So I was way too depressing in that last post. Here’s one of those little notes of hope that we hear too rarely—an Ohio Republican using her reason to back the best candidate for a job, even if he is a Democrat.
Republican Martha Wise is backing Democrat John Bender in the race to replace her on the state school board.
Wise, who is running against Democrat Sue Morano for the state senate, said Bender is the only one of the four candidates in the school board race who agrees with her on keeping intelligent design out of science classrooms.
“I’ve spent five years of my life keeping intelligent design, or what you might call teaching religion, out of science classes,” she said. “He’s the only one who agrees with me.”
You know, if the Republicans were stocked with Martha Wises and the Democrats were a mob of Deepak Chopras, I’d be proudly calling myself a Republican. Now if only we could get both parties to nominate intelligent people, I’d be overjoyed to have to make a difficult decision at every election.
I have to wonder about this other candidate, though.
Roland Hansen, another candidate in the race, said he wasn’t surprised by Wise’s decision to endorse Bender, but didn’t think Wise should be basing her decision solely on his beliefs about intelligent design.
“It’s a terrible reason to endorse someone on one issue,” he said.
I think it’s an excellent reason. If someone were a paragon of experience and rationality on all the economic and political issues, but was utterly convinced that the Venusian mind-control rays were the paramount crisis of our times, wouldn’t that be reason enough to think that just maybe he’d be a poor choice for political office? It’s the same here: when someone is running for school board, they darn well ought to be competent on educational issues, including science, or they should be rejected.
I think it’s an excellent reason.
Damn straight! I kept saying the same thing in the 2000 election when Bush approved of ID, and I got scores of people lambasting me for being a one-issue guy. It’s not that I really worry about Bush signing an ID bill into law or anything, but it’s symptomatic of a mindset where one takes one’s own fucked up conceptions above science or reality. And, as such, I’d rather trust a delirious crack addict to be the leader of the free world, thank you very much.
Hear, hear, PZ! A person can have reasonable and rational views on any number of things, but it only takes one topic to define a person as absolutely friggin’ insane.
If someone believes that Walt Disney is trying to steal their organs through the television, or that jet planes are actually UFOs from the Hollow Earth spreading disease with their contrails, or some really wacky idea that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, they’re just not qualified to act in a political capacity. (That’s what the word idiot was derived from, after all – the Greek word for ‘one who does not take place in public affairs’.)
Sadly, not only are the official criteria for insanity frustratingly subjective, they also specifically exclude religious beliefs as evidence.
Yes, if there ever was a one-issue race, school board would be it. I wish that wasn’t the case. If we weren’t caught up in the creationist tomfoolery we could look at a wide range of issues in education, but when people are trying to introduce irrationality into science education you really have to start with that one.
If someone were a paragon of experience and rationality on all the economic and political issues, but was utterly convinced that the Venusian mind-control rays were the paramount crisis of our times, wouldn’t that be reason enough to think that just maybe he’d be a poor choice for political office?
In this case, I’d say if a person were a paragon of experience and rationality on all issues, but was convinced that you had to beat kids every day to start off the school day, that would be reason enough that they’d be a poor choice for school board.
And teaching intelligent design is akin to doing that.
Look, the issue this Martha person claims is important is teaching facts in school isntead of non-facts — now that really can’t all that important, can it?
What about the fitness to serve as President of a guy who, let’s say, thinks God tells him to invade countries in the Middle East? ;)
Faith in anything, per your definition, is then a mark of functional insanity, disqualiying one from elective office.
Therefore, rabid atheists such as yourself are also ineligible for elective office; being faith-based in your belief that faith is untenable.
In fact, this would seem to suggest that NO ONE is eligible.
Yeah.
That makes practical and logical sense.
Oops! It looks like the Venusian mind-control rays got to hoody.
Therefore, rabid atheists such as yourself are also ineligible for elective office; being faith-based in your belief that faith is untenable.
Sure, given that providing detailed arguments in support of a claim is equivalent to being faith-based in one’s beliefs.
Apparently Venusian mind-control rays are inclined to make their victims believe that strawmen are actually valid arguments.
“If someone were a paragon of experience and rationality on all the economic and political issues, but was utterly convinced that the Venusian mind-control rays were the paramount crisis of our times, wouldn’t that be reason enough to think that just maybe he’d be a poor choice for political office?”
