| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
19 Jan 2005 07:18:17 PM |
| Object: |
Bill O'Reilly defends ID |
In case anybody missed it (and I don't think Fox has free transcripts available
on their website) Bill O'Reilly, of the O'Reilly Factor on Fox Snooze, had a
short segment/debate last night about the ID controversy in Dover, Penn.
His guest was Dr. Michael Grant, a biologist from the Univ. of Colorado. Grant
stated that ID isn't science. O'Reilly then claimed that if that is the case
then human cloning isn't science as well, because it has never been done.
Turns out that someone at News Hounds has a transcript of the segment at:
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/01/19/oreilly_defends_intelligent_design_your_belly_laugh_for_the_day.php
or http://tinyurl.com/5w3b6
J. Spaceman
--
My email address (notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org) is fake. Email sent to it
will only get caught in my spam tarpit.
.
|
|
| User: "Pfusand" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill O'Reilly defends ID |
19 Jan 2005 09:42:26 PM |
|
|
"...Bill O'Reilly, of the O'Reilly Factor on Fox Snooze..."
You mis-spelled Faux News. (I hope you don't find this correction too
embarassing.)
Pfusand
That which does not destroy us
has made its last mistake.
-- Unspoken motto of the pantope crew
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill O'Reilly defends ID |
19 Jan 2005 09:08:48 PM |
|
|
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1106185996.929477.122610@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Once one understands that Bill O'Reilly's goal is to get people to
emote (preferably with the emotions of fear, anger, or both) instead
of think, his mouth noises began to make a certain amount of sense.
That he is a fixture of Fox News also makes a certain amount of sense,
as the material produced by this network has a similar goal... well,
that and maximizing the value of their advertising slots (a goal they
share with all other contemporary for-profit news organizations... for
most of them, it's the only goal).
I started reading the transcript, but had to stop at this tidbit:
GRANT: Science is always incomplete in all areas.
O'REILLY: Well, I don't agree with that. Science is not always
incomplete and I'll give you an example. There are twenty-four hours
in a day. Alright. That's science. And there are four seasons.
That's science.
I had to stop reading... it hurt too much to go on.
They got to me too. It's very hard to swallow that an ex-teacher would
know so little about what science is and is not. Apparently he also has
no idea that an hour and a season are both simply arbitrarily valued
measurements.
What I find especially irritating is that the professor didn't call him
on it.
--
apatriot #23, aa #1779, Grand Poobah, EAC Department of Oxygen
Deprivation
Responsible for brain damage everywhere!
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit the bible.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Sigman" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill O'Reilly defends ID |
19 Jan 2005 09:26:30 PM |
|
|
"Gary Bohn" <garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns95E47C6A375F8GaryBohn@130.133.1.4...
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1106185996.929477.122610@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Once one understands that Bill O'Reilly's goal is to get people to
emote (preferably with the emotions of fear, anger, or both) instead
of think, his mouth noises began to make a certain amount of sense.
That he is a fixture of Fox News also makes a certain amount of sense,
as the material produced by this network has a similar goal... well,
that and maximizing the value of their advertising slots (a goal they
share with all other contemporary for-profit news organizations... for
most of them, it's the only goal).
I started reading the transcript, but had to stop at this tidbit:
GRANT: Science is always incomplete in all areas.
O'REILLY: Well, I don't agree with that. Science is not always
incomplete and I'll give you an example. There are twenty-four hours
in a day. Alright. That's science. And there are four seasons.
That's science.
I had to stop reading... it hurt too much to go on.
They got to me too. It's very hard to swallow that an ex-teacher would
know so little about what science is and is not. Apparently he also has
no idea that an hour and a season are both simply arbitrarily valued
measurements.
What form of measurements *aren't* arbitrary????
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Sigman" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill O'Reilly defends ID |
20 Jan 2005 09:26:02 AM |
|
|
"Gary Bohn" <garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns95E484CC58B8AGaryBohn@130.133.1.4...
