Chief and the goose stepping (R) congress

    b) The terrorists endorsed the Dems.

    Chew your curd some more while you listen to Dr. Weiner all the way to 2008!

    Chew your curd some more while you listen to Dr. Weiner all the way to 2008!


    Posted by: Average American Patriot at May 15, 2007 12:57 AM
    I listen to Savage once a month, if that, asswipe, chew that, lunatic.

    Feeble Minded BovineQueen barfs:

    I listen to Savage once a month, if that, asswipe, chew that, lunatic.
    Posted by: royalking at May 15, 2007 1:02 AM

    Bwoooovine!

    I'd say that's 11 times too many, in a year.
    Just look at your Bovine-self, drooling and still chewing your cud from Nov 2006, trying to score *after* the game is over!

    LOL!!

    The decision to press for re-establishment of the Fairness Doctrine now seems to have developed for two reasons. "First, [Democrats] failed on the radio airwaves with Air America, no one wanted to listen," says a senior adviser to Pelosi. "Conservative radio is a huge threat and political advantage for Republicans and we have had to find a way to limit it. Second, it looks like the Republicans are going to have someone in the presidential race who has access to media in ways our folks don't want, so we want to make sure the GOP has no advantages going into 2008."


    Looks like the dumbocrats are getting a little nervous, already. Olby will sure to be harping on this in no time.

    Did you see how nice average clinton C**k smoker started out?

    Then the meds stopped working.

    Or his mom said I'll type the first one dear and then you try to behave you're self.

    But Idiots are always good for a laugh.

    I listen to Jerry Doyle most days.

    Like A.C.C.S. is going to know who that is.

    A.C.C.S. still can't get over they took Mr. Rogers off the air.

    But A.C.C.S. thinks that Randi Rhoades is the most Conservative on A.A.R.

    But leave A.C.C.S. alone he had a bad week-end.

    He found out A.A.R. took off his favorite Sam Sedar. (What will Keith do now?)

    Maybe A.C.C.S will like Lionel, then we can start having daily rants from A.C.C.S. about how Bush blew up the towers.

    And just think folks, Average Clinton C**k Smoker does all this with a Bill Clinton style dildo placed firmly between his legs.

    No K Y!

    Say goodnight Monica.

    When Jeff first appeared on this blog several months ago, he couldn't stop gushing about Michael Savage. Now he's down to 'maybe' once a month.

    What happened Jeff?....Maybe you actually are learning something.

    I don't know....he still quotes the Wiener fraud every now and then.

    Sorry lil Phuck wrote:

    ----
    Did you see how nice average clinton C**k smoker started out?

    ----

    Wrong, lil Phuck.

    I started with:

    BUSHWIPES!!!
    Posted by: Average American Patriot at May 14, 2007 10:09 PM

    But of course, for many of you Bush Supporters, that is a nice compliment.

    mickey, Savage's audience quadruples Ulbermahn's.

    "When Jeff first appeared on this blog several months ago, he couldn't stop gushing about Michael Savage. Now he's down to 'maybe' once a month."

    Posted by: Mike at May 15, 2007 1:26 AM

    Another lie from mickey. No surprise.

    No lie Jeff, it's all in the archives!

    Olbermann could not hold up to anybody. He is only but the lard of the cable news enterprise, and I feel sorry for the pathetique "Olbyloons" out there who buy in the obvious philandering of this arrogent, selfish human being.

    Bicker, 1:49, prime example.

    mickey spews crap then 'claims' it's all in the archives! LMFAO!

    With Joe Scarborough reaching a low that Keith Olbermann would not publicly attend to (getting 100% waffly with someone that he considers will have a lot of pwer and practically swearing allegiance to Hillary Clinton, denunciating any past or future criticisms of her) --- can we souble the website to Olberman/Scarborough Watch?

    "Let's see, Bill O'Reilly is "The Worst Person in the World" because he's trying to get Jessica's Law passed in Vermont? Wow, Keith. Please don't tell me that you care more about protecting the rights of terrorists than you do protecting the rights of children." Posted by: James at May 14, 2007 11:35 PM

    In case you haven't notied, Keith likes them young. Maybe not child-age young but children do grow up to be college-age girls and that's what he dates. Maybe the child predators are nearer and dearer to his heart than actually protecting the rights of the young ones.

    Scarborough on MSNBC, He's a single piece (see sheryl crow) of t-paper wallowing around in a bowl of liberal turds. He can't clean up all the damage those lefties are doing to NBC news.

    Scarborough has begun to take a dramatic turn towards the left as of late too. Whether he really believes it or if he's just looking to gain ratings like Olbermann is anyone's guess.

    "A man who's unable to drive a car after a bizarre subway accident could be House's toughest case ever."

    (Just a proposed Fox voice-over teaser for a future sweeps month episode....)

    Posted by: John at May 14, 2007 10:58 PM

    Holy Crap that is funny!

    As a Democrat I can tell you Scarborough is a fraud.
    He sees the Dems are going to win next year and is kissing up to them to get in their good graces to get interviews.
    He's alos wants to be accepted by the Leftist elites l9ike Ulbermahn.
    He's a loser and a fraud.

    I listen to Savage once a month, if that, asswipe, chew that, lunatic.
    Posted by: royalking at May 15, 2007 1:02 AM

    Jeff only listens to Weiner Savage when he's on his period.

    ...It makes him 'Feel Like a Natural Woman.'

    Hey Avergage Olbermann Parot, since you base your life on Democrats winning congress and in 06, here is a poll for you.

    Congress Approval Down to 29%; Bush Approval Steady at 33%

    GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

    PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll finds continued low levels of public support for both Congress and President George W. Bush. Twenty-nine percent of Americans approve of Congress, down slightly from last month's reading (33%) and this year's high point of 37%, while Bush's approval rating is holding steady at 33%.

    How bout them dems? lol.

    ...It makes him 'Feel Like a Natural Woman.'

    Posted by: at May 15, 2007 12:43 PM
    I take it you have experience in this area. lol

    Since we run the United States based on polling data, shouldn't we impeach congress before we impeach Bush?

    "Since we run the United States on polling data, shouldn't we impeach congress before we impeach Bush?"

    If we could impeach them ALL and start over, we would definitely have an improved America!

    Neptune is the planet farthest from the Sun (Pluto is now considered only a dwarf planet), Neptune is the planet farthest from the Earth, and to our knowledge, there has been absolutely no industrialization out at Neptune in recent centuries. There has been no recent build-up of greenhouse gases there, no deforestation, no rapid urbanization, no increase in contrails from jet airplanes, and no increase in ozone in the low atmosphere; recent changes at Neptune could never be blamed on any human influence. Incredibly, an article has appeared in a recent issue of Geophysical Research Letters showing a stunning relationship between the solar output, Neptune’s brightness, and heaven forbid, the temperature of the Earth. With its obvious implications to the greenhouse debate, we are certain you have never heard of the work and never will outside World Climate Report.
    In case you have forgotten your basic science lessons on the planets, Neptune orbits the Sun at a distance 30 times the distance from the Earth to the Sun and Neptune revolves around the Sun once every 164.8 Earth years. Neptune has 17 times the mass of the Earth, its atmosphere is primarily composed of hydrogen and helium, with traces of methane that account for the planet’s distinctive blue appearance. It was the only planet discovered mathematically – scientists noted variations in the orbit of Uranus, they calculated the orbit and position of a yet undiscovered planet that could cause the variations noted for Uranus, they determined where the planet should be, and on the first night they searched for it (September 23, 1846), they discovered the large planet sitting within 1 degree of their predictions. The new planet was named for Neptune, Roman god of the sea, given its distinctive blue color. Observations from Earth and a 1989 Voyager 2 flyby have revealed that Neptune’s cloud tops are extremely cold (−346°F) being so far from the Sun while the center of the planet has a temperature of 13,000°F due to high pressure generating extremely hot gases.
    In the recent article, Hammel and Lockwood, from the Space Science Institute in Colorado and the Lowell Observatory, note that measurements of visible light from Neptune have been taken at the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona since 1950. Obviously, light from Neptune can be related to seasons on the planet, small variations in Neptune’s orbit, the apparent tilt of the axis as viewed from the Earth, the varying distance from Neptune to Earth, and of course, changes in the atmosphere near the Lowell Observatory. Astronomers are clever, they are fully aware of these complications, and they adjust the measurements accordingly.
    As seen in Figure 1, Neptune has been getting brighter since around 1980; furthermore, infrared measurements of the planet since 1980 show that the planet has been warming steadily from 1980 to 2004. As they say on Neptune, global warming has become an inconvenient truth. But with no one to blame, Hammel and Lockwood explored how variations in the output of the Sun might control variations in the brightness of Neptune.

    Figure 1 (a) represents the corrected visible light from Neptune from 1950 to 2006; (b) shows the temperature anomalies of the Earth; (c) shows the total solar irradiance as a percent variation by year; (d) shows the ultraviolet emission from the Sun (Source: Hammel and Lockwood (2007)).
    What would seem so simple statistically is complicated by the degrees of freedom in the various time series which is related to the serial correlation in the data (e.g., next year’s value is highly dependent on this year’s value). Nonetheless, they find that the correlation coefficient between solar irradiance and Neptune’s brightness is near 0.90 (1.00 is perfect). The same relationship is found between the Earth’s temperature anomalies and the solar output. Hammel and Lockwood note “In other words, the Earth temperature values are as well correlated with solar irradiance (r = 0.89) as they are with Neptune’s blue brightness (|r| > 0.90), assuming a 10-year lag of the Neptune values.” The temporal lag is needed to account for the large mass of Neptune that would require years to adjust to any changes in solar output.
    Hammel and Lockwood conclude that “In summary, if Neptune’s atmosphere is indeed responding to some variation in solar activity in a manner similar to that of the Earth albeit with a temporal lag” then “Neptune may provide an independent (and extraterrestrial) locale for studies of solar effects on planetary atmospheres.”
    World Climate Report has covered many articles in the scientific literature showing that variations in solar output, including variations within specific wavelengths (e.g., cosmic, ultraviolet, visible, infrared) are highly correlated with temperature variations near the Earth’s surface. Believe it or not, when the Sun is more energetic and putting out more energy, the Earth tends to warm up, and when the Sun cools down, so does the Earth. The Hammel and Lockwood article reveals that the same is true out at Neptune; when the Sun’s energy increases, Neptune seems to warm up and get brighter given a decade lag.
    If for some reason you do not believe that the Sun is a significant player in determining the temperature of the Earth (after all, we are told repeatedly that humans are causing most of the observed warming on the Earth), then asked yourself if you believe that Neptune’s temperature is controlled by the Sun. How is it possible that the Earth’s temperature is so highly correlated with brightness variations from Neptune? The news from Neptune comes to us just weeks after an article was published showing that Mars has warmed recently as well.
    If nothing else, we have certainly learned recently that planets undergo changes in their mean temperature, and while we can easily blame human activity here on the Earth, blaming humans for the recent warming on Mars and Neptune would be an astronomical stretch, to say the least.

    "BIG" oil has now invaded Neptune. Al Gore might need to visit his home planet.

    If we could impeach them ALL and start over, we would definitely have an improved America!

    Posted by: Mike at May 15, 2007 1:25 PM

    Wow Mike, you finally got something right.

    If we could impeach them ALL and start over, we would definitely have an improved America!

    Posted by: Mike at May 15, 2007 1:25 PM
    Starting with Ted the drunk Kennedy.

    rk is at his/her/it/their keyboard and cyberspace is overflowing with hatred and stupidity once again.

    anonyloon, I take it you a drunken apologist?

    Jerry Falwell is close to death... I will get the coals we can have a celebatory Bar BQ.

    I'm sure limpy and the rest of the loons are very excited about our 3 soldiers being missing. Imagine how happy they'll be if they're shown on al jazera amongst some hood wearing jihadists yielding swords.

    post updated...sorry for the delay.

    I am adding the video of Keith reporting on himself at the "upfronts" in NY yesterday. Keith was introduced as part of the team for Football Night in America.

    Hey O'lielly.....your wish is granted.....

    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8P4UVFO1&show_article=1

    DRUDGE had it just now with flashing lights...

    FALWELL IS DEAD

    Paul F. Tompkins gets another try out as Michael Musto's replacement.


    That's what Musto gets for agreeing to be part of the panel on Fox's "Red Eye". Hell hath no fury like an Edward R. Murrow-wannabe scorned...

    Jerry Falwell is close to death... I will get the coals we can have a celebatory Bar BQ.

    Posted by: Bill O'lielly at May 15, 2007 2:32 PM

    Leave it to the left to take joy in another mans death because they don't agree with his politics. It sure shows how "tolerant" they are. How about celebrating the death of terrorist or Sadam. Go to the Huffo Post. I am sure you will be welcomed there.

    Stepping into the batters box is Pat Robertson, and in the on deck circle James Dobson... hit Robertson in the head so we can get to Dobson quicker.

    I believe Jerry Falwell has done much damage to political civility in this country.....but I personally take no pleasure in his death. I'm sorry that anyone does.

    So much for the "we're not like that" theory of mickey, more proof he was wrong.

    Jerry Fallwell was a great American. A man who knew he was far from perfect.

    I'm sure Olbermann and his ilk will be doing the dance of joy tonight.

    Falwell gave Social Conservatives a bad name. He's intolerant and belongs in Iran.
    Good riddance to him.
    I hope he's in hell holding hands with Ayatollah Khomenei and Zarqawi.
    Religious Totalitarians all of them.
    Republicans will be better off without clowns like him.

    Falwell was the reason Reagan became president. He was a revolutionary. While I did not agree with all of his teachings, he was still a larger than life Christian.

    The Christian part is debatable. I'm not a big fan of Christians who put themseles out as political activists like Falwell, Roberton or on the liberal side, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpeton. I wish they'd all just shut up. Oh, I guess Falwell will have to be silent now.

    "I hope he's in hell holding hands with Ayatollah Khomenei and Zarqawi."

    The Joker

    I have to respectfully disagree with you Joker. While I don't agree with much of what Falwell stood for, he was a good person who gave a strong voice to the conservative movement. I disagree with everything Olbermann stands for but I do not wish him dead or think he is evil. Khomenei and Zarqawi are kidnappers and murderers.

    I have spent about 30 minutes looking through this site looking for objective facts olbermann got wrong, or when he has deliberately misled the viewer, and have yet to find anything. please point me to some such information, rather than spending your time calling olbermann names and looking at how his ratings suck, and pointing out opinions you don't agree with. Otherwise you are no better than newshounds.org.

    'I’m going to make the French proud of France again,' Mr. Sarkozy said in his speech after he was elected president on Sunday. 'I am going to bring an end to repentance, which is a form of self-hatred, and the battle of memories that feeds hatred of others.'

    With the exception of animals disguised as humans such as Saddam and his vicious sons and their equivalent I never rejoice at someone's death. I also don't grieve for public figures with the rare exception of one like Ronald Reagan that I had such enormous feelings of respect, admiration and even affection for.

    I feel a compassion for their families and those that loved them. I simply can't understand the hatred some have for so many people because they disagree with them. And hatred is the right word based on the gleefully chortling gloating, such as we saw when VP Cheney missed an possible assassination attempt.

    I checked HuffPO and they have a long article but no comments. Perhaps they felt the sting over their behavior about VP Cheney.

    Grammie

    I have spent about 30 minutes looking through this site looking for objective facts olbermann got wrong, or when he has deliberately misled the viewer, and have yet to find anything. please point me to some such information, rather than spending your time calling olbermann names and looking at how his ratings suck, and pointing out opinions you don't agree with. Otherwise you are no better than newshounds.org.

