Tuesday, April 29, 2008


I saw Ben Stein's documentary today. The case for Intelligent Design science seems more convincing to me.

The vast majority of scientists believe Darwin's theory of evolution explains our creation. This can be argued, is a consensus. However, several credentialed scientists have been fired for submitting papers and articles in support of I.D. Is there a chill wind over this debate? I struggle to find a convincing incentive for the movie's demonstrated blacklisting of scientists and frankly journalists who lend support to I.D.

I think the scientific community is dominated by Darwinists who honestly believe that given the evidence, life is formed by evolution. I agree that Science is not there to debate anything, and needs to focus like a laser on the truth. If they feel someone is saying something that does not seek truth, I can see why they would lose their job. Hence, an incentive.

Academic Freedom only goes so far. But the consensus contention of the Darwinists is undermined by the fact of rank intimidation of anyone who challenges their orthodoxy. Darwin himself challenged the consensus at the time. Newton isn't the end all of Physics. How are we sure that Darwin can't be supplemented and have his findings expanded upon? I wonder how the world works in a harmonious fashion of systems, and how exactly life was on Earth to evolve to begin with? We have experts supporting I.D., the scientific community not being serious about its merits because the debate is "over", and several questions about the sufficiency of Darwin's theory. Given these doubts, it is more than reasonable to err on the side of Academic Freedom.

I didn't like Stein's point that Darwinism was used by the Nazis. He takes into the gas chambers of Dachau and has the German guide talk about how people were systematically killed. He shows how the Nazis believed in Darwinism and were therefore certain that the holocaust and eugenics were a force for good. This is fallacious and unfair. It is fallacious in that the images shown and explanations given are a play on emotion. It is unfair because there are plenty of honorable ideologies that have been used for horrific acts throughout history. For example, patriotism is born out of Fascism.

The beginning and end of the movie show Stein making a speech to a College audience. There is an allusion to the Berlin wall. A wall blocking any debate about I.D. At the end he gets a standing ovation. The image of the Berlin wall coming down is played. I admire the revolutionary attitude. The students cheered Stein as he challenged the party line of the Faculty. The wall needs to come down, and fast.

Thank You Rev. Wright

Let me tell ya, Its pretty entertaining to hear White-Liberals who have never stepped foot in a black church explain away Wright. "Well, he doesn't literally mean the government spread AIDS."

Its also pretty fun to watch them rationalize the view that God attacked the U.S. on 9/11 given that they jump at the opportunity to slam Robertson and Falwell for saying the same thing. (Drivel either way as far as Im concerned)

Don't you love how Wright says "this is an attack on the Black church."? Way to drag your faith down in the mud with you. Hes using a favorite politician tactic of hiding behind a group that no one would ever criticize.

But anyways, This National Press Club performance is going to get played all week and swing voters are going to conclude that Obama's pastor is a revolutionary bum. The lemmings err... Democrats are going to throw away their 2 elections winning, best political couple away for a guy that has no record of big accomplishments in his political career. Beating Alan Keyes definitely doesn't count.

Obama's comments in Pennsylvania show the ugly side of liberal politics. Its seeks to help people that it holds in contempt. This is an old 1980s Democrat that sees his voters as victim constituencies. Fuck you,Democrats.

Monday, April 07, 2008

Bob Barr's marijuana flip-flop

Bob Barr's reasoning for his change of heart is incredibly stupid. Heres the quote:

I, over the years, have taken a very strong stand on drug issues, but in light of the tremendous growth of government power since 9/11, it has forced me and other conservatives to go back and take a renewed look at how big and powerful we want the government to be in people’s lives,”

So the Government's expanded anti-terror powers going too far is what passes for an argument against marijuana decriminalization? I didn't detect anything said about the merits of drug-policy in his quote. This makes as much sense as someone explaining their position on say... CAFTA as driven by say... their position on the War in Iraq.

Either Bob Barr is lurching closer to the Libertarian Party for his sudden bid for the party's Presidential Nomination, or his sense of his logic is completely amateurish.

A very unimpressive start Im afraid.

Sunday, April 06, 2008

Theres still Hope...

I usually dont quote country music but...

'And he bowed his head to Jesus/And he stood for Uncle Sam/And he only loved one woman/He was always proud of what he had/

-Alan Jackson

Wednesday, April 02, 2008

Today's Prime Ministers Questions

William Hague vs Harriet Harman

Hague: Id like to congratulate the Leader of the House on being the first female Labour member ever to answer Prime Ministers Questions; she must be proud 3 decades on to be following in the footsteps of Margaret Thatcher.