"Mike Sigman" <mikesigman@bresnan.net> wrote in
news:358mn0F4igho8U1@individual.net:
"Gary Bohn" <garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns95E47C6A375F8GaryBohn@130.133.1.4...
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1106185996.929477.122610@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Once one understands that Bill O'Reilly's goal is to get people to
emote (preferably with the emotions of fear, anger, or both) instead
of think, his mouth noises began to make a certain amount of sense.
That he is a fixture of Fox News also makes a certain amount of
sense, as the material produced by this network has a similar
goal... well, that and maximizing the value of their advertising
slots (a goal they share with all other contemporary for-profit news
organizations... for most of them, it's the only goal).
I started reading the transcript, but had to stop at this tidbit:
GRANT: Science is always incomplete in all areas.
O'REILLY: Well, I don't agree with that. Science is not always
incomplete and I'll give you an example. There are twenty-four hours
in a day. Alright. That's science. And there are four seasons.
That's science.
I had to stop reading... it hurt too much to go on.
They got to me too. It's very hard to swallow that an ex-teacher
would know so little about what science is and is not. Apparently he
also has no idea that an hour and a season are both simply
arbitrarily valued measurements.
What form of measurements *aren't* arbitrary????
Mike
None! But they alone aren't science. In this case the study of earth's
speed of revolution might be part of science but arguing the fact that
the day has 24 hours isn't.
You need to learn when a point is lost.
Mike
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill O'Reilly defends ID |
19 Jan 2005 09:44:28 PM |
|
|
"Mike Sigman" <mikesigman@bresnan.net> wrote in message
news:358mn0F4igho8U1@individual.net...
"Gary Bohn" <garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns95E47C6A375F8GaryBohn@130.133.1.4...
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1106185996.929477.122610@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Once one understands that Bill O'Reilly's goal is to get people to
emote (preferably with the emotions of fear, anger, or both) instead
of think, his mouth noises began to make a certain amount of sense.
That he is a fixture of Fox News also makes a certain amount of sense,
as the material produced by this network has a similar goal... well,
that and maximizing the value of their advertising slots (a goal they
share with all other contemporary for-profit news organizations... for
most of them, it's the only goal).
I started reading the transcript, but had to stop at this tidbit:
GRANT: Science is always incomplete in all areas.
O'REILLY: Well, I don't agree with that. Science is not always
incomplete and I'll give you an example. There are twenty-four hours
in a day. Alright. That's science. And there are four seasons.
That's science.
I had to stop reading... it hurt too much to go on.
They got to me too. It's very hard to swallow that an ex-teacher would
know so little about what science is and is not. Apparently he also has
no idea that an hour and a season are both simply arbitrarily valued
measurements.
What form of measurements *aren't* arbitrary????
Exactly!
The fact that there are 24 hours in the day is a cultural convention, not a
scientific fact. That the Sun is composed mostly of hydrogen, or the Earth
is roughly spherical, are scientific facts. They remain scientifically valid
statements regardless of the convention of measurement chosen.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Grumbine" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill O'Reilly defends ID |
20 Jan 2005 06:02:16 AM |
|
|
In article <Xns95E47C6A375F8GaryBohn@130.133.1.4>,
Gary Bohn <garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1106185996.929477.122610@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Once one understands that Bill O'Reilly's goal is to get people to
emote (preferably with the emotions of fear, anger, or both) instead
of think, his mouth noises began to make a certain amount of sense.
That he is a fixture of Fox News also makes a certain amount of sense,
as the material produced by this network has a similar goal... well,
that and maximizing the value of their advertising slots (a goal they
share with all other contemporary for-profit news organizations... for
most of them, it's the only goal).
I started reading the transcript, but had to stop at this tidbit:
GRANT: Science is always incomplete in all areas.
O'REILLY: Well, I don't agree with that. Science is not always
incomplete and I'll give you an example. There are twenty-four hours
in a day. Alright. That's science. And there are four seasons.
That's science.
I had to stop reading... it hurt too much to go on.
They got to me too. It's very hard to swallow that an ex-teacher would
know so little about what science is and is not. Apparently he also has
no idea that an hour and a season are both simply arbitrarily valued
measurements.