    Posted by: John at May 15, 2007 4:19 PM

    Meanwhile, Cheney is making a speech on on board the USS Stennis, an aircraft carrier "150 miles off the Iranian coast" and "warning that country the U.S. and its allies, if any allies there are left, will keep it from restricting sea traffic as well developing nuclear weapons". Just another version of an OlbyLie - a dash of truth, one fib and a lot left out.

    This from the U.S. Naval Forces Central Command:

    The USS John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group (JCSSG) entered the U.S. 5th Fleet area of operations (AOO) Feb. 19 to conduct Maritime Security Operations (MSO) in regional waters, as well as to provide support for ground forces operating in Afghanistan working alongside coalition partners, including a French nuclear-powered aircraft carrier and its strike group.
    A highlight of JCSSG operations thus far in 5th Fleet, was Stennis’ interaction with the French nuclear powered aircraft carrier, Charles de Gaulle. Upon Charles de Gaulle’s arrival to the region March 16, the two ships provided support to the ISAF on the ground in Afghanistan, and conducted bi-lateral exercises at sea and personnel exchanges between the strike group ships.

    See John, you have to actually click on a post and READ it, if you can read.

    Johnny,
    Here's how this works. About 30 of us will point out deliberate lies, exaggerations, hypocrisy, and overall lunacy that makes up Olbermann. You will then give some crackpot defense of the indefensible. We will make you look like an idiot. Then you will leave. Why don't you just kick yourself in the nuts and we'll call i t even?

    Think KO will name Falwell WPITW for dying and distracting the daily Bush bash by the MSM?

    John, check out the Post 05/11 Glen Beck Unloads. He deceived through distortion and a few wrong facts that if he had read the charges he would have known better.

    Grammie

    mlong, now that is gallows humor at its best. I would say there is an outside chance he just might.

    Grammie

    I think KO will some how blame George Bush for Falwell's death. I am guessing he will say that all of the good heart doctors are being used to care for wonded Iraq war vets so they could not give proper treatment to Falwell.

    Hey Johnny,

    "We've made clear that we support Paul Wolfowitz," White House spokesman Tony Snow told reporters.

    Anon 4:28 & John: I have wasted my time several times pointing out "deliberate lies, exaggerations, hypocrisy, and overall lunacy" in the nightly show 'recaps', which usually have little actual resemblance to the actual show....yet all the Olby haters do is come back with "some crackpot defense of the indefensible" in response.

    Hey Mikey,

    When did Karl Rove get indicted?

    How much you wanna bet Keith uses the Rep debate tonight on Fox for his usual Keith assfoolery. THE DEMOCRATS HAVE NO BALLS TO DEBATE ON FOX NEWS AND YET, THE REPBULICANS ALLOWED THIS ASSCLOWN OLBERMANN TO MODERATE FROM THE HALLOWED HALLS OF THE REAGAN LIBRARY!!!

    Anon 4:54: "when did Karl Rove get indicted?": Who said Rove got indicted?

    Dan: "THE REPBULICANS ALLOWED THIS ASSCLOWN OLBERMANN TO MODERATE": No Dan, Olbermann didn't moderate...Mathews did.

    Ditto on the Rove idictment... not to mention the Bush impeachment you and Bushkill guaranteed for months. You Dems are all talk in the election and no substance. Even as i type, the imigration reform you promised is going down in flames for another year. Spinelessssssss!

    "WASHINGTON — An accused enemy combatant held at Guantanamo Bay told a military hearing he was physically as well as mentally tortured there by having to read a newsletter full of 'crap,' being forced to use unscented deodorant and shampoo and having to play sports with a ball that would not bounce.

    Majid Khan of Pakistan denied any connection to Al Qaeda and said he was tortured and his family hounded by U.S. authorities, according to a redacted transcript released Tuesday by the Pentagon.

    Khan told an April 15 hearing called to determine whether he was rightly classified as an "enemy combatant" that he also had his baby pictures taken from him, that cleaners left marks on his cell walls and that detainees have no DVD players or other entertainment.

    At one point, Kan said he wrote on his walls, "stop torturing me, I need my mails, newspaper and my lawyer."

    Khan was captured in Pakistan in 2003. The military says he has provided support to Al Qaeda and has expressed a desire to assassinate Pakistan's President Pervez Musharaff. U.S. government authorities have said that Khan was also involved in plots to blow up American gas stations and poison U.S. reservoirs. The April 15 hearing is the first step in possible war crimes charges against him."

    How brutal!!! This poor man.

    Also on 2007 April 16 the Center for Constitutional Rights released an affidavit from Ali Khan, Majid Khan's father, and an accompanying press release.[5][6][7][8] The Press Release quoted from Ali Khan's affidavit, which stated:
    Majid Khan was subjected to twenty days of beatings, binding in stress positions, hooding, sleep deprivation, at the end of which he was forced to sign a confession he wasn't given an opportunity to read.
    Majid Khan's brother Mohammed, sister-in-law, and infant niece were captured at the same time he was. His brother Mohammed was released after a month, but during his month in captivity Pakistani guards allowed him to have contact with his brother, and this is how his father, Ali Khan was able to report details of his first month of interrogation.
    Mohammed Khan repeated that guards told him that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's children were bing subjected to abusive interrogation in the same facility the Khan brothers were being held.
    Mohammed Khan repeated that guards told him two teenage boys, aged 14 and 16 were stripped naked and abused during their interrogation, then bound, and loaded on a plane to Guantanamo, "like garbage".
    In addition the Press Release stated:[8]
    That Khan's family were not being allowed to testify at Khan's Tribunal.
    That Khan's family had offered to fly to Guantanamo at their own expense, to testify at his Tribunal, "but the government refused to guarantee the family safe return to the U.S. if they traveled to Guantánamo to testify in person."
    That Khan was not being allowed to be present when witnesses testified before the Tribunal, which it called a violation of its own rules.

    If Goper et al is reading this if the Military Tribunal rules against him he has two appeals, first to the DC Circuit court and then, if he loses, to the Supreme Court.

    Damn, that poor shredded Constitution is just going to stand by and let this abused man languor in hell.

    Grammie

    If Goper et al is reading this if the Military Tribunal rules against him he has two appeals, first to the DC Circuit court and then, if he loses, to the Supreme Court.

    Damn, that poor shredded Constitution is just going to stand by and let this abused man languor in hell.

    Grammie

    Sorry for the double post. Long time since I did that.

    Grammie

    VOK, if his family said it in an affadavit what is left to argue.

    Grammie

    Kathleen Blomquist, a Justice Department Spokeswoman explains:
    "information regarding the former C.I.A. detainees [like Mr. Khan] was classified as top secret. She said the information he shares with his counsel should "be appropriately tailored to accommodate a higher security level."
    The D.I.A. told the court that if Mr. Khan told just any person what the [interrogation] procedures were, it would cause "extremely grave damage to the national security."
    Marilyn A. Dorn, an official at the National Clandestine Service that is part of the C.I.A. told the court that "If specific alternative techniques were disclosed, it would permit terrorist organizations to adapt their training to counter the tactics that C.I.A. can employ in interrogations."

    Begala just called FOX News..."An arm of the Republican Party"

    Sharpton just heaped respectful praise on Falwell on Hardball while Scarborough through him under the bus.

    Matthews was shocked over Sharpton's salvo.

    Kudos to Ed Schatz for catching Olbermann in yet another smear-by-omission/half-truth of O'Reilly. I switch back and forth between the two shows, and I must say, that shot in particular really bothered me. Almost as much as when Olby charged that O'Reilly thought that child rape was "fun" because he speculated on the mindset of Shawn Hornbeck. This guy is a real bastard...

    Mathews was very upset that Sharpton did not take the red meat, he tossed out.

    Benson sez: "ditto on the Rove indictment... not to mention the Bush impeachment you and Bushkill guaranteed for months."

    Who was that post directed at?.....ME???

    If so, I have NEVER predicted any indictments or impeachments. It is not my style to make predictions regarding politics.

    Thats not to say I don't think Rove SHOULD be indicted....and Bush SHOULD be impeached!

    Begala just called FOX News..."An arm of the Republican Party"

    ---

    Good call.

    My word, Gibson, Hume, Hannity, Cavuto, that crew of insecure nuts in the morning - all any of them do is tout the Administration line. Even a good, solid commentator like Barnes seems to be on the White House payroll, although his pain is beginning to show, thankfully. My complaint with FOX has never been that it is so extreme right wing, but that it is so fawning of GWB.

    VOK, the terrorist himself never even said he was physically tortured, only the liars in his family but to VOK, the military is guilty of torture until proven innocent.

    I mean does anyone in their right mind give a damm wht Paul Begala thinks? He should just join MSLSD im sure they would love to have him

    No matter what else can be legitimately laid at Reverend Falwell's feet no one can accuse him of being a shakedown artist like the Reverend Jackson.

    Grammie

    Bush #1,

    There's always Al Gore to look up to. Do as I say, not as I do. That's the way to go.

    What a surprise! In memory of the Rev. Mr. Falwell's death a charter member of the Trite Troika gives us a durge with a racial slur. Come on rk & Cee, tune up! This is a trio, not a solo.

    Hey, don't jump on my hero, Igor oops! sorry, Algore. He buys carbon credits for his lavish lifestyle from himself!

    Now THAT is an honorable man!

    Grammie

    What is a 'durge'? Just throwing it out there in case someone knows. Of course there is always the chance that only the CHICKEN knows.

    Grammie

    anonyloon boon, where was the racial slure?

    RK, thank you. It was a knee JERK reaction by a real bona fide JERK.

    There doesn't need to be any racism for him to display HIS prejudice.

    No answer to the point, charge racism

    Grammie

    Poor whittle majid kahn........

    Khan moved with his family to Baltimore in 1996 but never obtained U.S. citizenship. He went to Pakistan after the Sept. 11 attacks and was introducted by his uncle and cousin, both al-Qaeda members, to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

    Because of Khan's excellent English and knowledge of the United States, Khan was selected to conduct an attack inside the country.

    He took part in plotting to blow up gas stations, poison water reservoirs and kill Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

    In fall 2002, he delivered money to Zubair, a Jemaah Islamiyah operative, to support attacks against Western targets.

    He is also linked to Ali Abdulaziz Ali and Aafia Saddique.

    In early 2003, Khan selected Uzair Parachi, a permanent resident alien in the United States, to impersonate him to assist him in reentering the country.

    Khan planned to carry out attacks on gas stations in the United States.

    He also recommended Iyman Faris to Mohammed for an operation inside the United States.

    Khan was one of 14 key al-Qaeda operatives and associates transferred from CIA custody to the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in 2006.1


    Such a fun loving muslim, wasn't he? Maybe we should give him a ticker tape party.

    JH, rk, Cee --- never disappoint. Always completely predictable and always on the wrong side of every issue. I particularly enjoy it when you spew your vile then act offended when you're called on it. Slander Kennedy. Slur Jackson. Slam Gore. But, how dare you call my hand!

    Not only is Jackson a shakedown artist, HE is one of the biggest racist out there, next to Sharpton, that is. They make Byrd look like a saint! Take that anonyloon.

    Just reading the paper today , and I thought I'd include some national news stories, since after reading the comments made here, there isn't much reading going on with the RWer's .

    Bush wants new clean air standards by the end of his term :
    Isn't that special!
    The only reason he is even talking about it ( after doing just the opposite for 6 years) is b/c the Supreme Court "rebuked the Bush Administration for its inaction on global warming.It declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases qualify as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act and thus can be regulated by the EPA".The court included a laundry list of reasons the administration has given for declining to do so are "insufficient"
    Two funny points:
    This Supreme Court definitely leans right and these same points that the Supreme Court said were "insufficient" are the same points dullards like the Factor and others at this site have been trying to makefor some time.

    A president who showed leadership wouldn't have waited until a rebuke by the Supreme Court to do what is right, but of course that's exactly what happened !
    BTW, the AP article used the word "rebuke", not I.
    I'm sure the AP is now on Jeffrey's boycott list and considered to be a far left news organization.
    Ha !

    The refugee problem in Iraq is getting totally out of hand ! 50,000 Iraqis are leaving Iraq a MONTH now, b/c of the Iraq War.
    Yet Cee and others keep pushing for this war even though here's yet another fact proving how much damage Bush's War is doing to this country.
    So, if we are helping the Iraqis, why are they leaving in droves ?
    Most of the quality doctors, lawyers and professionals have already left Dodge.
    Isn't it great that Grammie's coffee and tea group all support the war.
    Bet they don't talk about THESE FACTS over tea and crumpets !


    Bush ( and the Olbyhaters) claim he and the Republicans support the troops.( Not many are saying that anymore after the Walter Reed scandal)
    Yet only 10% of the military vehicles have the V shaped bottom hull. The V shaped bottom hull deflects bomb blasts outward and away from the military personnel riding in the vehicle.
    Apparently SAYING you support the troops isn't exactly the same as really supporting them.
    NO WONDER THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION DOESN'T INCLUDE CAR BOMBINGS ANY LONGER IN THEIR DAILY CASUALTY LISTS.
    Imagine that !

    A South Jersey lawmaker has been named the "greenest Republican in Congress"
    That's like saying Joe's pizza is the best pizza in town ( when there are no other pizza shops in town)
    But I will give him his due.
    Jim Saxton received a perfect score of 100 for his votes on 12 key environmental issues before Congress last year.
    He found and lead the National Wildlife Refuge Caucus in Congress.
    Tom Delay and Dennis Hastings, the last 2 GOP Speakers of the House, both received a zero ratings in the survey conducted by the Republicans for Environmental Protection.

    When you hear Republicans and GOP talking heads talk about the environment, you're more likely to hear comments damning the "tree huggers' than actually supporting any policies to protect God's green earth !
    Another issue the right has always been in the wrong on .

    4th Justice Official resigns over fired prosecutor fallout :
    Deputy Attorney General Paul Mc Nulty said he will be resigning in the summer.He is the highest ranking Bush Administration casualty in this Gonzales scandal.
    Of course Bush is standing behind his man Gonzales.
    If you ever wondered why Bush appoints so many incompetent officials and then stays behind them, its probably because its rather convenient to use them as the dart board and keep the heat away from himself.
    Remember, these prosecutors were all loyal life long Republicans.
    Why were they fired?
    The few that have spoken out said because their job was to followed the law, not the policies Bush wanted to implement !
    How dare they follow the law!
    Evidently that means you're not a good Republican !
    Sad, really !

    Chicken Blogger, since I don't speak Cluck I have to ask that you give more precise translations. I don't know what a 'durge' is and am unfamiliar with 'vile' used as a noun.

    That, though, pales in comparison to my bewilderment at an accusation of racism based on an unflattering comment about a black man.

    Actually, I don't understand any of the rules that govern your world based on your last few comments. It seems anything less than praise for The Reverend Jackson is racism. But you also seem to be offended by anything less than complimentary to Kennedy (which one, I haven't mentioned one in months) and Gore, who are white.

    Is there a master list that I could study so that I don't offend any of your heroes, or are they minor gods in your world.

    You mentioned Cee. He hasn't posted on this subject that I remember. Did you misspeak or did you just cast too wide a net in your righteous fervor.

    Grammie

    booby, you're a day late and many dollars short. McNulty announced his resignation LONG before the Gonzales witch hunt even started. Sorry to put a damper on your little 'party.'

    You mentioned Cee. He hasn't posted on this subject that I remember. Did you misspeak or did you just cast too wide a net in your righteous fervor.

    ---

    JH: We have all learned a great deal about you today. And one of the things we have learned is that rk, Cee and you are three (3) dissavory peas in a pod. I included Cee only so that he might remain with his fellow legumes.

    As far as learning anything, I am sure that is a door closed, locked and barred long ago.

    Cee has made quite a few posts on his continued support for a failing war, just this week.

    Gonzales witch hunt?