This is a very good (and most of all – important) question.
On the economic front the Democrats are idiots (although so are the Republicans when they get all the power as the last six years have shown) but I feel less comfortable with people who, although believe in laissez-faire, openly state that they endorse intelligent design – no matter what their opinions on other issues are.
If this was only about school boards I’d give my vote for a Democrat any time over a religious fanatic but I’d think twice before voting for a Democratic candidate for Congress.
But you really should note that despite their opposition to intelligent design the Democrats are faring poorly at school boards. Public education is at its worst where the Democrats are in power of school boards. There simply should not be public education in the first place (it already eats more money per student than private schools do) and the Democrats have no ideas on how to fix the system.
I still love grease monkey! It just makes loons go away.
Not the birds of course, as they are beautiful and make wonderfully spooky sounds.
I find it interesting that many condemnations and negative comments are coming from persons who have read an article or a part thereof without ascertaining its veracity, thoroughness or lack thereof, or its accuracy or lack thereof. For people who “pride” themselves as having thought processes based on factual, objective, and proven information, I find your comments which are based on hearsay to be an oxymoron.
I am extremely disappointed that the media has failed to accurately and completely report my position on this topic.
Shame on the people who formulate judgments based on misinformation and for not seeking truth in formulating those opinions.
Incidentally, Martha Wise has never consulted me as to my thoughts on this issue; therefore her conclusion is not one based on first-hand information. Perhaps it is a matter of “you scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours.”
That said it is still the ultimate myopic perspective in my opinion to base a decision solely on a single issue rather than an overall holistic gestalt approach. Or perhaps it could be referred to as tunnel vision with blinders.
If this does not sound like being politically correct, oh well, I just figured I could respond in kind as freely as those who have posted their commentary.
Roland, you’re being evasive. What is your position on teaching Idiotic Design in science classes? And spare us the drivel about “single issues”. Anyone who thinks that “ID” belongs anywhere near a science class, or that 2+2=5, should be disqualified from having any association with education- just as I insist on a doctor who can tell my spleen from my liver.
“I find your comments which are based on hearsay to be an oxymoron”
This is the first time I see the word oxymoron being used this way.
anybody consider Mr. Hansen’s post a great statement in support of his candidacy for the post?
let’s see, he had every opportunity to present a clear case as to not only what his position on this topic is, but also to argue the case for the lack of it’s importance in education.
seems he failed to do either.
all that potential free advertising shot to hell.
oh well.
Very true. Wanna hear something that makes it even better?
Martha Wise is a creationist.
Back in February she wrote a letter to the Cincinnati Enquirer that laid out her position for all the world to see. She’s a creationist and proud of it. But she understands that creationism isn’t science and doesn’t belong in a science classroom.
Classy, classy lady.
Thank you Steve. Someone from this site has finally asked me a direct question.
A direct question deserves a direct response.
I am not in favor teaching intelligent design in science classes.
Please people, spare me the sanctimonious inferences.
And by the way, do yourselves a favor (well maybe it is not a favor to you, but do it anyway) and take a look at my blog which is embedded in my name. It just might give you a better perspective about me. You may also get my curriculum vitae there.
This is the first time I see the word oxymoron being used this way.
I think we can add “fear of what he would do to the English curriculum” to the list of reasons not to vote for Hansen…
And wolfwalker: Wow, that is a remarkable position for a creationist to have. It’s admirable, in a way, to basically say “yes, all the facts are against me but I believe it anyway,” and be adamant about keeping it a personal matter and not shoving it down anyone’s throats. Sounds like an interesting lady.
Thank you, Roland. I’m glad to hear that. Still, I remain deeply troubled by your objection to judging other candidates by this “single issue”. That represents a serious failure to understand what’s at stake. And it will preclude you from getting my vote. (I see nothing that impresses me in your CV, either.)
Ichthyic, you have made your case for jumping to conclusions. Selective perception on your part, perhaps. My original commentary was in regards to people who state one thing but practice another. People who preach “do as I say not as I do.” People who believe in facts but speculate on innuendo and unverified conjectures. Perhaps you only embrace the physical science and exclude the social sciences.
Rather than smearing me with your ego-boosting diatribe, why not ask me directly anything you may have in mind. You can get my e-mail address off my home page which can be found on my blog.