What I find especially irritating is that the professor didn't call him
on it.
Why? Yes, I understand it'd be nice if the prof had sliced up O'Reilly
for the ignoramous he showed himself to be. But consider a second.
Verbal gaming with ignorami is just not one of the things scientists
generally practice or get selected for. Selection is on being able
to make scientific arguments that stand up against counterarguments
from informed, intelligent sources. It's a very different selection
process. Ignorant crap comments, well, it's rather like taking a
highly skilled baseball player and putting him out to play American
football quarterback. A few happen to have the other skills, but
what you expect to happen is to see him get flattened.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ian H Spedding" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill O'Reilly defends ID |
20 Jan 2005 03:15:17 AM |
|
|
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106185996.929477.122610@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Once one understands that Bill O'Reilly's goal is to get people to
emote (preferably with the emotions of fear, anger, or both) instead of
think, his mouth noises began to make a certain amount of sense. That
he is a fixture of Fox News also makes a certain amount of sense, as
the material produced by this network has a similar goal... well, that
and maximizing the value of their advertising slots (a goal they share
with all other contemporary for-profit news organizations... for most
of them, it's the only goal).
I started reading the transcript, but had to stop at this tidbit:
GRANT: Science is always incomplete in all areas.
O'REILLY: Well, I don't agree with that. Science is not always
incomplete and I'll give you an example. There are twenty-four hours
in a day. Alright. That's science. And there are four seasons.
That's science.
I had to stop reading... it hurt too much to go on.
This interview makes a telling point, though. The public furore over
creationism is not about science, it's about PR and you have to deal with
it in those terms. O'Reilly's show is plainly about entertainment. Dr
Grant's scientific credentials are doubtless impeccable but as a mouthpiece
for science in the context of O'Reilly's show he was a disaster. Think
evolution. O'Reilly's show is an environment, to survive and thrive in it
you have to adapt to the conditions. And it's not as if there aren't
scientists who could handle it. There's our own P Z Meyearrghz or
Professor Moriarty - sorry - Moran, for example. In scientific debate they
"eat nails and spit rust". Is there any doubt they could have made
mincemeat of O'Reilly in that interview?
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Grumbine" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill O'Reilly defends ID |
20 Jan 2005 06:07:40 AM |
|
|
In article <csnsr9$rl2$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>,
Ian H Spedding <harry@spedding53.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
This interview makes a telling point, though. The public furore over
creationism is not about science, it's about PR and you have to deal with
it in those terms. O'Reilly's show is plainly about entertainment. Dr
Grant's scientific credentials are doubtless impeccable but as a mouthpiece
for science in the context of O'Reilly's show he was a disaster. Think
evolution. O'Reilly's show is an environment, to survive and thrive in it
you have to adapt to the conditions. And it's not as if there aren't
scientists who could handle it. There's our own P Z Meyearrghz or
Professor Moriarty - sorry - Moran, for example. In scientific debate they
"eat nails and spit rust". Is there any doubt they could have made
mincemeat of O'Reilly in that interview?
Absolutely. In _scientific_ debate (that environment) they'd eat
nails and spit rust. But O'Reilly's show is not a scientific debate.
Different environment. In that other environment, they wouldn't fare
nearly so well. If nothing else, remember who owns the microphone.
If there were any threat of Paul or Larry scoring real points, O'Reilly
would simply shut them up, one way or the other.
As you said, it isn't about science. That was settled generations
ago.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian H Spedding" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill O'Reilly defends ID |
20 Jan 2005 01:51:41 PM |
|
|
"Robert Grumbine" <bobg@radix.net> wrote in message
news:10uv7oc222eiv27@corp.supernews.com...