    I guess you don't know the facts on this issue. No surprise !
    I included some of them for you, but it's apparent they went in one ear and out the other.

    BTW, the McNulty story was in TODAY'S paper also, just as I posted.( Asute comeback on this story though, Ha !)

    Great defense of your party on the topics I covered. With spokespersons like yourself , no wonder they are in such dire staits.

    Chicken Blogger, I am cut to the quick. I get a lecture on 'dissavory' peas when I sincerely ask for your input. Again, I suspect that Cluck Speak is difficult to follow without a good translation.

    Or perhaps your Cluck 'n Crap world allows you to throw in anyone willy nilly whether they are involved or not. With the glimpses that I have seen that kind of makes sense.

    As a favor, please always refer to me ONLY as a 'legume'. That trash talk, p** is so distressing to Grammie.

    Grammie

    Mc Nulty announced his resigning just a few days ago.
    Royalking keeps his 100% inaccuracy rating going !

    Grammie gets sooooo upset when she can't personally attack the opposition, thus the term, "chicken blogger".

    Chicken Blogger, not even one feeble stab at answering my question. Instead, you respond like a chicken with his head cut off. Frenzied attempts to bring in extraneous charges and accusations against others and scratch at the ground hurling crap to cover your foot prints.

    Why won't you, or is that you can't justify is the better question, explain why this comment was racist:

    " No matter what else can be legitimately laid at Reverend Falwell's feet no one can accuse him of being a shakedown artist like the Reverend Jackson."

    Grammie

    " No matter what else can be legitimately laid at Reverend Falwell's feet no one can accuse him of being a shakedown artist like the Reverend Jackson."

    Grammie
    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at May 15, 2007 9:11 PM

    You're right ! He's much more reprehensible !

    The proof is in the pudding...I mean quotes !

    “Grown men should not be having sex with prostitutes unless they are married to them”

    "You 've ( gays and lesbians) helped 9/11 to happen !"

    “Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions”

    “AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals”

    “The idea that religion and politics don't mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country”

    “If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being”

    My personal favorite :
    “Textbooks are Soviet propaganda”

    Jerry Falwell was a hugely polarizing individual in American society.
    Once again, Grammie is on the wrong side of this debate !

    Chicken Blogger, not even one feeble stab at answering my question. Instead, you respond like a chicken with his head cut off. Frenzied attempts to bring in extraneous charges and accusations against others and scratch at the ground hurling crap to cover your foot prints.

    Why won't you, or is that you can't justify is the better question, explain why this comment was racist:

    " No matter what else can be legitimately laid at Reverend Falwell's feet no one can accuse him of being a shakedown artist like the Reverend Jackson."

    Grammie

    I can only repeat my question. I made a simple statement of fact. Why does that statement make me a racist and what purpose did dragging in others serve?


    Don't forget these doozies by this religious madman.I'm sure another of Grammie's heroes :

    We're fighting against humanism, we're fighting against liberalism ... we are fighting against all the systems of Satan that are destroying our nation today ... our battle is with Satan himself.
    -- Rev Jerry Falwell (attributed: source unknown)

    Billy Graham is the chief servant of Satan.
    -- Rev Jerry Falwell (attributed: source unknown)


    The ACLU is to Christians what the American Nazi party is to Jews.
    -- Rev Jerry Falwell (attributed: source unknown)

    AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals. To oppose it would be like an Israelite jumping in the Red Sea to save one of Pharoah's chariotters.
    -- Rev Jerry Falwell (attributed: source unknown)

    Chicken Blogger, not even one feeble stab at answering my question. Instead, you respond like a chicken with his head cut off. Frenzied attempts to bring in extraneous charges and accusations against others and scratch at the ground hurling crap to cover your foot prints.

    Why won't you, or is that you can't justify is the better question, explain why this comment was racist:

    " No matter what else can be legitimately laid at Reverend Falwell's feet no one can accuse him of being a shakedown artist like the Reverend Jackson."

    Grammie

    I can only repeat my question. I made a simple statement of fact. Why does that statement make me a racist and what purpose did dragging in others serve?

    Jerry Falwell was a hugely polarizing individual in American society.
    Once again, Grammie is on the wrong side of this debate !

    Posted by: at May 15, 2007 9:20 PM


    Polarizing to who? Oh, come on... I'm a libertarian-conservative and though I disagreed with Falwell about many things, I know he thought like the majority of Americans.

    Most Americans do believe in God. Most don't want gay marriage or homosexuality as a designated minority status.

    Most do want prayer in school and creationism taught along side evolution.

    The only way they differ with Falwell is that they do not want abortion prohibited altogether or govt interference in end of life of decisions.

    WE are out of the mainstream. Not Falwell.

    Grammie's spinning her wheels..in more ways than one.
    Repeating the same post doesn't make it any more poignant !
    Senility has definitely deeply set in.

    In almost a dozen posts my question is ignored. Am I to assume there is no justification for the knee jerk reaction, a charge of racism. I repeat that I notice, Chicken Blogger, not even one feeble stab at answering my question. Instead, you respond like a chicken with his head cut off. Frenzied attempts to bring in extraneous charges and accusations against others and scratch at the ground hurling crap to cover your foot prints.

    Why won't you, or is that you can't justify is the better question, explain why this comment was racist:

    " No matter what else can be legitimately laid at Reverend Falwell's feet no one can accuse him of being a shakedown artist like the Reverend Jackson."

    Grammie

    I can only repeat my question. I made a simple statement of fact. Why does that statement make me a racist and what purpose did dragging in others serve?

    Chicken Blogger, you made a KNEE JERK BIGOTED REACTION just like the JERK you are. It is obvious you have no justification for your bigoted and unfounded charge.

    If you did you would addressed it in one your dozen posts as I repeatedly asked you to do.

    As I have said previously cluck, cluck, crap, crap. That covers everything you have to say.

    Grammie

    Most ... (Americans)... want...creationism taught along side evolution. ---

    Are you for real?
    Seriously!

    Posted by: Average American Patriot at May 15, 2007 10:31 PM


    Unfortunately.


    I'm sorry. I didn't make my question clear.

    I'm asking if you do subscribe to that belief, i.e. that "... creationism (should be) taught along side evolution..." or you were only making a statement of facts.


    Posted by: Average American Patriot at May 15, 2007 10:40 PM


    No, I don't think creationism ought to be taught in a public school. In a private school-- they can have at it..

    I am for parents being able to send their kids to schools that most reflect their own ideas... which is why I am for school vouchers.

    Most of the public believes otherwise....which makes you and me polariizing NOT Falwell...

    http://www.csicop.org/scienceandmedia/evolution/

    "When respondents were asked in the same December 2004 Newsweek poll if “In general do you favor or oppose teaching creation science in addition to evolution in public schools?,” 60% favored the idea, 28% opposed, and 12% were undecided. The November 2004 CBS News poll found a similar result, with 65% favoring, 29% opposed, and 6% undecided. A 1999 Gallup poll registered an almost identical finding, with 68% in favor, 29% opposed, and 3% undecided. Going back to 1981, the available polling record indicates across question wording that a majority or near majority of the public favors teaching both creationism in addition to evolutionary theory in public schools. "

    Mc Nulty announced his resigning just a few days ago.
    Royalking keeps his 100% inaccuracy rating going !

    Posted by: at May 15, 2007 8:36 PM
    Booby, you're 1000% at being a total idiot. He may have announced his resignation a few days ago,but, he informally announced it months ago. The idiot liberal/conspiracy theorist you are, wouldn't have the slightest clue. Keep getting your news from bbc and media matters, though.

    suggest you visit somewhere a little further down the road before you think your little world speaks for MOST.

    Posted by: The Truth at May 15, 2007 11:13 PM


    Do some research. Democratic candidates have...

    Thanks, Cecelia.

    I guess I am more aggravated by the fact that such a result is possible. But, this IS America, and every single citizen is entitled to their opinion.

    Posted by: The Truth at May 15, 2007 11:27 PM


    That's big of you to admit in your.... little world..

    The Truth, your aggravation that so many disagree with you takes me aback somewhat. I am not and never have been a person of faith. I attended church and parochial and catholic private schools for thirteen years.

    On the other hand, I have no animosity toward or problem with others approaching life in a different way.

    That said I am also skeptical of those who believe that we are totally random results of happenstance. Because we are the result of our western culture I think that when the origin of life and evolution are taught in schools that that there should be mention of the alternative theories, intelligent design and creationism in a broad sense. They are not necessarily mutual exclusive theories.

    The day may come when science advances to absolute provable and replicable Laws of Creation and Evolution. That is not the reality today. If it does cross over to a Law of science then it should be taught that way.

    I believe that I am more open minded on this than those that congratulate themselves on being sophisticates as opposed to the rubes.

    Grammie


    Booby, you're 1000% at being a total idiot. He may have announced his resignation a few days ago,but, he informally announced it months ago. The idiot liberal/conspiracy theorist you are, wouldn't have the slightest clue. Keep getting your news from bbc and media matters, though.

    Posted by: royalking at May 15, 2007 11:08 PM

    How about Fox News?
    What's your opinion of Fox News ?
    Isn't that like your ...bible ?

    Liberal conspiracy eh ?


    McNulty was CONSIDERING leaving. He didn't decide to resign until Monday the 14th!

    FOXNEWS.COM HOME > POLITICS
    Justice Department No. 2 Paul McNulty to Resign

    Monday, May 14, 2007

    WASHINGTON — Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty said Monday he will resign, the highest-ranking Bush administration casualty in the furor over the firing of U.S. attorneys.

    McNulty, who has served 18 months as the Justice Department's second-in-command, announced his plans at a closed-door meeting of U.S. attorneys in San Antonio. He told them he would remain at the department until late summer or until the Senate approves a successor, aides said.

    He also sent a one-page letter of resignation to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, whose own job has been put in jeopardy by the firings and their aftermath.

    McNulty has been considering leaving for months, and aides said he never intended to serve more than two years as deputy attorney general. But his ultimate decision to step down, the aides said, was hastened by anger at being linked to the prosecutors' purge that Congress is investigating to determine if eight U.S. attorneys were fired for political reasons.

    You've been shot down with one of your own sources, Fox News.
    Your habitual inclination of sticking your foot in your mouth, just seems to never end.

    Plus your nitpicking about "informal resignations " and then throwing the idiot term around and being totally wrong on top of that, kinda speaks for it self.
    Just business as usual with you.

    But it seems like you can't get your cranium around the whole crux
    of the matter with McNulty abandoning the sinking Gonzales ship.
    This scandal is another example of abuse of power, of dirty politics attempting to trump law.


    There is no truth or what's moral or right in your world. Only to try to defend the indefensible !
    You're only mission is to defend " your side".

    And in the past when proven 100 % wrong ,( on a daily basis) and your back is up against the wall,
    you're last resort is to attack the source.
    No news source ever tells the truth, they're all lies except your extremely narrow range of right wing blogs.
    Well, your chief source just made you out to be a fool !
    Is Fox News too liberal for you ?
    Ha !

    Hey Jeff. Where you going to run to now?
    What's to the right of Fox News?
    John Birch Society.com ?

    Grammie,

    You responded to a comment I made last night about the topic of prosecuting a war with the approach of winning hearts and minds versus just winning. I don't have much time tonight but here is one train of thought I had. I read some criticism somewhere along the way about the hard hitting style of the 4th Infantry Division. Someone seemed unhappy that a General Odierno (commnader of the division) was promoted after another general resigned; I am not exactly sure of the controversy or circumstances.

    But here is my point. I remember one of the networks showing some footage of middle of the night raids launched on homes that were conducted by a Colonel James Hickey (under the command of Odienero). He said that they were receiving good intelligence about the whereabouts of Saddam Hussein. Then the camera panned to the soldiers putting black hoods over the faces of suspected troublemakers. (Now that practice is banned; some other technique is used to cover the eyes). One of the men was getting close to a suspect telling him something like, "We don't like when people shoot our helicopters down (or something like that) and started making explanatory sound effects. Within a couple weeks, Colonel Hickey and his men found Hussein in the spidey hole.

    I had also seen a little documentary about a group from the division working a neighborhood on the one hand to dole out money for damage to homes and on the other, searching for illegal weapons. Some men came up to a colonel (It wasn't Hickey, don't remember the name) and said that they found weapons in a home and there were several different stories abounding. The colonel went in the home, and when he did not receive the cooperation he was looking for, took an elderly woman and gave her to the men, making the family think that she was being detained. In reality, they took her around the corner. Suddenly, the story seemed to gain accuracy.

    These examples were not mentioned by whomever was criticizing the tactics of the 4th Infantry Division but there was a comparison made to General Petreus who was trying to win the hearts and minds of the people and was found to be having limited success. Of course, now we know the role of Petreus. We know thatthe 4th Infantry Division achieved the goal of finding Hussein. Did Petreus succeed in reaching the hearts of the people?

    That is a partial (and lengthy) response. I hope to hear from you again. I appreciate your input.

    Sharm

    Because we are the result of our western culture I think that when the origin of life and evolution are taught in schools that that there should be mention of the alternative theories, intelligent design and creationism in a broad sense. They are not necessarily mutual exclusive theories.

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at May 15, 2007 11:57 PM

    Science curriculums do not have time to wander off into religious theories.The curriculum is too tightly packed as it is .
    Religion has no place in a science classroom.
    The jury is not still deliberating on the subject of evolution.
    There is no major disagreement on this subject amoung scientists.
    It is as it should be and your view has no weight or merit in a pubic institution.

    It's late...PUBLIC institution.

    Ha !

    Maybe God made you perform the typo, Bob- lol

    I certainly hope God has better things to do than to monitor this site.

    booby, you can post all of the left wing articles you want, the bottom line is McNulty planned on leaving long before the witch hunt (gonzales) even began. Hey, what happened to your 'gone by monday' spew about 12 mondays ago? lol

    Jeff is calling Fox News " left wing articles".

    He has now hit rock bottom !

    hey booby, when do you transform to way below average patty?

    booby runs full speed from his 'gone by monday' prediction, no surprise. That's what happens when you keep your face buried in conspiracy theory based news sites.

    Wwooo Bwwwoovine!

    *debunked* again?

    LMAO!!

    Tell us all at this site why you don't believe the news organization you quote as being the best around, your #1 rated Fox News .

    This should be good.
    We're waiting.

    Bob,

    Many great thinkers don't support evolution. One side is not going to convince the other. I don't believe we evolved from apes. If I die holding that belief and turn out to be wrong, what did I lose? If you hold to your belief and turn out to be wrong, well, ...
    I went to a conference a few weeks ago and heard a speaker named Dr. Alice von Hildebrand, wife of the late Dietrich von Hildebrand, a theologian. (If you were Catholic and studied the faith, you would be familiar with them.) She said that if the missing link were found, she would have to accept it but she certainly wouldn't brag about it. Dr. von Hildebrand is a great thinker. You would disagree with her viewpoint on everything I am sure.

    In case you think I was being evilly deceptive by switching Fox News with Media Matters...check out the site yourself.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,272254,00.html

    You're up: on stage and the spotlight shining directly on you !

    The audience is buzzing with anticipation !

    Here's.................. Jeff !


    booby/way below average/anonyloon and whatever other names you use, the bottom line is McNulty planned on leaving months ago, before the witch hunt, get over it.

    The audience is boooooooooooooooooing !

    Jeff is a fraud !
    Tomatoes are being thrown. Jeff is ducking !

    Documented evidence from the dumb one's favorite source of news, Fox !


    ( He's been furiously looking for 30 minutes and come up with .....

    And Jeff's source is....


    Oh wait. He doesn't have one !

    This is way too easy, Jeff. You bore me.

    Nite nite don't let the bed bugs bite.