Oh, I hardly consider commenting on a blog site in Minnesota as a campaign strategy for Northwest and Northcentral Ohio.
Now if only we could get both parties to nominate intelligent people, I’d be overjoyed to have to make a difficult decision at every election.
First, you must make the obvious decision to become involved with one or the other (or a third) party, and influence the nomination. Wishing is hardly distinguishable from praying.. in this case, probably less effective.
Okay people, I expressed my views. You choose to believe whatever you wish. I am not into instant messaging or its equivalent. This is my last post here.
For those people whose only desire is to belittle me and/or berate me, perhaps you have made yourselves feel better for it. As constructive (sarcasm intended) as you are, it is a wonder anyone would run for public office. Come to think of it, why don’t you run for office? Or do you prefer to just sit back, take it easy, and criticize others with whom you think you may disagree.
And people say they hate negative campaigning and negative political advertising. Most of what I have read here is in the category of negativism and mud-slinging. It’s no wonder the professional politicos stoop to that technique. You love it from the looks of it.
I was actually happy to vote for Martha Wise, after reading some of the things she wrote – specifically, here’s a quote from the Enquirer editorial mentioned above:
I believe in God the creator. I believe in freedom. I believe in America, and the state of Ohio, and the Republican Party, fiscal conservatism, fairness and honesty.
These values guided me last week to lead the Ohio Board of Education to remove creationism from our state’s Science Standards and Model Curriculum.
You may ask: Why would being a creationist make me want to remove “critical analysis”/”intelligent design” creationism from the standards? It’s simple, really:
It is deeply unfair to the children of this state to mislead them about the nature of science.
The future of Ohio’s prosperity depends on a well-educated workforce that understands science. The future of religious freedom in this country depends on the electorate understanding that modern science is not a threat to faith. Atheists who say science disproves God are misrepresenting science just as badly as the most disingenuous “creation-science” peddlers.
Creationism is religion and deserves to be respected as religion, and protected. Creationists do not all believe exactly the same thing. This may be the best-kept secret in the whole creationist movement. So if we were going to teach creationism or other religious concepts in school, how would we decide whose view to teach? How can we be fair to all people of faith? The founding fathers came to the conclusion that the only way to protect religion was for the government to keep its nose out of it. I believe the founding fathers were right.
To be clear… the entire post after my first sentence is her quote… I messed up the italic tags somehow
People who preach “do as I say not as I do.” People who believe in facts but speculate on innuendo and unverified conjectures. Perhaps you only embrace the physical science and exclude the social sciences.
right, so instead of presenting a clear argument about what your position is and then explaining why you think this specific issue doesn’t garner enough importance, you said:
That said it is still the ultimate myopic perspective in my opinion to base a decision solely on a single issue rather than an overall holistic gestalt approach.
which, without further explanation, sure sounds like a lot of meaningless drivel. “hollistic gestalt approach”
can’t you see how much of a sound-bite that is?
Sure sounds like you’re the one doing the preaching there, old boy.
If your goal is to not be misrepresented, you’ve got some work to do.
The best way to do that is to be absolutely up front and clear about your position. That’s the best defense, not coming here and saying everybody is victimizing you, including the press, then expecting anybody would even care what you have to say afterwards. You could have started off by being explicit on your position wrt to teaching ID, and then gone on to explain why you think it’s not important as a specific issue in teaching overall.
However, you didn’t do that, did you?
I’m perfectly happy to listen to what you have to say, once you start to actually say something.
me, I never misinterpreted your position based on media reports, as I’ve never even heard of you before now.
go figure.
This is my last post here.
*sigh*
where you yet again play the victim rather than argue, or even define, your position as to what your “gestalt hollism” is.
I would suggest you would hate politics, since you apparently dislike being a victim so intensely.
maybe it’s a good thing you are learning this so early?
I find it interesting that many condemnations and negative comments are coming from persons who have read an article or a part thereof without ascertaining its veracity, thoroughness or lack thereof, or its accuracy or lack thereof.
What the fuck are you talking about? Someone attributed a single sentence to you, and some people responded to its content — which was about Ms. Wise’s reasons for her action. It wasn’t about you — not until you chose to post here. Now we have a better idea of what sort of bloviating idiot you are.