In article <csnsr9$rl2$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>,
Ian H Spedding <harry@spedding53.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
This interview makes a telling point, though. The public furore over
creationism is not about science, it's about PR and you have to deal
with
it in those terms. O'Reilly's show is plainly about entertainment. Dr
Grant's scientific credentials are doubtless impeccable but as a
mouthpiece
for science in the context of O'Reilly's show he was a disaster. Think
evolution. O'Reilly's show is an environment, to survive and thrive in
it
you have to adapt to the conditions. And it's not as if there aren't
scientists who could handle it. There's our own P Z Meyearrghz or
Professor Moriarty - sorry - Moran, for example. In scientific debate
they
"eat nails and spit rust". Is there any doubt they could have made
mincemeat of O'Reilly in that interview?
Absolutely. In _scientific_ debate (that environment) they'd eat
nails and spit rust. But O'Reilly's show is not a scientific debate.
Different environment. In that other environment, they wouldn't fare
nearly so well. If nothing else, remember who owns the microphone.
If there were any threat of Paul or Larry scoring real points, O'Reilly
would simply shut them up, one way or the other.
I've no idea how good they are in person but, judging by their written
contributions, they could handle the likes of O'Reilly, except I'm sure
they have better things to do.
The point is that if the likes of O'Reilly are influential opinion-formers
then science needs to learn how to exploit them properly. Be assured that
if you don't the other side surely will.
As you said, it isn't about science. That was settled generations
ago.
When it comes to getting its case across, what science really needs is
two-fold as I see it. On the one hand, it needs someone who can popularise
science with the dignity, skill, imagination and lucidity of a Stephen Jay
Gould, Carl Sagan or Jacob Bronowski. On the other, it would also be good
to have someone with a snappier, more journalistic approach - someone like
James Burke in Connections - who can take on the O'Reillys of this world on
equal terms.
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Sigman" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill O'Reilly defends ID |
20 Jan 2005 02:43:16 PM |
|
|
"Ian H Spedding" <harry@spedding53.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:csp2hp$83g$2@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
"Robert Grumbine" <bobg@radix.net> wrote in message
news:10uv7oc222eiv27@corp.supernews.com...
In article <csnsr9$rl2$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>,
Ian H Spedding <harry@spedding53.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
This interview makes a telling point, though. The public furore over
creationism is not about science, it's about PR and you have to deal
with
it in those terms. O'Reilly's show is plainly about entertainment. Dr
Grant's scientific credentials are doubtless impeccable but as a
mouthpiece
for science in the context of O'Reilly's show he was a disaster. Think
evolution. O'Reilly's show is an environment, to survive and thrive in
it
you have to adapt to the conditions. And it's not as if there aren't
scientists who could handle it. There's our own P Z Meyearrghz or
Professor Moriarty - sorry - Moran, for example. In scientific debate
they
"eat nails and spit rust". Is there any doubt they could have made
mincemeat of O'Reilly in that interview?
Absolutely. In _scientific_ debate (that environment) they'd eat
nails and spit rust. But O'Reilly's show is not a scientific debate.
Different environment. In that other environment, they wouldn't fare
nearly so well. If nothing else, remember who owns the microphone.
If there were any threat of Paul or Larry scoring real points, O'Reilly
would simply shut them up, one way or the other.
I've no idea how good they are in person but, judging by their written
contributions, they could handle the likes of O'Reilly, except I'm sure
they have better things to do.
The point is that if the likes of O'Reilly are influential opinion-formers
then science needs to learn how to exploit them properly. Be assured that
if you don't the other side surely will.
As you said, it isn't about science. That was settled generations
ago.
When it comes to getting its case across, what science really needs is
two-fold as I see it. On the one hand, it needs someone who can
popularise
science with the dignity, skill, imagination and lucidity of a Stephen Jay
Gould, Carl Sagan or Jacob Bronowski. On the other, it would also be good
to have someone with a snappier, more journalistic approach - someone like
James Burke in Connections - who can take on the O'Reillys of this world
on
equal terms.