    Bob,

    Many great thinkers don't support evolution.
    Posted by: Sharon at May 16, 2007 12:34 AM


    But scientists do. I trust science.
    Science is more than just conjecture.
    There are things called
    "experiments."

    Plus...I have proof.
    In my hand, I'm holding a fossil.
    Fossil !

    End of story !

    Sharon wrote:

    --- I went to a conference a few weeks ago and heard a speaker named Dr. Alice von Hildebrand, wife of the late Dietrich von Hildebrand, a theologian. (If you were Catholic and studied the faith, you would be familiar with them.) She said that if the missing link were found, she would have to accept it but she certainly wouldn't brag about it. Dr. von Hildebrand is a great thinker. You would disagree with her viewpoint on everything I am sure.
    ---

    There are plenty of subjects on which the Catholic church has been wrong, but let's keep it on the subject of evolution and theology.

    I'm sorry, I can't provide you with links in English, but I hope you'll do some research on the following:

    "Pierre Teilhard de Chardin"
    "paleontologist, philosopher, jesuit priest... almost was ex-communicated"
    "(among his thoughts) God of Heavens and God of Evolution"

    I'll be glad to read different opinions, but I thought the Catholic church gave up on this non-issue of evolution vs. creationism several decades ago. In my opinion, this "debate" is presented in the USA only from "fundamentalists," and that's where there is a huge difference of opinion and interpretation of facts.

    One more thing, please do not mix politics with religion.

    We'll see, Bob, we'll see. You can't get me angry about the subject. People like the Hildebrands are not scientists but they are brilliant. I should have said that Dietrich von Hildebrand is a philosopher. You are a prof; you may be interested in his background (he didn't write about evolution but had an amazing life). Check it out in your spare time, . . .

    Check it out in your spare time, . . .
    Posted by: Sharon at May 16, 2007 1:03 AM

    I will.Thanks.
    But I'd like you to go to a science museum and take a good look at a fossil.
    And then use the reasoning part of your brain and put aside for a moment the religious indoctrination part.
    Nite.

    I didn't mix politics with religion. If you talk to cafeteria Catholics, you'll get the liberal view of most subjects. But, this is not a Catholic site so I'll close the subject.

    (just to respond to the religious indoctrination in closing to Bob- I wasn't raised Catholic. I converted willingly as an adult. Enough about me and that)

    the bed bugs and I are brothers and sisters

    I didn't mix politics with religion.
    Posted by: Sharon at May 16, 2007 1:16 AM

    One last thing. I never said you did.
    Science is neither politics nor religion, which makes it reliable.
    They use empirical data and evidence and then they test it, over and over and over.... which means it can be trusted.

    Sharon:

    I'm not attacking you for your statements. They seem genuine. My suggestion, if you found valuable listening to Dr. Alice von Hildebrand, please don't forget to read sometime about Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

    Fossil !

    Actually, Dr. Von Hildebrand does not write books or publicly debate evolution. I just know her position on the matter. My point was that there are well educated people don't believe in evolution. I am not trying to change your mind. You can't change mine either. I'll put Pierre Teillhard on the to do list. My goal right now is to finish the school year.

    BTW, I appreciate the civility shown here this evening, not that it can't get more lively. I am just not as good with lively comebacks as Cecelia and Grammie. (Bob, someone else said I was mixing the two topics, no biggy)

    Sharon:

    I meant, as a suggestion, as a warning, "do not mix politics and religion."
    I did not mean you were doing it already.

    Gothcha. But I can't segregate myself. I view the world in a way that you don't.

    One more thing, please do not mix politics with religion.


    I didn't mix politics with religion.
    Posted by: Sharon at May 16, 2007 1:16 AM

    Posted by: Average American Patriot at May 16, 2007 1:00 AM

    One last thing. I never said you did.
    Posted by: Bob at May 16, 2007 1:19 AM

    Funny, looks that way to me, triple posting deranged lunatic.

    Paranoid BovineQueen regurgitates:

    ---Funny, looks that way to me, triple posting deranged lunatic.
    Posted by: royalking at May 16, 2007 1:54 AM---

    Nothing funny about your screwed up Bwwovine eyes seeing 3x... no, wait... 60x shades of muslims coming to get ya!

    Thank you, Bob!

    Just an observation, since I was never part of the discussions that occurred on this thread tonight:

    Jeff injects himself into an otherwise civil discussion....and civility inmmediately disappears.

    If a stranger began reading after I made my post @ 11:57 PM he would have to assume that I held a completely different opinion than I do.

    I obviously was totally unclear, so let me briefly restate.

    1. I am not religious nor am I an agnostic.

    2. I have no animosity towards those who are to varying degrees.

    3. Because our heritage is Western Civilization I believe that when the The THEORY of the Origin of the Universe and the The THEORY of the Origin of Life and The THEORY of Evolution is taught there should be mention of the alternative theories in a BROAD sense of intelligent design and creationism.

    4. The alternate belief that God created all and set all the laws in motion are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE except for a minute group who believe they know the exact day etc.

    5. These THEORIES are NOT scientific LAW, such as the Law of Gravity, which can be verified and duplicated at will. I heard or read recently that Einstein's THEORY of Relativity is not capable of accounting for some recent observations involving Black Holes, I think.

    And for Bob who said there is no time for science classes to mention my points. If a school in Chicago can block out a two hour plus part of the school day to show Brokeback Mountain to a class of eleven and twelve year olds I think most schools could fit a fifteen or twenty minute discussion in at an age appropriate level. Schools across the country are finding time to give sensitivity lessons to kindergarteners on up about alternative lifestyles and trans gender issues they should be able to incorporate my suggestion with no problem.

    Grammie

    Jeff injects himself into an otherwise civil discussion....and civility inmmediately disappears.

    Posted by Mike at May 16, 2007 3:03 AM

    Wrong, prick. You weren't here so it WAS civil, now get lost for good!

    Sharm, we keep missing each other. I am on a very intensive course of rehab and I have had to force myself to stop being a night owl, which is my natural inclination.

    But when I stay up half the night I don't do as well and my therapist cuts back and fusses at me.

    I enjoy your posts very much. You sometimes offer an insight that the rest of us opinionated mule heads are unable to do, which is show any doubts or wavering in our views.

    Grammie

    No Jeff, the discussion was very civil (and interesting) ....until you showed up and started calling people things like a "triple posting lunatic".

    And oh yeah, you just called me a 'prick', for probably the one hundreth time.

    The discussions on this board would be far more intelligent and civil if you kept your never ending venom out of them.

    Almost no one has an issue with teaching creationism in schools generally, as an examination of beliefs. The question is whether it belongs in a science class. Science class should be about things that can be subjected to scientific inquiry. This is the sense that "theories" belong in science class. Intelligent design is a non-theory in this sense, essentially saying "when you just can't begin to explain it by observation and scientific theory, then set it down to god and forget about it." It really is anti-science, which is not to say it is wrong, only that it doesn't belong in science class.

    The existence of god or what he or she can do or has done in the past, who he or she hates and who he or she loves, are not "theories" in this sense. They belong in social studies classes that examine the various things that peoples and cultures believe. I wonder how the responses to that survey would go if it specifically mentioned teaching about creationism in science class rather than just "in schools."

    Also I would note that just being in the minority does not make you "polarizing." Polarizing means tending to drive to one extreme or the other.

    No Jeff, the discussion was very civil (and interesting) ....until you showed up and started calling people things like a "triple posting lunatic".
    Posted by: Mike at May 16, 2007 12:18 PM

    I only state facts. If you don't like it, take a hike, prick. Stop interjecting you hypocritical idiot. If bob/patty/nobodycares has a problem with it, let him address me, it's none of your business.

    VOK, you raise a valid point if I had implied in any way that that is what should be taught in Science Class. I said I think it should be mentioned in a broad way. If you have kids you know that things are best addressed with them in real time to whatever it is.

    And that it should be mentioned in conjunction with holding the concept of God created the world and its laws with the current theories of origin and evolution are logically compatible. Then the kiddies can go home and discuss it with their parents if they want.

    Also you don't seem to be aware of what is being taught in science classes about that irrefutable Law of Global Warming. This hasn't even risen to a theory and is a huge political issue. Some of our scientists are advancing their research as inarguable fact and trying to prove it by political fiat and shutting down any contrary research or even any opposition to be heard. And our kids are getting that exact line in school in science class.

    Grammie

    I will get back to you on the other but I am a bit tired and that will take some effort.

    Jeff sez to me: "it's none of your business"...and calls me a prick again while defending his 'civility'....LOL

    It would be pretty easy for me to ignor your exchanges with AAP, who by the way...is MANY times smarter than you are, if you did not have a history of injecting yourself with your grade school level name calling into almost every discussion I have had on the board with anyone else.....hypocrite!

    yea, it takes a real intellectual to post 'bushwipe' over and over again. I guess he would be considered 'smart' compared to you, mickey!

    Thanks, Grammie, for the comment. I am having a hard time being a night owl also but that is usually when I have no interruptions.

    I do try to state what I am feeling at the time, and I find no reason to be dishonest. I believe that Bush also feels doubt but he won't air those doubts publicly. I don't believe he engaged in war for self-serving purposes but did just what all of the others would have done who voted yes. There is such a thing as a just war. I don't see how one can read the statements of Wes Clark, both Clintons, Kerry and others and not believe that there appeared to be a grave risk to our country. The events of 9/11 did change most everyone's focus. Clinton is just crafty enough to always state her position in such a way as to allow wiggle room for unforeseen events. When our men start getting tortured and butchered, (not that any death or injury isn't heart-wrenching) I have to question, not whether it was ever right to attack, but is it right anymore.

    I also wondered whether we would not have been in a different position now if we weren't so concerned about hearts and minds. The examples I gave yesterday did not involve indiscriminate killing but some intimidation tactics to get results and were done as a last resort. I saw stories in which the "helpful" informants were some of the ones detained later.

    This is not to say the the soldiers, marines should not have exhibited their daily acts of kindnesses. Decent people are affected by goodness and will be more inclined to willing come forward, even though anyone helping the Coalition puts himself in danger. There is a segment of the population that will never come forward willingly. Not only that but they have information that will save lives and/or bring to justice those who deserve it. Then there are those who are directly responsible and not only should be held accountable but remain a danger to the world.

    That brings to mind something I wanted to address in VOK's opinion about torture, continued detentions without hearings, deceptive practices, etc. arguing the moral high ground. VOK says that in our country, we follow the rule of law having the underlying assumption that all men are created equal. Who decides the rule of law? At one time the rule of law held that a slave was one third of a person. Currently, the moment of conception does not define a "person" who shall not have life, liberty or property taken away without due process. A retirement or death of a member of the Supreme Court could change the rule of law. It depends on your status as to whether the rule of law makes everyone equal.

    Transition to what do you do with a suspected enemy combatant? I saw yesterday that two detainees who were released are back to the old routine. I really want to know what to do with them and how to get information after the nice routine fails.

    I hope your therapy is going well!

    Sharm

    VOK,

    I don't think you are familiar with public education as it is now. Traditionally, math was taught in math class, history in history class, . . . I have a friend who home educates her younger children while the other two attend high school. Math at the high school includes topics such as Carter's habitat for humanity. Grammie is obviously in touch with how the schools operate today. Diversity, inclusion, these are the public mission statements. Diversity doesn't include a Christian viewpoint.

    I think if anyone has ever read a McGuffey Reader (a popular textbook in the 19th and early 20th century) they are amazed by two things-- how much more advance reading skills were then-- a 3rd grade reader would qualify as sixth or seventh grade today.... And how the stories were oriented to teaching morals to children.

    I think that's the same goal with mentioning Habitat for Humanity. It's an attempt to instill concern for others in kids.

    However, it seems that so many textbook writers today equate morals or being moral with holding certain views on public policy. It's not enough to teach children that they should be involved with helping the poor, they must also believe in certain govt policies or interpretations of govt roles, in order to "really" care about others.

    That's why I think school vouchers could be a means of avoiding pitfalls that arise due to such a difference in perspective.

    Sharm, why do your think threatening to "detain" the old woman worked? Do you think Abu Gahrib had anything to do with that? What do you think those "cooperative" men did later, if they interpreted the act as a threat to rape and disgrace their mother? It is counterproductive and it is immoral. They caught Saddam because they went "outside the box" of morality? Great. Where did that get us?

    I don't blame soldiers, who in the heat of danger are bound to make decisions that go beyond morality. But especially in light of that fact, I do blame those who set the framework within which these soldiers act. I give great kudos to general Petraeus, who is now trying to undo the damage that has been done to the morality and rightness of our cause. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Intentionally mistreating helpless people in your power is wrong, and it will always come back to bite you. It will demoralize us and our friends, and harden and embolden our enemies. It's a losing proposition, plain and simple.

    The rule of law has little to do with what the particular law is. It means whatever it is, we all live under it equally. And in a democracy, we all decide what it is. The fact that there can be bad laws that are later changed or deemed unconstitutional does not impeach the rule of law as such. The administration is claiming all kinds of exceptions to the rule of law. They are claiming the unilateral priviledge to decide guilt and innocence without trial, and to decide what constitutes torture and whether and when it will be used.

    Point well-taken about the readers. I have thought about ordering the old ones for my children. Your however paragraph sums up the point I weakly made. My children start out with The Little Angels readers and language arts series. I use the A beka math program which teaches math with a Christian backdrop, although I usually adhere to specifically Catholic materials. My children are also learning Latin along with the Latin prayers. We attend the traditional Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. My son has just begun Great Men of Rome. I am thoroughly enjoying teaching them (most of the time ; ))

    It is to my advantage to be in favor of school vouchers. We pay school taxes and they don't attend school! I pay for all their material. Some parents use cyber school which is paid for by the state but I want to use my own material at this point.

    Sharm thanks. I have dropped my shoulder because it is unfrozen now and I just do maintenance at home. But that has allowed more for my back and legs. These are the toughies. They say I'm progressing but I don't believe a word those sadists say.:)

    Your point that the original mistake was not having an all out assault with enough soldiers and equipment for complete overkill if needed was the best I've seen here.

    If you think back to WW II that is how we won the war and set the stage for an occupation in which we gave them massive aid and help and finally won the war of hearts and minds.

    There is no having another first chance. And rectifying it would require a political atmosphere that we don't have. Thinking about the Pelosis, Reids, Durbins, KO's etc rhetoric now based on an essentially gloved hand approach and the encouragement it gives our enemies the chance is past.

    We are where we are and I am certain that we will have some very nasty surprises down the line. We are all on record here four years into the war. We'll all have either our kudos or mea culpas four years after we pull out.

    Grammie

    VOK,

    The Abu Graib stroy had not broken yet but I don't know what information was available to the Iraqis. They probably heard horror stories. This is what I witnessed in the documentary. The people in the house were not telling the truth about the weapons. (An interpreter was present).There were different stories that did not align. The colonel tried again to get the story. The people were not cooperating. The men took the woman away. They cooperated. Take from that what you will.

    My question to you is what do you do with the enemy combatants? I have some things to take care of and will await your response. I would also like to say a little more about your point in general. I'll just end with the fact that I don't get off on torture.

    Sharon,

    I admire your dedication!

    "I don't think you are familiar with public education as it is now. "

    I am tempted to go all snotty on you, but I'll give it straight. I've been on my local school board for six years, my wife teaches in the public schools, and six of my very best friends are teachers of math, math, English, Spanish, science, and science, in three different states.

    Sorry, but they do not "teach about" habitate for humanity in math class. They may use it tangentially in a word problem or as an explanation of the usefullness of geometry in housebuilding or something. Is something wrong with that? Something wrong with habitat?

    Creationism is anti-science. The equivalent would be teaching in math class that it may well be that if a problem seems too hard, it may be that numbers simply can't be added or subtracted reliably, because god may desire 1+1 to equal 3. That is a pretty exact analogy.