Roland Hanson:
“Oh, I hardly consider commenting on a blog site in Minnesota as a campaign strategy for Northwest and Northcentral Ohio.”
….um, I’m from that part of the country. Do you understand how the internet works?
Roland said “I am not in favor teaching intelligent design in science classes.”
That means “I know I could never get away with sticking ID into a science class, so I will try to dumb down science classes by teaching the controversy”.
“It’s a series of tubes…”
….um, I’m from that part of the country. Do you understand how the internet works?
there appears to be a great deal Mr. Hansen does not understand.
alas, since he ran away crying “help! help! I’m bein’ repressed!”
i guess we’ll never know for sure.
I checked his website, and while he does seem to be a decent guy, he is pretty evasive for someone running for the school board. He doesn’t give an opion on ID there. Strange. Neither does he give an opinion on No Child Left Behind. He brings up the issue, then backs off by ONLY giving links to government info. Not one comment of his own. Not even a quote from someone else that he might agree/disagree with.
C’mon, Mr. Hanson, be brave, take a stand. It won’t hurt you, really. You’d probably be surprised at the positive response.
I met both of these individuals at Miller’s talk here in Oberlin. The man gives a good lecture. I had a couple of good questions for him at the end, but a philosophy class broke out. He handled the questions well and with patience, though. Then the moved to some sort of reception at the host’s house. Pretty standard fare. I bailed on the reception, though, since my stats professor was at the lecture and I hadn’t turned in the homework prior to the weekend…AWWWkward
Anyway, not a bad lecture at all. Miller’s pretty darn good at what he does, and I’d know. I’ve spent my life around theater and teaching in one form or another and I know a good presentation when I see one. Not only that, but I was able to glean a few things from the Q and A. Miller is exceptionally adept at distilling his speech and mixing and exchanging parts of it to fit his audience. He’s one of the best I’ve ever seen at it. Not THE best, but he’s darn good. That talent to have a vast array of facts and knowledge at your hand comes from hard work. The ability to present that knowledge comes from experience and skill.
Anyhow, I was impressed. The lecture was a good fit for the audience. Too bad I didn’t get to ask my questions. They were good ones, too.
Miller is exceptionally adept at distilling his speech and mixing and exchanging parts of it to fit his audience. He’s one of the best I’ve ever seen at it. Not THE best, but he’s darn good. That talent to have a vast array of facts and knowledge at your hand comes from hard work. The ability to present that knowledge comes from experience and skill.
No doubt Hitler had good presentation skills. Why should we be impressed by presentation skills? Corporate CEOs have good presentation skills, that doesn’t mean they aren’t full of crap.
Curious. Who do you rank as THE best, so we can get a better idea of what you are taking about?
No doubt Hitler had good presentation skills. Why should we be impressed by presentation skills?
considering that was the gist of the post, that Miller has good presentation skills, it sounds like you are reading to much into it.
He does, in fact, have excellent presentation skills. for the time period and audience, Hitler also had good presentation skills.
I don’t see anything obtuse about stating so.
the commenter wasn’t intending to present a critique of the evidence presented by Miller, AFAICT (though I’ve seen him speak several times, and he ain’t “full of crap” when he’s talking about evolution and biology).
the only thing that bugged me about MikeQ’s commentary was the very last line:
Too bad I didn’t get to ask my questions. They were good ones, too.
one wonders why, if Mike thought they were such great questions, he wouldn’t deem them fit to ask here.
I can understand why you’d think I was some sort of creationist in sheep’s clothing, Ichthyic. However, I’m actually a bio student. The questions for Miller weren’t factual–facts I can learn. I was going to ask him about his insight into the ID mindset. Specifically, my questions were:
“Creative use of language is an important component in the strategy of the Intelligent Design folk. You’ve made the point that this is not a scientific fight, and shouldn’t be fought on scientific grounds. Rather, a cultural attack demands a cultural response. Research and Documentation have thus proven more effective weapons against ID than have any scientific arguments. Rhetoric is at a premuim in any debate with IDers, and evidence is at a minimum.
First, why do you even deign to debate IDers at all? By debating them as a Ph.D representative of Brown University, are you not giving credence to their views? What are your views on this subject, as you’ve obviously chosen to debate them?
Second, how do you tailor your presentations to fit the need for clever rhetoric, good documentation and excellent research into ID ideology at the expense of scientific arguments?”