I presume you're limiting your thoughts to ID and Creationism, in the
picture you paint. "Science" has no monolithic position on many issues, so
there can be no common spokesperson for science who can "popularise" science
with a "journalistic" approach. "Science" is not always right and "science"
is not without bias and prejudice (note the IPCC and other organizations
which interpret data in accordance with what they want to believe). I.e.,
all the posts I've read about "science" and "scientists" seems to overlook
the many different views, the times popular science has been wrong, and the
different interpretations of data within the scientific community. Instead,
there is often a self-congratulatory trumpeting of "science" and
"scientists" (I loved the mild disparagement of simple medical doctors and
how they weren't really up to snuff as scientists... as if they should be).
If "science" was indeed of a mind, yes, it would be nice to have a
spokesperson to handle hoi poloi like O'Reilly, but science is not of a
mind... even about something as exasperatingly obvious as evolution. There
are too many glorified bean-counters who are scientists for there to ever be
a coherency to "science's" views. ;^)
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian H Spedding" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill O'Reilly defends ID |
21 Jan 2005 03:41:02 PM |
|
|
"Mike Sigman" <mikesigman@bresnan.net> wrote in message
news:35ajetF4l0nvmU1@individual.net...
"Ian H Spedding" <harry@spedding53.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:csp2hp$83g$2@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
[...]
When it comes to getting its case across, what science really needs is
two-fold as I see it. On the one hand, it needs someone who can
popularise science with the dignity, skill, imagination and lucidity of
a
Stephen Jay Gould, Carl Sagan or Jacob Bronowski. On the other, it
would also be good to have someone with a snappier, more journalistic
approach - someone like James Burke in Connections - who can take
on the O'Reillys of this world on equal terms.
I presume you're limiting your thoughts to ID and Creationism, in the
picture you paint. "Science" has no monolithic position on many issues,
so
there can be no common spokesperson for science who can "popularise"
science
with a "journalistic" approach. "Science" is not always right and
"science"
is not without bias and prejudice (note the IPCC and other organizations
which interpret data in accordance with what they want to believe).
I.e.,
all the posts I've read about "science" and "scientists" seems to
overlook
the many different views, the times popular science has been wrong, and
the
different interpretations of data within the scientific community.
Instead,
there is often a self-congratulatory trumpeting of "science" and
"scientists" (I loved the mild disparagement of simple medical doctors
and
how they weren't really up to snuff as scientists... as if they should
be).
If "science" was indeed of a mind, yes, it would be nice to have a
spokesperson to handle hoi poloi like O'Reilly, but science is not of a
mind... even about something as exasperatingly obvious as evolution.
There
are too many glorified bean-counters who are scientists for there to ever
be
a coherency to "science's" views. ;^)
I understand that no one scientist could possibly represent all the
different strands of thought in all the branches of all the disciplines in
science. But it should be possible to come up with a _few_ who can explain
the basics to ordinary people without sounding as if they are composing a
paper for peer review. It's pretty clear that part of the so-called
Wedge strategy is to widen the gap between 'ivory-tower academics'
and the general public who pay for them to carry out a lot of research
which most lay-people don't understand and consequently don't care about.
It'd be a shame if the IDiots got the upper hand because science couldn't
be bothered to come up with some snappy repartee.
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Sigman" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill O'Reilly defends ID |
21 Jan 2005 04:12:28 PM |
|
|
"Ian H Spedding" <harry@spedding53.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:csrt1q$t24$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
"Mike Sigman" <mikesigman@bresnan.net> wrote in message
news:35ajetF4l0nvmU1@individual.net...
"Ian H Spedding" <harry@spedding53.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:csp2hp$83g$2@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
[...]
When it comes to getting its case across, what science really needs is
two-fold as I see it. On the one hand, it needs someone who can
popularise science with the dignity, skill, imagination and lucidity of
a
Stephen Jay Gould, Carl Sagan or Jacob Bronowski. On the other, it
would also be good to have someone with a snappier, more journalistic
approach - someone like James Burke in Connections - who can take
on the O'Reillys of this world on equal terms.
I presume you're limiting your thoughts to ID and Creationism, in the
picture you paint. "Science" has no monolithic position on many issues,
so
there can be no common spokesperson for science who can "popularise"
science
with a "journalistic" approach. "Science" is not always right and
"science"
is not without bias and prejudice (note the IPCC and other organizations
which interpret data in accordance with what they want to believe).