    Creationism is anti-science. The equivalent would be teaching in math class that it may well be that if a problem seems too hard, it may be that numbers simply can't be added or subtracted reliably, because god may desire 1+1 to equal 3. That is a pretty exact analogy.

    Posted by: VOK at May 16, 2007 3:29 PM


    No, that's not an exact analogy:

    The concepts of evolution do not equate to the certainty of 1 + 1 = 2, anymore than the concepts of the functioning of neurotransmitters in the brain equate to that. The work of neurotransmitters could be able to be formulated into an equation, but there would a number of them, and many variables.

    Teaching creationism is not the equivalent of saying that God operated in a way that is contrary to all known facts about how the universe performs.

    Quick response,

    If the math question were as you stated, that would be acceptable. It wasn't. It was an essay type question not dealing with math. I probably should have limited the issue to public schools "in my experience" as should you. My experience is actually from the people I know who send their children to public school. Mine are still very young and have just begun their formal education.

    I also taught for 7 years but left the system in 1993. The school in which I taught is not the average school. It is in a migrant community in the midst of sugar cane fields. It is an African American community where religion plays a key role in the lives of most. I believe that the circumstances are very much the same now. I doubt that the community is clamoring for a course on evolution.

    "I'll just end with the fact that I don't get off on torture."

    That isn't the point. I don't think you enjoy torture. I don't think Cheney enjoy's torture. I think you both may labor under the misapprehension that our morality is a fluid thing that has to be adjusted to fit our enemies. Not only is it wrong, it is impossible to "win" this conflict without standing enequivocally for human rights.

    Cecelia made a good point in the discussion of the fort Dix case about the banality of evil. You don't need Machiavellian geniuses to cause havok and destruction. I would go her one further. You don't even need wholly bad intentions. Evil can evolve organically from bad situations. And being a foreign occupier in a confusing and broken country filled with fear, hatred, and weapons is by definition a bad situation.

    Without holding to our moral core, we will drift and demoralize ourselves and our friends, while only hardening the resolve of our enemies. That, in my opinion, is what has happened so far in our detention and interrogation policies.

    VOK,

    BTW, I don't think creationism should be taought along side evolution in public schools. I just think your analogy is inaccurate as to what creationists (and I am one) believe.

    "The concepts of evolution do not equate to the certainty of 1 + 1 = 2"

    No they don't, nor is it taught that way, nor am I arguing that. Evolution is taught as an example of a theory arrived at by scientific deduction. A theory is not a finished equation. I have participated in review boards on this topic. They do not say in science class "here is where human beings came from." They say "here is a theory about the process by which all species of plants and animals undergo differentiation that fits the broadest amount of observed data." Boards have bent over backwards of late to make sure language is included that specifically emphasizes that it is not a completed theory, as OF COURSE no scientific theory is EVER complete. Science is a method, just as the mathematical functions are methods. The thoery of evolution is a particularly good example of the scientific method for a variety of reasons.

    "Intelligent design" flies in the face of the scientific method. It states that if something is too complex or seems too hard to explain scientifically, or there are holes in the current theory, then maybe it is simply not explanable in human terms. This would be just like posting a difficult calculus problem on the board which not even the teacher has the answer to, and then when the students can't get it, to specifically teach them that the reason they can't get it may be that it isn't governed by mathmatical rules. That is anti-math. And inteligent design is anti-science.

    "If the math question were as you stated, that would be acceptable. It wasn't. It was an essay type question not dealing with math."

    If you are claiming a single anecdote, then what can I say? Do you want to post the problem? You are saying that someone in some math class somewhere gave students an essay to read about habitat for humanity? I guarantee if there wasn't math content then that wasn't part of the approved curriculum, or something went haywire at the board.

    When anyone says, "creationism is anti-science," I feel the same gut reaction as I do when someone says, "naturalism is anti-religion." Both statements are irrational, defensive, intolerant, "black and white thinking" [thank you Sheridan (colbert)], and arises from the same base human flaw that brought us the Salem Witch Trials.

    I do not agree that naturalism is anti-religion, and as a scientist...I do not agree that creationsim is anti-science....They are only examples of manipulative demagogic rhetoric that motivates the true believers on both sides.

    It is ironic that the new "scarlet letter" is given when one professes faith in the teachings of Jesus in their entirety...including his teachings about the origins of man, sin and the natural world.

    And let me remind the more radical leftists who enjoy attacking me.....All of the leading candidates for President have professed faith in Jesus Christ....who's only recorded words include....

    "'Haven't you read,' he replied, 'that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
    Matthew 19:4-6

    Mmmm.....a nice harmless quote spoken at many a wedding....but do my more left-leaning friends, who are so quick to dismiss someone's use of Jesus Christ on their political resume, understand the illogic of saying one may "believe in evolution" AND believe in God as understood through Christianity.

    I don't want public school teachers teaching anything from the bible present day....they are no longer capable....BUT I do want the choice of sending my child to an institution that has qualified individuals teaching the scriptures along with the basics of math, science, reading and writing....Currently, I am coersed by the government to send my child to secular institutions and it is wrong.

    Oh and BTW......The Feingold-Reid Amendment failed this morning, 29-67....oh my... my pet issue....democrats defunding the war.....no dice. I was right again! Hello, Professor Honeydew? Your prediction?

    cee

    "I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

    "There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration?s policies in Iraq. Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back." NYT 1/28/07

    "I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam," George McGovern - NEWSWEEK

    "When anyone says, 'creationism is anti-science," I feel the same gut reaction as I do when someone says, "naturalism is anti-religion.'"

    My problem with creation science (or intelligent design) is that the teachers of it ignore so much of what is scientific in order to push their agenda.

    "I do not agree that naturalism is anti-religion, and as a scientist...I do not agree that creationsim is anti-science....They are only examples of manipulative demagogic rhetoric that motivates the true believers on both sides."

    Not true, there are examples of errors or even distortions made by scientist, however when it is found out the scientific community moves to correct itself. (The best data always wins) Creation scientist are still using the same distortions they made many years ago. They are not publishing their material in peer reviewed journals and refuse and often distort and manipulate science to make their point.

    "It is ironic that the new "scarlet letter" is given when one professes faith in the teachings of Jesus in their entirety...including his teachings about the origins of man, sin and the natural world."

    The story of the earth being 6000 years old and Adam being created from dirt and Eve from his rib, and their having two kids that somehow multiplied into today's population does not fit the observable data. If it ever does I'd change my mind.

    "And let me remind the more radical leftists who enjoy attacking me.....All of the leading candidates for President have professed faith in Jesus Christ....who's only recorded words include...."

    That's great. I disagree with all of them on this matter.

    "Mmmm.....a nice harmless quote spoken at many a wedding....but do my more left-leaning friends, who are so quick to dismiss someone's use of Jesus Christ on their political resume, understand the illogic of saying one may "believe in evolution" AND believe in God as understood through Christianity."

    No doubt, it means you can't take the bible literally if you believe in evolution, but one can take the position that Jesus wasn't always speaking literal either..

    "I don't want public school teachers teaching anything from the bible present day....they are no longer capable....BUT I do want the choice of sending my child to an institution that has qualified individuals teaching the scriptures along with the basics of math, science, reading and writing...."

    Well, I don't actually have a problem with that (I am libertarian on a lot of issues) Just don't expect your kids to get high paid jobs in science if they turn away from data that conflicts with their beleifs.

    "Currently, I am coersed by the government to send my child to secular institutions and it is wrong."

    Agreed, but I think universities have the right to choose students that were educated in ways of science over theology once grammer school is complete.

    "The point is, we have to realize that if we lose Vietnam and the summit, there's no way that the election can be saved." -- Richard Nixon

    You're so goddamned concerned about the civilians and I don't give a damn. I don't care." -- Richard Nixon

    "leave the political evolution of Vietnam to the Vietnamese" Henry Kissenger

    "I'd rather use the nuclear bomb," - Richard Nixon


    VOK,

    The math problem issue came to me from my very good friend who was concerned about that problem as well as some other similar issues. Her husband ran for a vacant position on the school board (the election was yesterday as a matter of fact).

    *You don't need Machiavellian geniuses to cause havok and destruction. I would go her one further. You don't even need wholly bad intentions. Evil can evolve organically from bad situations.

    It goes to the nature of original sin. Man has a fallen nature. Myself included. The dignity of the person is the core of the issue.
    BTW, the colonel was not happy about taking the woman aside just to set the record straight.

    I still would like to know what to do with enemy combatants and how to get information from people who don't want to give it up. I mean relevant information, life-saving information. I don't know the answer. If I had the Pope's ear, I would ask him. I just noted that the 4th Infantry division which seemed to have a reputation for strong-arming found Saddam Hussein. I didn't say that it was right or wrong, just successful. Would the war have ended up causing less casualties if that was the mindset? In a perfect world, an ugly choice doesn't have to be made. Put yourself in the colonel's shoes: there is a house with illegal weapons. His men have been targeted. He knows the people in the house have the information. They won't give it up. What does he do to protect his men?

    Also, I never meant to disparage General Petreus. He, with the reputation of having some success with the hearts and minds of the Iraqis, was placed in command of the last ditch effort here. Why was he chosen for that?


    "I'd rather use the nuclear bomb," - Richard Nixon


    Posted by: craigs at May 16, 2007 5:05 PM
    Amen.

    Sheridan, I proudly accept the scarlet letter you endorse.....

    As would many other successful physicians as well as thousands of biologists, physicians, chemists, physicists, computer scientists and other "intellectuals" who have the ability to rise above your base reaction....

    Many you probably have trusted in caring for you when you have been ill, taught you at university and lead you politically......

    Or do you clear everyone with such authority over you with the question....

    "Do you believe in god?"

    Oh, and continue using the deeply flawed secular political figure of Nixon as a rebuttal to the deeply flawed secular political figure of McGovern.....it shows your inability to defend the very philosophy governing the left today.....(BTW I never claimed Richard Nixon had anyhting right)....it just shows you want to change the subject...a nice rhetorical ploy you have childishly used here at OW.

    Oh....where is my quote concerning the defeat of The Feingold-Reid Amendment failed this morning, 29-67. Tick-tock.

    cee

    "I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

    "There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration?s policies in Iraq. Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back." NYT 1/28/07

    "I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam," George McGovern - NEWSWEEK

    Sharon, you have an admirable ability to admit you don't know. But is there a bias in the questions you pose to yourself and the dillemmas you create?

    "I just noted that the 4th Infantry division which seemed to have a reputation for strong-arming found Saddam Hussein. I didn't say that it was right or wrong, just successful. Would the war have ended up causing less casualties if that was the mindset?"

    How about would the war have less casualties if that WAS NOT the mindset. Because they just did a survey of military personel that showed not only are grunts generally supportive of strong-arm tactics, something near half of them said they would not report mistreatment of an innocent Iraqi civilian. This is only natural. They are in a "protect your own" mindset that is appropriate to soldiers, and the Iraqis are not their own.

    But this is an occupation. It isn't a war. It is nation building. And I think a much better question than the one you ask about getting meaner with the civilians is how we think we can build a friendly stable Iraq without treating the Iraqis with equal dignity, without showing that we value their lives as much as American lives. General support for killing U.S. troops is way up from the start of the invasion. That is the problem, and it can't be solved by threatening all their mothers with rape to catch the bad guy du jour. You don't have to be the Pope to know that.

    "I still would like to know what to do with enemy combatants and how to get information from people who don't want to give it up. I mean relevant information, life-saving information."

    Maybe, as most interrogators agree, soft tactics and persuasion would be more effective. Or maybe we don't get info at all from the people who really hate us. Maybe instead of getting out of them what they know (or what they want us to know), we should act in a way that teaches them something about us, and about why we have a successful society while they have a parade of torturing strongmen and failed regimes. It might not prevent the next mortar attack, but this is a generational struggle, and it may be that you can't act with extreme predjudice and help create a stable and friendly society at the same time.

    I believe that is the case.

    The average american who raoms these grounds doesn't have a drop of patriot in him. Just a lot of rocks between the ears and miguided conspiracy notions. It's probably bush's fault that the democratic congress has a lower approval rating than saddam (may he rest in pieces). Bush in '08... Giving you miserable people something to live for another 4 years. If you can bitch- it means you are breathing. Now go kick your mutt.

    Is my math right, guys?....After all, I am a flat-earther....

    29 Senators/98 total is 29.6% of the institution voting for the radical solution the professor (Bob), Sherdian and their ilk said was actually mainstream and representative of the opinion of the American people in the last election....Oh yeah....and the professor also predicted the democrats would stop the war.....

    tick-tock, tick-tock.....

    cee (the unicorn chaser)

    "I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

    "There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration?s policies in Iraq. Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back." NYT 1/28/07

    "I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam," George McGovern - NEWSWEEK

    VOK sez-

    "The concepts of evolution do not equate to the certainty of 1 + 1 = 2"
    "No they don't, nor is it taught that way, nor am I arguing that. Evolution is taught as an example of a theory arrived at by scientific deduction."

    Oh, you mean in places like say, Cobb County, Georgia? You will recall that in 2004 that the school district in that county placed the following sticker on science textbooks:

    "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

    Seems like a perfectly agreeable solution to a heated debate. But, of course, this was not going to be tolerated by the anti-intelligent design zealots who are intent on completely closing children's minds to any evidence that might contradict their precious theory. So, it was off to court where a sympathethic judge, reinforcing my suspisions about the dubious quality of legal talent being produced by today's law schools, opined that such a sticker contained a "religious" message and could not be permitted. Naturally, the zealots were elated, because nothing stood between them and their non-negotiable desire to cram evolution as fact down kids throats. Your assertion VOK that evolution is NOT taught as 1 + 1 = 2 is simply not true. I agree with you that it SHOULD be taught that way, but what SHOULD be done and what IS done are two different things.

    I agree hank....and the tactics used by those proclaiming science's excluive supremacy and unquestionable authority on explaining the origins of man and the universe are as old as The Spanish inquisition.

    Like those that say use "anti-" monickers.

    cee (the unicorn chaser)

    "I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

    "There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration?s policies in Iraq. Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back." NYT 1/28/07

    "I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam," George McGovern - NEWSWEEK

    "and as a scientist...I do not agree that creationsim is anti-science...."

    Sure creationism isn't anti-science. I agree. Teaching creationism in science class IS anti-science. Having a picnic isn't anti-baseball. Having a picnic on top of second base while a game is going on IS anti-baseball.

    The name for teaching creationism in science class is "intelligent design." It is a hypothesis that anything that seems too complex to explain was designed by a human-like-but-super-human intelligence, end of story. It is an attempt to substitute the continual questioning and revising and observing of science for it's opposite-- a finished explanation that cannot be proven or disproven by future data.

    It's that end of story part that is anti-scientific.

    VOK.....sure intelligent design theory could be disproven......All that has to happen is a scientifically valid model be observed that has the atomic components of RNA spontaneously combine to form a valid RNA molecule that would be capable of forming a functioning protein AND then replicate itself.....AND then this molecule spontaneously mutates to ANOTHER sequence that results in a functioning protein that is also replicated......and then this occurs about 10 to the 600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times forming uncountable proteins that leads to cells that leads to tissues that leads to organs.....well, you get my drift.

    oh yeah....and have that experiment be repeated and verified.....

    Let me know when we have that.

    cee (the unicorn chaser)

    "Sheridan, I proudly accept the scarlet letter you endorse....."

    That's your business Lenny. I can't force you to educate yourself and it is your right to avoid it.

    "As would many other successful physicians as well as thousands of biologists, physicians, chemists, physicists, computer scientists and other "intellectuals" who have the ability to rise above your base reaction...."