I had a further question for him about his textbook experience. I wanted to know if, as an author, he’d felt pressure from publishers over his books. Further, were his books not utilized in any states?
“No doubt Hitler had good presentation skills. Why should we be impressed by presentation skills? Corporate CEOs have good presentation skills, that doesn’t mean they aren’t full of crap.
Curious. Who do you rank as THE best, so we can get a better idea of what you are taking about?”
My experience is from Improv and one person shows in Chicago. The only person who I’ve worked with who might ring a bell with a national audience is a performer called Christopher Carter. He was better than Miller. Then again, the nature of his show demanded he be better. Carter describes himself as a “mentalist.” Essentially, he claims to use psychological principle to perform tricks. There’s nothing supernatural about his show, and he makes the claim that nothing he does is at all supernatural, which is rare for a mentalist. If you’ve seen the movie “the Illusionist,” Carter is something like that on stage. A dash of genuine principle, a handful of clever constructions in audience interaction and a showman’s presence all make him better than Miller by leaps and bounds. Miller’s lectures are put together with an earnest desire to educate and convince his audience of the rightness of his cause. Carter’s presentations aren’t meant to convince anyone–as he plainly states in his show. Rather, presentations that make people wonder “how he did that” are antithetical to good science education, which should explain and illuminate rather than entertain and blind the audience.
The ability to carry an audience as a single performer is a difficult skill. The BEST I ever saw was a performer at Live Bait Theatre. It was a semi-improv speech called “asians annonymous.” Yes, it was comedy. The guy was fantastic, however, in assembling a speech from disparate components that fit perfectly well with his fellow performers and with the audience. He was darn good at what he did.
The best I see regularly is Sister from Late Nite Catechism. An actress playing a nun in a one woman show who has to control large audiences and who simulataneously has 18 hours of material to pull from and arrange into a 2 hour show. That’s something.
The fact that Miller’s lecture lacks that sort of professional polish is endearing. It’s simple. He gives a darn good talk.
Oh yeah, I also wanted to ask him about his prediction for the future of ID. ID’s had a rough year, and a couple of posts on the Scienceblogs empire made me wonder what form ID would metasticize into next. My own pet theory is that they’re just going to slide away. I’ve seen a prediction, though I can’t remember where, that ID was going to drop its sciency veneer and go all out in the culture war. If anyone remembers which science blog that was on and could provide a link to it, I’d greatly appreciate it.
Anyhow, those were the questions I didn’t get to ask Miller. Patricia Princehouse was at the lecture as well.
Bit of a funny story: Martha Wise kept saying that Miller was from Boston University, not Brown, and that he was from Massachusetts, not Rhode Island.
The religion aspect of his speech, which I presume many here would object to, is the smallest portion of his speech. Really, there’s no problem with the religious bit.
Here in Kansas, a baby can be aborted THE DAY BEFORE it is due for ANY reason. Plainly, this is an obscenity.
And any politician who can not see that, no matter how enlightened on other issues, needs to be voted out.
Does that make me a “single issue” voter?
By the way, the immediate danger to Ohio’s prosperity, as it is here, is not ID, but the outsourcing of jobs, which both he Republicans and Democrats are complicit it.
If this bleeding is not stopped, you are going to cripple the middle class and end up with an “educated force” all dressed up with nowhere to go.
Ideas can be tossed back and forth…jobs can’t be.
Grady, you can’t tell baldfaced lies on easily checked things- your description of the abortion laws in Kansas is flagrantly untrue- and expect anyone to listen to you on any other matter.
“65-6703. Abortion prohibited when fetus viable, exceptions; determination of age of fetus; determination of viability; reports; retention of medical records; viable, defined; criminal penalties.
(a) No person shall perform or induce an abortion when the fetus is viable unless such person is a physician and has a documented referral from another
physician not legally or financially affiliated with the physician performing or inducing the abortion and both physicians determine that:
(1) The abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman; or
(2) a continuation of the pregnancy will cause a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.
(b)
(1) Except in the case of a medical emergency, prior to performing an abortion upon a woman, the physician shall determine the gestational age of the fetus according to accepted obstetrical and neonatal practice and standards applied by physicians in the same or similar circumstances. If the physician determines the gestational age is
less than 22 weeks, the physician shall document as part of the medical records of the woman the basis for the determination.