I.e.,
all the posts I've read about "science" and "scientists" seems to
overlook
the many different views, the times popular science has been wrong, and
the
different interpretations of data within the scientific community.
Instead,
there is often a self-congratulatory trumpeting of "science" and
"scientists" (I loved the mild disparagement of simple medical doctors
and
how they weren't really up to snuff as scientists... as if they should
be).
If "science" was indeed of a mind, yes, it would be nice to have a
spokesperson to handle hoi poloi like O'Reilly, but science is not of a
mind... even about something as exasperatingly obvious as evolution.
There
are too many glorified bean-counters who are scientists for there to ever
be
a coherency to "science's" views. ;^)
I understand that no one scientist could possibly represent all the
different strands of thought in all the branches of all the disciplines in
science. But it should be possible to come up with a _few_ who can
explain
the basics to ordinary people without sounding as if they are composing a
paper for peer review. It's pretty clear that part of the so-called
Wedge strategy is to widen the gap between 'ivory-tower academics'
and the general public who pay for them to carry out a lot of research
which most lay-people don't understand and consequently don't care about.
It'd be a shame if the IDiots got the upper hand because science couldn't
be bothered to come up with some snappy repartee.
I don't think there is a "Wedge Strategy". I think what has happened is
that the thrust became to "educate everyone", "get everyone to finish high
school", etc. At least that's what some of my friends in the teachers'
unions say (i.e. it's not their fault). The only way to do that is to dumb
down the education system. Of course, when you dumb down the education
system in the hopes of "raising the number of educated", a certain portion
of the population will escape to private schools or will do well,
regardless. I.e., dumbing down the education system actually *increases*
the gap between the averagely educated and the higher echelons of
achievement. There's your wedge... the strategy that caused it was "no
dummy without a diploma", not a deliberate strategy. When I read some of
the grammar and syntactical errors in something like "Time" magazine
nowadays and think how good they used to be, I shudder.
True, I think there needs to be some method of increasing the public's
understanding of science and its works and achievements, but probably that
would best be done in the schools... if they didn't already cater to so many
agendas like sex-ed, racial harmony, self-esteem boosting, political
training, etc., maybe there'd be room. Not to mention the factor of
lowering standards in order to be inclusive in the hiring of teachers.
This trend toward Creationism and ID I equate directly with the supposedly
beneficial dumbing-down method of trying to graduate everyone... it actually
results in less-educated people who are more open to proselytizing, Hard
Rock, and whatever. I.e., we bring it on ourselves for not thinking out the
downside to "good intentions". The "spokesman" for science is probably
something that needs to start at the comic-book level, it's gotten so bad in
public schools.
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian H Spedding" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill O'Reilly defends ID |
24 Jan 2005 01:40:37 PM |
|
|
"Mike Sigman" <mikesigman@bresnan.net> wrote in message
news:35dd22F4icofjU1@individual.net...
[...]
This trend toward Creationism and ID I equate directly with the
supposedly
beneficial dumbing-down method of trying to graduate everyone... it
actually
results in less-educated people who are more open to proselytizing, Hard
Rock, and whatever. I.e., we bring it on ourselves for not thinking out
the
downside to "good intentions". The "spokesman" for science is probably
something that needs to start at the comic-book level, it's gotten so bad
in
public schools.
What I find alarming is that, even where there is no overt attempt to
insert Intelligent Design Creationism into the science curriculum, it seems
that some teachers are intimidated into minimising references to evolution
or ignoring it altogether. I can understand teachers taking this line if
the believe their jobs are at risk. Just how damaging to science education
this might be depends on how widespread it is.
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tink" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill O'Reilly defends ID |
22 Jan 2005 04:40:21 PM |
|
|
Ian H Spedding wrote:
"Mike Sigman" <mikesigman@bresnan.net> wrote in message
news:35ajetF4l0nvmU1@individual.net...
"Ian H Spedding" <harry@spedding53.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:csp2hp$83g$2@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
[...]