    Most today would agree that evolution is real. If some oppose it I suppose they can mange ok in their career. (as long as they are not geologist, palentologist, physist)

    "Or do you clear everyone with such authority over you with the question....

    "Do you believe in god?"

    It is something I consider, depending on how much it is going their religion is going to influence my life. But if a person beleives in god privatly that is their business. I think they are wrong but that is another matter.


    "Oh, and continue using the deeply flawed secular political figure of Nixon as a rebuttal to the deeply flawed secular political figure of McGovern....."
    it shows your inability to defend the very philosophy governing the left today.....(BTW I never claimed Richard Nixon had anyhting right)....

    So basically you are saying it is ok for you to extrapolate that the whole Left is "Morally bankrupt" based on one quote from mcgovern, but that the right can distance itself from Nixon? That makes sense. it is real honest as well.

    "it just shows you want to change the subject...a nice rhetorical ploy you have childishly used here at OW."

    Nothing childish about it. Childish is you holding up McGovern as though all liberlas worship at his alter. i figured if you can do that, I can conclude all Conservatives must worship at the alter of Nixon. I mean that is the philospohy governing the right. Defend it.

    "Oh....where is my quote concerning the defeat of The Feingold-Reid Amendment failed this morning, 29-67. Tick-tock."

    And your point is?

    "The point is, we have to realize that if we lose Vietnam and the summit, there's no way that the election can be saved." -- Richard Nixon

    You're so goddamned concerned about the civilians and I don't give a damn. I don't care." -- Richard Nixon

    "leave the political evolution of Vietnam to the Vietnamese" Henry Kissenger

    "I'd rather use the nuclear bomb," - Richard Nixon

    "cee (the unicorn chaser)"

    Well at least you have stopped lying to yourself.

    >>>>Oh, you mean in places like say, Cobb County, Georgia? You will recall that in 2004 that the school district in that county placed the following sticker on science textbooks:

    "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.>>>>

    Nope, that was a terrible solution, because it totally obscurred the scientific meaning of "theory," substituting the social sense (something unproven, something that is opposed to a fact) for the scientific sense (a system that is the best fits the broadest set of data available at this time.) They use it in the sense someone might say "I have a theory that 9-11 is god's punishment for allowing gays to walk around free."

    How about another sticker that says gravity is "just a theory, not a fact?" If you put both stickers on there, then I'd be O.K. with it.

    I always thought the Cobb County, Georgia thing was embarrassing for both sides.

    The anti-sticker folks for being so implacable.

    The pro-sticker folks for demanding such a meaningless gesture.

    'VOK.....sure intelligent design theory could be disproven......All that has to happen is a scientifically valid model be observed that has the atomic components of RNA spontaneously combine to form a valid RNA molecule that would be capable of forming a functioning protein AND then replicate itself.....AND then this molecule spontaneously mutates to ANOTHER sequence that results in a functioning protein that is also replicated......and then this occurs about 10 to the 600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times forming uncountable proteins that leads to cells that leads to tissues that leads to organs.....well, you get my drift.'

    Of course you can disprove evolution in the same manner. All you need is for a holy being to come down, create a man from dirt, take one of his ribs , make his wife,

    have him say "I the lord god" and part the red sea... well you get my drift.

    VOK,

    What occurred with the woman being taken aside happened a few years ago. I don't even know how many people were detained at Abu Graib at that point or if the family knew where the woman was going to be detained. You mention a recent poll. How do you know the mindset of the men at the start of the war? Where is this poll? It is conducive to provide links rather than "they just took a poll."

    *Or maybe we don't get info at all from the people who really hate us.

    Did you read the transcript of Khalid Sheik Mohammad? Did you hear any of what Moussai said? They hate us!

    *we should act in a way that teaches them something about us, and about why we have a successful society

    The jihadists believe that Allah wants them to slit our throats. They know what our culture is and despise it. During the first Gulf War when Iraqis were surrendering to cameramen, they saw our humanity. They were immediately given water and food. Their medical needs were met. Those are not the people about whom we are discussing. Last year, I saw the video of the terrorists dragging the bodies of our two captured soldiers behind a truck and other details too gruesome to recount.

    *General support for killing U.S. troops is way up from the start of the invasion.
    Eventually you reach 100%. I have heard that so much that we are at about 600% of support for killing U.S. troops.

    It might not prevent the next mortar attack, but this is a generational struggle,

    A colonel faced in the situation I described is not thinking "generationally." The men are in the here and now.

    * it can't be solved by threatening all their mothers with rape to catch the bad guy du jour. You don't have to be the Pope to know that.

    Please.
    I provided a hypothetical that you are disrespectfully assuming is true. The men at the start of the war did not have that mindset. What kind of mindset should the men of the 10th Mountain Division have right now?

    I really thought you were more reasonable. If most of the men were so far gone, every Iraqi would be taking shots at them.

    where they were pretending to detain the woman

    Of course you can disprove evolution in the same manner. All you need is for a holy being to come down, create a man from dirt, take one of his ribs , make his wife,

    have him say "I the lord god" and part the red sea... well you get my drift.

    Posted by: craigs at May 16, 2007 6:20 PM


    Don't look now, Craigs but that level of proof isn't there for evolution either.

    With that standard scientist wouldn't postulate anything.

    Don't look now, Craigs but that level of proof isn't there for evolution either.

    With that standard scientist wouldn't postulate anything."

    I agree. I used Cee's logic in reverse to demonstrate it is ridiculous. He is arguing that science can rule out intelligent design if and only if we can only watch evolution occur in real time right before our eyes.

    if that is true then the converse is true and Christians can only rule out evolution if they get God to come down and introduce himself. it is silly in both cases and it is Cee's argument.


    I agree. I used Cee's logic in reverse to demonstrate it is ridiculous. He is arguing that science can rule out intelligent design if and only if we can only watch evolution occur in real time right before our eyes.

    if that is true then the converse is true and Christians can only rule out evolution if they get God to come down and introduce himself. it is silly in both cases and it is Cee's argument.


    Posted by: craigs at May 16, 2007 6:34 PM


    Well, heck, Major. With this argument, you're one step from arguing for equal school time for ID... :D

    >>>>*we should act in a way that teaches them something about us, and about why we have a successful society

    By "them" I didn't mean those who already hate us beyond retrieval. I meant the general Iraqi population and the world at large. It was not written clearly.

    >>>>Did you read the transcript of Khalid Sheik Mohammad? Did you hear any of what Moussai said? They hate us!"

    Yeah, KSM is stark raving nuts, and it really doesn't matter what he says, it's not reliable in any sense. What is your point here, that some people really hate us and wil never love us? duh. But we will win because of the people we convince to like us, not by killing and torturing all the people who hate us. cf Jesus.

    >>>>I really thought you were more reasonable. If most of the men were so far gone, every Iraqi would be taking shots at them."

    More and more are taking shots at them. Who said these guys were far gone? They were acting as soldiers have always acted and always will act. That is why they have to be restrained by an unequivocal moral message. And to Petreus' credit, he is trying to be that voice now, because he understands the issue.

    >>>>>A colonel faced in the situation I described is not thinking "generationally." The men are in the here and now.>>>>

    They better start. That is what Petreus is saying and what I am saying.

    >>>>I provided a hypothetical that you are disrespectfully assuming is true."

    Get real. What do you suppose those men thought? Oh, they are taking her to treat her nicely and respectfully, so we better do what we didn't want to do thirty seconds ago at gunpoint? This is how this torture issue gets framed. "It's just loud music. It's just an uncomfortable position. It's just manipulating the temperature. It's just sleep deprivation. It's just taking someone's children or family to some undisclosed location and doing undisclosed things to them. It isn't torture. Maybe they even like it? Club Gitmo! You are assuming the worst."

    What do you think those men were assuming? These are people that just lived through Saddam. Come on.

    In any event, this event you saw is the definition of success that you say creates the moral dillemma for you. Ask yourself this though: what do you think those men, supposing they did interpret that as a threat to abuse or rape or kill their mother, are doing right now? So was it really a success?

    Well, heck, Major. With this argument, you're one step from arguing for equal school time for ID... :D
    Posted by: Cecelia at May 16, 2007 6:55 PM

    The kids do get taught about mythology still, right?

    so we better do what we didn't want to do thirty seconds ago at gunpoint?

    It wasn't at gunpoint. I watched the documentary. It was on CNN. They were in their home with the soldiers asking questions through an interpreter. No gunpoint.

    They were acting as soldiers have always acted and always will act. (sounds kind of judgmental)

    I gave an example of the 4th Infantry division. The point I initially made is that this group seemed to have the reputation of acting more aggressively, thus indicating others were not. The 4th Infantry Division found Hussein, a war objective.

    >>>>>A colonel faced in the situation I described is not thinking "generationally." The men are in the here and now.>>>>

    They better start. That is what Petreus is saying and what I am saying.

    So they should sacrifice their men? I think Petreus right now is trying to stabilize the hot spots so the diplomacy can begin. The soldiers were given authority to act more aggressively in this surge; I have to leave but I will get you Bush's speech in January.

    "Well, heck, Major. With this argument, you're one step from arguing for equal school time for ID... :D"

    I wouldn't say that. I would say I am arguing that bad logic gets us nowhere.

    If a god came down and performed a few miracles and introduced himself. and showed us how he did things, Then science would be forced to change it's conclusions on the origin of life. Equally if space aliens come here and demonstrate suffcient evidence that they gentically enginerered human life, science would be forced to accept that.

    In the absense of this though we are forced to look at empiracle evidence. We have plenty for evolution. We have none for god. Doesn't mean someone can't believe in him. it just means they have to stick to faith and not science.

    In the absense of this though we are forced to look at empiracle evidence. We have plenty for evolution. We have none for god. Doesn't mean someone can't believe in him. it just means they have to stick to faith and not science.

    Posted by: craigs at May 16, 2007 7:21 PM


    I don't know if you've read C.S. Lewis, Craigs, but he does quite a good job of postulating the existence of God based on empirical evidence.

    If you haven't read him, I suggest you start with The Problem of Pain. I think it's important that everyone understand what the other side believes and argues.

    "I don't know if you've read C.S. Lewis, Craigs, but he does quite a good job of postulating the existence of God based on empirical evidence."

    I haven't read him and will take a look. I have read that along with Thomas Aquinas's arguements (of which I am familiar) Lewis has some of the best arguements for the existence of god.

    However, might I ask if these arguements are based on things like the complexity of life, the intracacy of the universie things like that? If they are I would argue that this position is arguing from an absense of evidence. or to appeal to Glen Branch, the arguement takes the form of:

    * There is a gap in scientific knowledge.
    * The gap is filled with acts of God (or Intelligent designer) and therefore proves the existence of God (or Intelligent designer).

    Which is flawed because all it means is an explanation has not yet been provided that fits the facts (many time evolution does fit the facts).

    "If you haven't read him, I suggest you start with The Problem of Pain. I think it's important that everyone understand what the other side believes and argues."

    I compeltly agree with your statement. however I would argue that Cee's arguements are based on Scientific creationsim and intelligent design (which I have read) and have nothing to do with the observations of C.S. lewis. he has certainly not used lewis in any of my debates with him but has instead attacked gaps (often incorrectly0 in scientific knowledge.

    I'd be happy to read lewis though because I admire his other writing and know of him to have been very thoughtful on the subject.

    "He is arguing that science can rule out intelligent design if and only if we can only watch evolution occur in real time right before our eyes."

    No, you miss my more subtle point again, Sheridan.....You are so dull....I was illustrating the implausability of the current consensus of scientific theory of the origin of life.

    If you would like me to actually believe the plausability of multicellular organisms arising from atoms arranging themselves in space to form a molecule capable of forming logical sequences that can be translated, replicated and repaired AND THEN mutated 10 to the 6,000,000,000,000,000 power then you should scientifically fashion an observable model of these natural components doing just that.....

    No one has.....

    Sorry to disapoint you Sheridan, but I am very educated about the theory of evolution, in fact I majored in biology as an undergrad and did research in biochemistry during my 3 years pursuing my BS before medical school....The available data then and now continues to be insufficient for me to regard the theory as anything more than that.....

    Many like minded scientists agree and request proper discussion of the various THEORIES of the origin of life.

    I would remind you again of the assumptions you make with regard to assuming, as fact, that macroevolution occurred because of presently observable microevolution. I would remind you again of the simple fact that no one has been able to "create life" from the atoms of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, etc....

    But we went down that road before and my questions of your very same assumptions requesting faith no different than that of the church-goer were never addressed.

    The exclusivity of authority of science to explain our origins is what should be honestly (and respectfully) discussed....but many of the religious left (you, Sheridan) seem to want to take a different tact....

    That good ol' Salem Witch Hunt for those EVIL flat-earthers!

    Scarlet letter, please.

    cee (the unicorn chaser)

    "I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

    "There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration?s policies in Iraq. Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back." NYT 1/28/07

    "I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam," George McGovern - NEWSWEEK

    I'd be happy to read lewis though because I admire his other writing and know of him to have been very thoughtful on the subject.

    Posted by: craigs at May 16, 2007 7:38 PM


    I can't recommend him enough if you wish to understand theists.

    It's always a pleasure talking to you, Major.

    "No, you miss my more subtle point again, Sheridan.....You are so dull....I was illustrating the implausability of the current consensus of scientific theory of the origin of life."

    Your statement was: "sure intelligent design theory could be disproven" That sure seems to imply there is only one way to rule out Intelligent design. Which actually is untrue because an intelligent desinger could have made that very process happen. However as their is no evidence of that and science ignores things when their is an absense of evidence. I'll assume it is not true until real evidence exists.

    "If you would like me to actually believe the plausability of multicellular organisms arising from atoms arranging themselves in space to form a molecule capable of forming logical sequences that can be translated, replicated and repaired AND THEN mutated 10 to the 6,000,000,000,000,000 power then you should scientifically fashion an observable model of these natural components doing just that....."

    They have fashioned computer experiments that do just that. the only other option is to sit in a lab and wait around six billion years for life to form.

    "No one has....."

    No one is six billion years old.

    "Sorry to disapoint you Sheridan, but I am very educated about the theory of evolution, in fact I majored in biology as an undergrad and did research in biochemistry during my 3 years pursuing my BS before medical school....The available data then and now continues to be insufficient for me to regard the theory as anything more than that....."

    I am sorry but you are misinformed on this matter.

    "Many like minded scientists agree and request proper discussion of the various THEORIES of the origin of life."

    They should seriously consider publishing their findings in peer reviewed journals then. No intelligent design beliver has done this.

    "I would remind you again of the assumptions you make with regard to assuming, as fact, that macroevolution occurred because of presently observable microevolution."

    Is not macroevolution microevlution over the long haul?

    "I would remind you again of the simple fact that no one has been able to "create life" from the atoms of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, etc...."

    No but we have created amnio acids. We have also turned amino acids into proteins.
    Which are the builing blocks of life.

    "But we went down that road before and my questions of your very same assumptions requesting faith no different than that of the church-goer were never addressed."


    The data we have fits the theory. until it does not there is no reason to change the theory. Similary if someone jumps off a building and fall up we may have to revise our theory of gravity. Until then i am assuming it is true.

    "The exclusivity of authority of science to explain our origins is what should be honestly (and respectfully) discussed....but many of the religious left (you, Sheridan) seem to want to take a different tact...."

    I am sorry. I am an atheist i am not religious (I know the insult you were trying to make) and you have many flat out false claims. Such as "There is only one way to date fossils [carbon 14 dating]"

    "That good ol' Salem Witch Hunt for those EVIL flat-earthers!"

    Interesting the bible says in isah that the earth is flat. You don't disagree with this do you?

    "Scarlet letter, please."

    If you really want it for not educating yourself.