(2) If the physician determines the gestational age of the fetus is 22 or more weeks, prior to performing an abortion upon the woman the physician shall determine if the fetus is viable by using and exercising that degree of care, skill and proficiency commonly exercised by the ordinary skillful, careful and prudent physician in the same or similar
circumstances. In making this determination of viability, the physician shall perform or cause to be performed such medical examinations and tests as are necessary to make a finding of the gestational age of the fetus and shall enter such findings and determinations of viability in the medical record of the woman.
(3) If the physician determines the gestational age of a fetus is 22 or more weeks, and determines that the fetus is not viable and performs an abortion on the woman, the physician shall report such determinations and the reasons for such determinations in writing to the medical care facility in which the abortion is performed for inclusion in the report of the medical care facility to the secretary of health and environment under K.S.A. 65-445 and amendments thereto or if the abortion is not performed in a medical care facility, the physician shall report such determinations and the reasons for such determinations in writing to the secretary of health and environment as part of the written report made by the physician to the secretary of health and environment under K.S.A. 65-445 and amendments thereto.
(4) If the physician who is to perform the abortion determines the gestational age of a fetus is 22 or more weeks, and determines that the fetus is viable, both physicians under subsection (a) determine in accordance with the provisions of subsection (a) that an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman or that a continuation of the pregnancy will cause a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman and the physician performs an abortion on the woman, the physician who performs the abortion shall report such determinations, the reasons for such determinations and the basis for the determination that an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman or that a continuation of the pregnancy will cause a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman in writing to the medical care facility in which the abortion is performed for inclusion in the report of the medical care facility to the secretary of health and environment under K.S.A. 65-445 and amendments thereto or if the abortion is not performed in a medical care facility, the physician who performs the abortion shall report such determinations, the reasons for such determinations and the basis for the determination that an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman or that a
continuation of the pregnancy will cause a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman in writing to the secretary of health and environment as part of the written report made by the physician to the secretary of health and environment under K.S.A. 65-445 and amendments thereto.
(5) The physician shall retain the medical records required to be kept under paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection (b) for not less than five years and shall retain a copy of the written reports required under paragraphs (3) and (4) of this subsection (b) for not less than five years.
(c) A woman upon whom an abortion is performed shall not be prosecuted under this section for a conspiracy to violate this section pursuant to K.S.A. 21-3302, and amendments thereto.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to create a right to an abortion. Notwithstanding any provision of this section, a person shall not perform an abortion that is prohibited by law.
(e) As used in this section, “viable” means that stage of fetal development when it is the physician’s judgment according to accepted obstetrical or neonatal standards of care and practice applied by physicians in the same or similar circumstances that there is a reasonable probability that the life of the child can be continued indefinitely outside the mother’s womb with natural or artificial life-supportive measures.
(f) If any provision of this section is held to be invalid or unconstitutional, it shall be conclusively presumed that the legislature would have enacted the remainder of this section without such invalid or unconstitutional provision.
(g) Upon a first conviction of a violation of this section, a person shall be guilty of a class A nonperson misdemeanor. Upon a second or subsequent conviction of a violation of this section, a person shall be guilty of a severity level 10, nonperson felony.”
Plainly, this isn’t true. You’re simply lying.
Facts, shmacts.
Hey, look over there! Gays are marrying! Damnit, now I have to leave my wife.
*shudder*
No, I don’t get how people like MikeQ “think”.
I found Mr. Hansen’s post quite amusing. It is rare to see a thesaurus so fully exploited, even if his usage of the word “oxymoron” was, well, innovative. :)
Single issue voting, in general, isn’t a good strategy. However, it depends upon the issue. Maybe whether someone supports teaching ID in public schools is one of those issues…maybe not.
I have numerous friends who vote solely on the issue of gun control. It doesn’t matter to them whether the candidates want to give huge tax breaks to the richest 1% of Americans, or want to start wars of aggression for imaginary reasons, or whatever else, but the candidate who appears to support gun control or belongs to a party whose platform includes gun control will not ever get my friends’ votes. That’s f’ed up, IMO.
I’ve been elected and re-elected to my local school board, serving 8 years. I welcome diversity of opinion on the board. ID is a bogus issue as far as education goes. (I am also a HS science teacher.) Even if the State Board included it in the curriculum, I wouldn’t teach it in my classes as science but it would surely be a good one for my pseudoscience unit. I am sure there are more teachers and administrators who feel the same way. Noncompliance would be the rule of the day.
The real issue of concern is NCLB. That Act has the effect of declaring all public schools in the nation as deficient by 2013. By that time all schools, and their constituent subgroups (i.e. special ed, black, hispanic, low income) must have 100% of their groups meet or exceed standards on standardized tests. Anyone knowing the distribution of intelligence in a population can see that achieving that goal is not possible.
What happens in 2013 is anybody’s guess. The state is supposed to take over control of the schools, making school boards obsolete. Local control of schools will then be nonexistent, your legislators will be in control. That’s a setup no critical-minded person would find acceptable as they could easily mandate ID be taught in schools. Again, I would resist that will all the vigor I could muster.
FYI, ‘Grady’ is the most recent psuedonym of a recurrent troll at the Kansas Citizens for Science forums. I’m not sure which one of the three or four trolls this one is, but it’s already been banned there.
And I find Roland’s evasiveness about not answering questions about ID telling. When I emailed all of the local school board candidates here, the only ones who made a conclusive statement were pro-science. (I’m surprised they had the guts to do so here in Kansas….) The others were either all wishy washy “we need to respect everyone’s opinion” kind of thing. Note that I simply asked what their view was WRT teaching ID and/or evolution in science class. I didn’t hint as to my opinion.
Cheers.
I believe in God the creator. I believe in freedom. I believe in America, and the state of Ohio, and the Republican Party, fiscal conservatism, fairness and honesty.Oh geez, she forgot to mention the family, fido the dog and superman. US politics is so unimaginative and uncreative. I am scared by the idea that Europe may become this flat in the future.
Willy said: “I have numerous friends who vote solely on the issue of gun control.”
I feel your pain – unfortunately, my brother is one of those 2nd Amendment nuts. I keep pointing out that this is a well settled area of case law and that the “libruls” are not actually out to take his guns away (well, most of them anyway). He believes the NRA propaganda, so it all falls on deaf ears.
As single issues go, gun control is a ridiculous waste of time. Science education, on the other hand, is exceedingly important. I live in Texas, and one of my pet peeves about school board elections is that the candidates are so vague about their support for evolution. I’m usually left with obtaining a copy of a voter guide published by the local Baptist church and voting against anyone they’ve endorsed – a less than satisfactory way to select a candidate. My son is still very young, but I think I’ll be running for school board myself in the not too distant future.
This section, entitled Evolutionary Design, has a link to a Wikipedia page on Intelligent Design. The whole thing sounds suspiciously like a “teach the controversy” approach.
Perhaps Roland would like to clarify his views on this. Roland, do you favor a teach the controversy approach, or do you favor teaching evolution?
Change of subject – I noticed someone else in another thread posting as Jen. This is not me, although I agree with what she said. To avoid confusion, I’ll post in the future as Jen in Texas.
This is not the first time I’ve seen you make this claim abd be corrected in excrucating detail. The first time, I can pity you as a gullible moron who has no idea what he’s talking about, but after having been repeatedly corrected, we have no choice but to consider you a evil, small-minded liar who has no problem sacrificing truth for political advantage.
Do you really think that does you any favours?
MikeQ wrote:
First, why do you even deign to debate IDers at all? By debating them as a Ph.D representative of Brown University, are you not giving credence to their views? What are your views on this subject, as you’ve obviously chosen to debate them?
this question could have been stated as a yes/no question by asking him if he supported the AAAS’s recommendation to boycott the Kansas Kangaroo Kourt.
However, from reading much about Miller of late, i would say that his approach is to ingratiate himself BY lending a willing ear to creationists arguments, in the hopes that when he tears them down, piece by piece, they too might be willing to listen.
I disagree that is effective for the creationists who initiate the arguments, but it seems to work for many “fencesitters”.
other fencesitters are more swayed by simply showing the arguments to be vacuous to begin with, or that the people who make them are often, intentionally or not, essentially misrepesenting facts and evidence (read: lying).
Miller’s is one approach to swaying fencesitters amongst many. It’s not one I personally ascribe to, but then I’m an atheist, so…