    "cee (the unicorn chaser)"

    Chasing unicorns is not a productive use of your time.. but it is your time.

    "The point is, we have to realize that if we lose Vietnam and the summit, there's no way that the election can be saved." -- Richard Nixon

    You're so goddamned concerned about the civilians and I don't give a damn. I don't care." -- Richard Nixon

    "leave the political evolution of Vietnam to the Vietnamese" Henry Kissenger

    "I'd rather use the nuclear bomb," - Richard Nixon


    "I can't recommend him enough if you wish to understand theists. "

    I have a friend actually, who changed her postion from a more agnostic viewpoint, to that of a beliver from reading Lewis. it has been on my list for some time.

    "It's always a pleasure talking to you, Major. "

    You as well.

    "The exclusivity of authority of science to explain our origins is what should be honestly (and respectfully) discussed"

    i do agree with this statement. I will even endeavor not to be rude (if you will).

    However I think you are wrong and I think the evidence is with me. (Also I must continue to call you Lenny. Don't take it personally. I don't take the Sheridan thing personally)

    "I am an atheist i am not religious"

    Oh Sheridan, but you are religious and have shown otherwise....

    Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

    I include my very intelligent professors at university, many other agnositcs and atheists I have met in my life who surpassed the good Pastor Falwell in their devotion and volume of defense, to their particular beliefs.

    Assumptions and plausability be damned.

    scarlet cee (the condemned unicorn chaser)

    "Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning. . ." C.S. Lewis MERE CHRISTIANITY

    "I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

    "There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration?s policies in Iraq. Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back." NYT 1/28/07

    "I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam," George McGovern - NEWSWEEK

    "Oh Sheridan, but you are religious and have shown otherwise....

    Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe."

    This is incomplete Lenny. here is a more complete definition:

    Religion: A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs"

    I am not that.

    "I include my very intelligent professors at university, many other agnositcs and atheists I have met in my life who surpassed the good Pastor Falwell in their devotion and volume of defense, to their particular beliefs."

    I can accept that anyone can become too entrenched in a position. Since I have no idea what they advocated or didn't I will take your wrod that they were Zealoous on certain matters.


    Craigs and VOK, I zoned out for a while because I was tired. I just read/scanned the last five, six or seven hours of posts.

    You both seem to be beyond confident into absolute total conviction that any thought, reference or disclosure that others have a different view from yours of the driving force of the theory of the origin of life is anathema to science. You both insist that even the mention that the current scientific theory is logically compatible with the religious beliefs of the vast majority of our country should be banned.

    Why are you so opposed to the faintest whiff of a different primary starting point from yours. If I were as convinced that others were so patently and provably wrong I don't think that I would come unglued at the mere thought that others would be exposed to a short mention of the opposing viewpoints and the logical compatibility of both.

    Grammie

    Grammie,

    It is just like listening to Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens is well-spoken, probably a mensa member and very tough in a debate. But he has no faith. There can't be a greater than himself. The old humble saying applies: For those who believe, proof is not necessary. For those who don't, proof is not possible. (I probably messed it up but you get the point.) Just wanted to say a quick hello. I can't have another extremely late night.

    Sharm

    Sharm, I am not a person of faith myself. I find myself, though, more skeptical than usual of those who fight so hard to ban any mention of anything that doesn't perfectly dovetail with their ideas.

    The mere mention that science, as it is currently, can be logically compatible with a broad range of religious beliefs doesn't strike me as a burn at the stake heresy. After all, with a few exceptions, the Dark Ages, the history of man has been progress and ever greater knowledge and understanding of the universe, the laws that govern it and our place in it.

    I know. Because I question some aspects of the current fashion I am just an ignorant rube.

    Grammie

    VOK,

    Now that I have a chance to read a little more carefully:
    *I provided a hypothetical that you are disrespectfully assuming is true."

    The hypothetical I provided was not the story of the soldiers taking an older woman aside to appear as if she were detained. That was a true story. The hypothetical was to assume that the mindset of the military at the start of the war was to win, not win hearts and minds. You state that "they took a poll" to indicate that was always the mindset. I already addressed that above.

    **we should act in a way that teaches them something about us, and about why we have a successful society
    The regular Iraqis are not in Gitmo. Many came here to escape Saddam's brutality. There is a large population in Dearborn, Michigan. They have relatives living in Iraq. Word spreads. There are countless stories of Iraqis being treated well by us. Saddam had the right hands of businessmen amputated for doing business with American dollars. The men received prosthetics from some generous American doctors. A soldier adopted an Iraqi child. There are countless stories.

    *what do you think those men, supposing they did interpret that as a threat to abuse or rape or kill their mother, are doing right now?

    Probably what they were doing then. Why do you think they had illegal weapons? Either they were using them or they were hiding them for someone else.

    I heard a moving story of a P.O.W. when I was at a homeschooling conference a few years ago. (I'll have to rack my brain to think of his name). He was shot down twice in Vietnam. The second time he was taken prisoner and was one of the men at the Hanoi Hilton. He was raised Catholic but did not devote much of his time to the faith. That changed in prison. Another prisoner educated him on the rosary and he developed a deep prayer life.

    One time he got into an argument with his interrogator about God. The interrogator was telling him how thankful he should be to the government for supplying him his food when the people of his country were starving. The lieutenant said that most people assume they were given rice (as I did). They were given moldy bread with worms. So the P.O.W. thanked God because he said God provides the food. The interrogator didn't like the response. The Lieutenant ended up yelling that there is a God and he had better believe (or something to that effect). In comic relief, he said that his first attempt at evangelization failed. The interrogator looked at him in stunned silence. Then he ordered the man to be sent to the hot box. It was in the heat of summer. The guard who took him away felt sorry for him and gave him a palm. The Lieutenant felt extremely downcast and said to himself that how can God be in a place like this. Within a short time, it started to rain, cooling things off. He said that he knew then God was even in that hell hole. There is so much more to his story but I have said enough.

    1:26 comment was to you Grammie.

    Lieutenant Paul E. Galanti, shot down on 11 July 1966. I just googled Lieutenant Paul (I remembered his first name) and Hanoi Hilton. Sure enough, the first thing that popped up was his name.

    >>>>You state that "they took a poll" to indicate that was always the mindset.>>>>

    Where did you get "always?" You've simply added something I didn't say or imply and it is not my point. I think the mindset has changed, because four years of your leader arguing for the legal right and neccesity to torture detainees sets the moral tone. Or I should say, sets the amoral tone.

    >>>>Probably what they were doing then. Why do you think they had illegal weapons? Either they were using them or they were hiding them for someone else.>>>>

    That's a pretty simplistic answer. Especially in light of what has happened there. I think if you lived in Iraq, you would want some weapons, regardless of which of 10 different sides you were on. That's just how people tend to feel in a civil war. And you would get them, one way or the other. They may have been using them against the Americans, they may have been using them against the Sadyrists, the Bathists... All you can tell from their desire to keep their weapons is that they didn't trust the U.S. to protect their interests, whatever they were.

    The point is that Iraq is not a physical problem. We can't take all the guns away, we can't lock up all the bad guys, we can't smoke them out and kill them. We can't even tell who's a bad guy and who isn't. None of that will solve it. What will solve it is convincing people that the U.S. is their best ally and friend. This transformation will take a generation if it happens at all. But it won't happen if we don't consistently represent our western liberal values as best we can, even when doing so means we ourselves have to accept some danger for that choice.

    So my argument is that your supposed moral dilemma-- between using harsh methods and winning, or using methods that reflect our humanitarian values and losing-- is wrong. We don't need to get tougher. History has shown that occupations that move in that direction ALWAYS go wrong.

    I'm really surprised that someone that has a strong committment to Christianity thinks that humanitarian values are a luxury, or something that can be bartered. That seems to me to be what you are saying when you talk about being conflicted about harsh methods and torture.

    You state that "they took a poll" to indicate that was always the mindset.>>>>

    Where did you get "always?"

    Here is where I got always:

    *How about would the war have less casualties if that WAS NOT the mindset. Because they just did a survey of military personel that showed not only are grunts generally supportive of strong-arm tactics, something near half of them said they would not report mistreatment of an innocent Iraqi civilian. This is only natural. They are in a "protect your own" mindset that is appropriate to soldiers, and the Iraqis are not their own.

    *>>>>Probably what they were doing then. Why do you think they had illegal weapons? Either they were using them or they were hiding them for someone else.>>>>

    *That's a pretty simplistic answer.

    The families were allowed a weapon for their protection. WEapons were found that went beyond the allowance. The men were doing their job.

    *But it won't happen if we don't consistently represent our western liberal values as best we can, even when doing so means we ourselves have to accept some danger for that choice.

    I don't think General Petreus has that view. A commander has to put the safety of his men first within the rules of engagement.

    *What will solve it is convincing people that the U.S. is their best ally and friend.

    The men have been doing that since the start.

    *So my argument is that your supposed moral dilemma-- between using harsh methods and winning,

    That wasn't my moral dilemma. My dilemma was that I know torture is against Christian values but I was having a hard time finding sympathy for truly evil people. The hypothetical I gave was just a question of whether more success and ultimately less damage would have been done had the Coalition gone in with a win approach only rather than starting off with hearts and minds. I suggested that hypothetical long after the initial discussion of the moral dilemma.

    *I'm really surprised that someone that has a strong committment to Christianity thinks that humanitarian values are a luxury, or something that can be bartered. That seems to me to be what you are saying when you talk about being conflicted about harsh methods and torture.

    You don't seem to be very good at winning hearts and minds yourself. If you look at every comment I made, I never claimed to be a saint. But then what what that matter to an atheist?

    An example of waffling regarding torture: "That wasn't my moral dilemma. My dilemma was that I know torture is against Christian values but I was having a hard time finding sympathy for truly eveil people."

    It should not be necessary to "find sympathy for truly evil people"...Neither do I. However, what IS absolutely necessary is that we draw a line that defines our values, and live by them...come what may

    Also, torture is not only against "Christian values"....more importantly, it is against AMERICAN values.

    >>>>>You both seem to be beyond confident into absolute total conviction that any thought, reference or disclosure that others have a different view from yours of the driving force of the theory of the origin of life is anathema to science. You both insist that even the mention that the current scientific theory is logically compatible with the religious beliefs of the vast majority of our country should be banned.>>>>

    Most distorted thing I've ever seen from you. Either provide one quote from me that in any way even begins to intimate what you've just claimed I'm "insisting," modify what you are saying, or let's just forget it. I want something banned? I have "total conviction" that religion is anathema to science? This is honestly one of the worst and most simplistic distortions of my arguments I have ever seen here.

    I have no opinion whatsoever on whether the theory of evolution confirms or contradicts anyone else's particular religion. Most liberal Christian sects teach that many parts of the bible are allegorical and not literal, not to mention being inconsistent and requiring interpretation. I am quite sure even the most dogmatic "believer" in the theory of evolution (a paradox to the scientific mind) can quite comfortably be any of these, and if you throw in Catholicism that I believe has officially endorsed the theory (why I don't know), this is probably more than 50% of the country. So not only are you misrepresenting my position, you are just flat out to lunch.

    Science is science. Religion is religion. Don't teach disrespect for science in science class by putting stickers on textbooks letting people know this is "just a theory, not a fact." Don't put stickers on bibles and korans letting people know that this is "just a myth, not backed by evidence," teaching disrespect for religion in the holy edifices.

    If people personally think one or the other conflict, they can sort that out themselves in their own heads. If people want to sanitize the world and make sure their children have the "pure" view on one side or the other, they are free to homeschool and insulate their children from these terrible pernicious influences of science on the one hand and religion on the other. The government has no business trying to iron these things out to their satisfaction.

    So VOK, how should one view, in your opinion, a simplistic question during a "debate" like, "Do you believe in evolution" and it can only be answered with the simple raising of hands if affirmative?

    It seems to me that, although the last poll of Americans showed 66% believed creationism should be discussed alongside the theory of evolution as an explaination to the origin of life as we know it, the press and the left were incredulous to those who did not raise their hands.....Why is this if, as you imply*, the current environment to drive the public square towards a purified "secularism" is not real and a goal of a certain component of the poltical class.....a class that controls a very large part of the federal government?

    *"The government has no business trying to iron these things out to their satisfaction."

    I really believe your statement is not supported by the current climate in our public schools, the courts or the poltical process.

    I will give a few of my own comments about evolution. I don't believe that we evolved by merely chance. The Catholic Church has not ruled out some form of evolution but does not teach that human beings came about by chance.

    What is torture versus intimidation tactics? VOK's view is that only gentle means of questioning should be used and if they are not successful, then people will just have to die if necessary. I don't believe most Americans feel that way. I did waiver, Mike, so go ahead and try to make me look bad. It is my own personal view. I would not want anyone to be subjected to electric shock, beatings, anything the POW's went through in previous wars. When I heard that the technique of waterboarding was used against Khalid, I didn't feel a terrible sense of shock. I probably should have. If I were in the room, I probably would have. I am making points that I previously stated. I can cut and paste if you like.

    My hypothetical was just conjecture (about winning hearts and minds). The examples I gave were what I consider intimidation tactics rather than torture.

    *Also, torture is not only against "Christian values"....more importantly, it is against AMERICAN values. (Mike)

    I would make the statement in reverse, but that is me.


    >>>>>Here is where I got always:

    I see. That wasn't clear. My view is the opposite, that pressure to treat civilians badly has gone up as we have gotten more and more frustrated with the results, and the results have gotten worse and worse as this has happened. This in my view is why Abu Gahrib was "Gitmoized," (which I understand you will not accept as what happened since in your view it was just a few rogue soldiers acting in secret and it only happened there.) Things aren't going well? Take off the kid gloves! This is the sentiment that emerges at some point in every bad occupation just before it totally collapses. It is the sentiment you seemed to be warming to and why I responded.

    >>>>"But then what what that matter to an atheist?"

    I don't know, why don't you go ask one.

    >>>>"You don't seem to be very good at winning hearts and minds yourself."

    Hey, I didn't call you an atheist. And I've complemented you more than once and I meant it. You are free to disagree with me, I'm just trying to get my point across that a harsher occupation will backfire and compromise both our security and our values. We will lose more than we ever even hoped to win in the first place. And that is not what the surge is about.

    >>>>If you look at every comment I made, I never claimed to be a saint."

    You don't have to be a saint to say unequivocally that torture is wrong, period, end of story. You don't even have to feel "sympathy" for the tortured, although you should, since the military's best guesses are that most of them are innocent. You can be an ordinary Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or even...a secular humanist!!

    And you don't have to be a tactical genius to see that torture and inhumane tactics are a losing proposition. George Washington wasn't a saint. He was faced with the imminent destruction of the newly born nation, a much more perilous position than we are in now, and he specifically eschewed it. Why was that? Some things are more important than temporary safety. And one of those things is long term safety. Another is keeping your soul and your moral clarity. There is a reason the words moral and morale are so closely related.

    >>>.
    >>>>But it won't happen if we don't consistently represent our western liberal values as best we can, even when doing so means we ourselves have to accept some danger for that choice.

    >>>>I don't think General Petreus has that view. A commander has to put the safety of his men first within the rules of engagement."

    I think he does have that view. It's a question of degree, as your addition "within the rules of engagement" intimates. Petraeus is the one who sets those rules. There is no black and white in these issues, but in some situations, there is going to be greater immediate danger for our soldiers by following rules of engagement that promote nation building, rather than ones that simply promote the sissyphean breaking and killing, smoking out and chasing down. But that is the mission. It isn't war. It is nation building in a war zone. Petreus seems to have more of an understanding of this, which is why I hold out some small amount of hope still.

    The mission is dangerous. That soldiers willingly undergo this danger for the sake of the mission is the reason they deserve their praise. But you have to make sure the mission is clear, especially when it departs from the traditional "breaking and killing."

    >>>So VOK, how should one view, in your opinion, a simplistic question during a "debate" like, "Do you believe in evolution" and it can only be answered with the simple raising of hands if affirmative?

    That is an attempt to raise a social question from a scientific one, and I think it is about as valid as social darwinism. That is, it isn't valid at all, and anyone asked such a question should say "that's a stupid question."

    >>>>It seems to me that, although the last poll of Americans showed 66% believed creationism should be discussed alongside the theory of evolution as an explaination to the origin of life as we know it..."

    There's a curveball. If you "believe creationism should be discussed" (not in science class, by the way) then you "disbelieve" in evolution? Is that what you are implying? Or what? What are you trying to get at with this? Evolution isn't even "an explanation to the origin of life" but simply a mechanism by which organisms change over eons. Who is making false dichotomies here?

    Definitions aside, VOK, the explaination of how life has come about in the universe can be sought in science.....it can be sought in "faith" (I will leave the term religion out of it since this is a debate all in itself). The poll reflects a majority opinion of, at least, respect towards creationism as an explaination of our origins compared to "evolution." The press and the left's reactions to the republican debate question was much more brash....along the lines of, "how could anyone NOT believe in evolution?"....again implying the theory of natural selection being the sole means of human existance as accepted fact.

    Honest debate would acknowledge that a majority of Americans believe in God, they also believe he had something to do with the creation of man AND this idea should be discussed along with the idea of the scientific theory of man's origins.

    >>>VOK's view is that only gentle means of questioning should be used and if they are not successful, then people will just have to die if necessary.>>>

    O.K., to be similarly dismissive and simplifying, your view is that torture should be used because it doesn't shock you, and if that ends up causing many more deaths and prolonging opposition to our iberal values, well, those people just have to die.

    Take the time to get it right, Sharon. My view is that there will be less overall death and suffering if we maintain an unambiguous adherance to our traditional values. It may involve more temporary danger for soldiers, but the alternative is a neverending and growing conflict.

    >>>>>
    As has happened with every other nation that has tried to engage in a little bit of torture—only for the toughest cases, only when nothing else works—the abuse spread like wildfire, and every captured prisoner became the key to defusing a potential ticking time bomb. Our soldiers in Iraq confront real “ticking time bomb” situations every day, in the form of improvised explosive devices, and any degree of “flexibility” about torture at the top drops down the chain of command like a stone—the rare exception fast becoming the rule.

    To understand the impact this has had on the ground, look at the military’s mental health assessment report released earlier this month. The study shows a disturbing level of tolerance for abuse of prisoners in some situations. This underscores what we know as military professionals: Complex situational ethics cannot be applied during the stress of combat. The rules must be firm and absolute; if torture is broached as a possibility, it will become a reality.

    This has had disastrous consequences. Revelations of abuse feed what the Army’s new counterinsurgency manual, which was drafted under the command of Gen. David Petraeus, calls the “recuperative power” of the terrorist enemy.

    Former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld once wondered aloud whether we were creating more terrorists than we were killing. In counterinsurgency doctrine, that is precisely the right question. Victory in this kind of war comes when the enemy loses legitimacy in the society from which it seeks recruits and thus loses its “recuperative power.”

    The torture methods that Tenet defends have nurtured the recuperative power of the enemy. This war will be won or lost not on the battlefield but in the minds of potential supporters who have not yet thrown in their lot with the enemy. If we forfeit our values by signaling that they are negotiable in situations of grave or imminent danger, we drive those undecideds into the arms of the enemy. This way lies defeat, and we are well down the road to it.

    This is not just a lesson for history. Right now, White House lawyers are working up new rules that will govern what CIA interrogators can do to prisoners in secret. Those rules will set the standard not only for the CIA but also for what kind of treatment captured American soldiers can expect from their captors, now and in future wars. Before the president once again approves a policy of official cruelty, he should reflect on that.

    It is time for us to remember who we are and approach this enemy with energy, judgment and confidence that we will prevail. That is the path to security, and back to ourselves.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051602395.html

    "You both seem to be beyond confident into absolute total conviction that any thought, reference or disclosure that others have a different view from yours of the driving force of the theory of the origin of life is anathema to science. You both insist that even the mention that the current scientific theory is logically compatible with the religious beliefs of the vast majority of our country should be banned."

    I don't think that is my postion grammie. At least I certainly don't think religion should be banned. I just think it doesn't belong in a science classrooom. I don't think you can scientfically prove the existence of god.You certainly can't do it because you might (although i don't think Cee has) poke a few holes in evolution. It is a matter of faith which by defintion is believing in the absense of proof.

    "Why are you so opposed to the faintest whiff of a different primary starting point from yours. If I were as convinced that others were so patently and provably wrong I don't think that I would come unglued at the mere thought that others would be exposed to a short mention of the opposing viewpoints and the logical compatibility of both."

    I agree completly that they are compatible. Just because there was a big bang, and just because life did evolve, does not mean that a creator could not have been directing the process ( this is not my beleif but by demonstrating proof of evoltuion, I am certainly not proving that a creator does not exist).

    However I am aginst the notion that life began EXACTLY like the biblical account. Just like I am against the notion that the universie began as a great cosmic egg (like in the taoist tradition) I'm against it because the evidence is against it. If one takes the bible as a literal work of history, there are certain conflicts that arise. For example the earth is not 6000 years old. Also, it is not flat (as is meantioned in isaiah) Neither of these rule out the possability of a supreme being.

    IN fact there are plenty of christians who beleive in evoltutioin and god. Many scientist, who look at evolution as window into the workings of god( again not my view but certainly they don't rule each other out.).


    "It is just like listening to Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens is well-spoken, probably a mensa member and very tough in a debate."

    This is a bit off topic but something I found really amusing, is that a few months ago Hitchens wrote an article defending the iraq invasion. He then became a devil on a lot of blue blogs and a hero on a lot of Red ones.

    Yesterday, after he was slamming Falwell as a "Charlatan" and all around bad guy. The blue blogs seem to really enjoy Him.and now the red blogs are pretty angry. I guess I am saying this because I kind of admire (even if I disagree often with him ) Hitchens for not worrying about whose favor he is in.


    For Sharon:

    --
    IN fact there are plenty of christians who beleive in evoltutioin and god. Many scientist, who look at evolution as window into the workings of god( again not my view but certainly they don't rule each other out.).
    Posted by: craigs at May 17, 2007 2:25 PM
    --

    That's why I suggested to take a look at the works of
    Pierre Theilard de Chardin, and the opposition he found within the Catholic church .

    I addressed this post to Sharon, but of course, everyone is welcome to share their view points.

    >>>>>"Yesterday, after he was slamming Falwell as a "Charlatan" and all around bad guy. The blue blogs seem to really enjoy Him.and now the red blogs are pretty angry. I guess I am saying this because I kind of admire (even if I disagree often with him ) Hitchens for not worrying about whose favor he is in."

    It's kind of funny that you say that because I know the circle that Hitchens runs around in and that group spends a whole lot of time worrying about saying the right things and pleasing certain people. More than most. Very clicish, not to say cultish. Basically you pretty much have to be an atheist (although you are allowed to pretend to be devout for political purposes,) you can't be too fond of democracy (although you have to pretend you are) and open hawkishness is definitely required. Because I know this group, I always know what he is going to say, but I read it nontheless because Hitchens is an excellent writer and generally more forthright.

    VOK,

    *I think he does have that view. It's a question of degree, as your addition "within the rules of engagement" intimates. Petraeus is the one who sets those rules. There is no black and white in these issues, but in some situations, there is going to be greater immediate danger for our soldiers by following rules of engagement that promote nation building, rather than ones that simply promote the sissyphean breaking and killing, smoking out and chasing down. But that is the mission. It isn't war. It is nation building in a war zone. Petreus seems to have more of an understanding of this, which is why I hold out some small amount of hope still.

    I asked quite awhile ago why you think Bush appointed Petreus. Petreus had the reputation of being able to win hearts and minds. Don't you think Bush knew that? I don't know if there are separate rules of engagement at this point. I believe that the soldiers try to follow whatever they are told. Here is what Bush said in January in his speech about the surge.

    In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents, but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we'll have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter those neighborhoods -- and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.

    I can think of at least one instance in which insurgents were pretending to be dead or hurt and then attacking (or something to that effect). It was caught on film and accusations were made. This was maybe last year or so. A soldier killed a man who appeared wounded was cleared. He explained that he saw the man move in a way that appeared as if he were reaching in his shirt. I don't remember his exact words.

    It is my understanding that you believe it would be wrong for the soldier to have acted in that kind of pre-emptive self-defense. My sympathy lies with the soldier who I don't believe wanted to kill a victim or even one willing to surrender. I bring up these points as a matter of debate/discussion. We are living in a time of war.

    VOK,

    Hitchens writing an article in defense of the war is old news. He has been doing that quite publicly for years. I just saw a snippet a couple of weeks posted from you-tube on another site of him debtaing the issue.

    Hitchens spoke out against Mother Theresa of Calcutta in the cause for her canonization. All information about a person is welcomed in an investigation. He doesn't believe that any religion should be allowed in the military.

    "not to say cultish. Basically you pretty much have to be an atheist (although you are allowed to pretend to be devout for political purposes,) you can't be too fond of democracy (although you have to pretend you are) and open hawkishness is definitely required. Because I know this group, I always know what he is going to say, but I read it nontheless because Hitchens is an excellent writer and generally more forthright."

    Well there you go, man is a social animal that has a tendency to confrom (at least to its immediate group). Oh well, I still think it is funny how he is represented on a blue and red blogs based on his latest article.

    "The press and the left's reactions to the republican debate question was much more brash....along the lines of, "how could anyone NOT believe in evolution?"....again implying the theory of natural selection being the sole means of human existance as accepted fact."

    Well if you are trying to make the point that you don't like how the left acts, then that's fine. But the calm and reasoned approach just doesn't sell newspapers. It happens on both sides. And there is nothing in the fact that 51% of the people "believe" x that implies the 49% who don't believe it would act surprised that anyone could be so stupid as to believe x.

    But this has nothing to do with whether or not creationism should be taught in science class. I think since the question as posed is inherently not a political question, but the question of creationism in a science classroom HAS become a political question, most people probably interpreted the question at a political debate to really be about the teaching issue. I think that is probably how the candidates decided their answer too, not "do I believe in evolution" but "do I want my constituents to understand that I intend to do something about this teaching controversy."

    Sharon:

    --
    He (Hitchens) doesn't believe that any religion should be allowed in the military.
    --

    First, let's be clear that you are presenting your understanding of what Hitchens said. I want to state that because I'm going to take it further.

    The military is a tool. The capability to kill others is to be used as a tool, without the military questioning morality, humanity, or fairness.
    The Romans understood it and this principle has been a foundation for modern armies since then.

    I haven't seen or read where Hitchens spoke on the subject, but my guess, only a guess, is that Hitchens was speaking along the lines of my opinion above.

    Since religion deals with the subject of morality and fairness of one's acts, I can understand why Hitchens would have said what you are telling us, "that (no) religion should be allowed in the military."

    AAP,

    I am not trying to be contrary, really. I'll find the article (I think I read it from Drudge which has his work). He hates religion. I'll try to find it. I just scanned this http://www.petersnet.net/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=886
    and I really have a hard time picturing you subscribing to Pierre Theilard de Chardin. I'll be back later.

    Sharon:

    Kool.

    If Bob hasn't banned me yet.

    "I asked quite awhile ago why you think Bush appointed Petreus. Petreus had the reputation of being able to win hearts and minds. Don't you think Bush knew that?"

    Yes, I think he made a very good choice there. Petreus has that reputation because he is a principled person that understands the argument I am forwarding. He recently sent out a rather stern letter lamenting the moral lapses that we have seen as real security threats. This letter was prompted by the mental health survey I was refering to that showed soldiers espousing views similar to your nonchalance or attraction to "extreme measures." That ain't the program.

    "I can think of at least one instance in which insurgents were pretending to be dead or hurt and then attacking (or something to that effect). It was caught on film and accusations were made. This was maybe last year or so."

    Seems to me that incident was 2 or 3 years ago, but I'm not sure. I don't fault soldiers for making judgement mistakes and killing or maiming innocent people. That's just going to happen, thousands of times, and you aren't going to hear about it. Soldiers surely don't want to make these tragic mistakes and suffer great psychological repercussions because of them (my wife is involved in PTSS counseling). But they are in a terribly tense situation and naturally they worry about their own skins first. But that is exactly why the leadership needs to set a clear moral tone. That is where it has failed in it's pro-torture stance.

    "We are living in a time of war."

    All the more need for moral clarity. And by the definitions of this war, we will be in a "time of war" from now to eternity. So we better develop some rules now that we can live with, rather than seeing where events take us. Otherwise, when the next big terrorist attack comes, the angry impulse to detain and torture will escalate, the legal protections will go down another notch, and bit by bit what makes America different will be gone.

    VOK,

    I think the main difference we have can be found in the example of the soldier shooting the insurgent. He did so based upon the fact that even wounded ones were feigning death in order to make a surprise attack. I don't see that as a mistake. From what I understand about your view, he should have accepted the danger and not fired. The fact that he fired and killed someone is a tragic mistake to you. What started this long debate was that I in theory wondered if going in initially with a different mindset would have made a difference. I still never received an answer as to what to do with the detainees by the way.

    he is a principled person that understands the argument I am forwarding.

    Just nitpicking but you say that in such a way that implies you had something to do with Petreus' reasoning. Even Bush came to the conclusion you did without your input.

    AAP,

    As promised:

    GI Jesus The real problem with military chaplains.
    By Christopher Hitchens
    Posted Monday, Oct. 2, 2006, at 2:06 PM ET

    http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:2znhx5VeDaEJ:www.slate.com/id/2150801+religion+no+place+in+military+hitchens&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a

    He does not come out and say that he hates religion, but read it in conjunction with the title of his new book:
    God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

    VOK, I addressed that to both you and Craigs. It represents my impression of the totality of your views.*see below.

    I clearly was talking about school children, not older middle and high schoolers. I said age appropriate. I said that children need associated things addressed in real time, as in science class if the origin of life and evolution is being taught that is the time to address the point that they are not mutually exclusive.

    I never suggested that the science class should become a religion class for the day. I stated that I would like to see it mentioned in broad way in the context above.

    And I can't understand how my statement that scientific THEORIES should be taught as such until and when " science advances to absolute provable and replicable Laws of Creation and Evolution" really means that I want to "teach disrespect for science in science class".

    The essence of science is that it always questions and strives to EITHER disprove or prove itself. It is NOT anti-science to label a theory a theory. In one of my earlier posts I stated that man has constantly increased our knowledge, with a few fall backs, and strives to always increase it.

    *The post you responded to was done around midnight. I had a same day surgery on the seventeenth and started this response because I was ready early and came to the computer. I just came back to it and when I scrolled back up to refresh my memory I saw that I made a BIG MISTAKE. For some reason I didn't realize that Bobo had jumped in with his usual didactic tone of telling us all THE TRUTH. I hope to be more careful in the future.

    We all, with the exception of our Renaissance Man Professor Bobo, seem to have some fairly compatible views if one takes the trouble to sort through the chaff to get to the wheat.

    There is no question that politics plays a large role in what is taught, in which class and how it will be taught. This is from one of my earlier posts: "Also you don't seem to be aware of what is being taught in science classes about that irrefutable Law of Global Warming. This hasn't even risen to a theory and is a huge political issue. Some of our scientists are advancing their research as inarguable fact and trying to prove it by political fiat and shutting down any contrary research or even any opposition to be heard. And our kids are getting that exact line in school in science class."

    Sorry,

    Grammie