When it comes to getting its case across, what science really needs is
two-fold as I see it. On the one hand, it needs someone who can
popularise science with the dignity, skill, imagination and lucidity of
a
Stephen Jay Gould, Carl Sagan or Jacob Bronowski. On the other, it
would also be good to have someone with a snappier, more journalistic
approach - someone like James Burke in Connections - who can take
on the O'Reillys of this world on equal terms.
I presume you're limiting your thoughts to ID and Creationism, in the
picture you paint. "Science" has no monolithic position on many issues,
so
there can be no common spokesperson for science who can "popularise"
science
with a "journalistic" approach. "Science" is not always right and
"science"
is not without bias and prejudice (note the IPCC and other organizations
which interpret data in accordance with what they want to believe).
I.e.,
all the posts I've read about "science" and "scientists" seems to
overlook
the many different views, the times popular science has been wrong, and
the
different interpretations of data within the scientific community.
Instead,
there is often a self-congratulatory trumpeting of "science" and
"scientists" (I loved the mild disparagement of simple medical doctors
and
how they weren't really up to snuff as scientists... as if they should
be).
If "science" was indeed of a mind, yes, it would be nice to have a
spokesperson to handle hoi poloi like O'Reilly, but science is not of a
mind... even about something as exasperatingly obvious as evolution.
There
are too many glorified bean-counters who are scientists for there to ever
be
a coherency to "science's" views. ;^)
I understand that no one scientist could possibly represent all the
different strands of thought in all the branches of all the disciplines in
science. But it should be possible to come up with a _few_ who can explain
the basics to ordinary people without sounding as if they are composing a
paper for peer review. It's pretty clear that part of the so-called
Wedge strategy is to widen the gap between 'ivory-tower academics'
and the general public who pay for them to carry out a lot of research
which most lay-people don't understand and consequently don't care about.
It'd be a shame if the IDiots got the upper hand because science couldn't
be bothered to come up with some snappy repartee.
Ian
The trouble is that the IDiots HAVE the upper hand. They have
successfully convinced textbook authors and school boards that the term
"Theory" is synonymous with something thought up after an all night
kegger and has no place in a classroom. They have waged an unceasing
propaganda war to replace science with superstition and have done so
right under our collective noses. Now, WE, the ones with the facts on
our side, have to play catch up ball with a bunch of morons that are
willing not only to be ignorant themselves, but visit that ignorance on
both their children AND ours. That, AND we find that truth, fact
reason, and logic are totally ineffective weapons with which to combat
this self inflicted lobotomy.
I know that all revolution are doomed to betrayal by their progeny, I
just never thought I'd see it in my lifetime.
--
Skydivers don't knock on death's door; they ring the bell and run
away... It really pisses him off.
The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS# 8808
EAC Chairman, Division of Skydiving and Sushi consumption.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian H Spedding" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill O'Reilly defends ID |
24 Jan 2005 02:30:34 PM |
|
|
"Tink" <kjgrish@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ZpWdnQQOQbX4S2_cRVn-jQ@comcast.com...
Ian H Spedding wrote:
[...]
I understand that no one scientist could possibly represent all the
different strands of thought in all the branches of all the disciplines
in
science. But it should be possible to come up with a _few_ who can
explain
the basics to ordinary people without sounding as if they are composing
a
paper for peer review. It's pretty clear that part of the so-called
Wedge strategy is to widen the gap between 'ivory-tower academics'
and the general public who pay for them to carry out a lot of research
which most lay-people don't understand and consequently don't care
about.
It'd be a shame if the IDiots got the upper hand because science
couldn't
be bothered to come up with some snappy repartee.
Ian
The trouble is that the IDiots HAVE the upper hand. They have
successfully convinced textbook authors and school boards that the term
"Theory" is synonymous with something thought up after an all night
kegger and has no place in a classroom. They have waged an unceasing
propaganda war to replace science with superstition and have done so
right under our collective noses. Now, WE, the ones with the facts on
our side, have to play catch up ball with a bunch of morons that are
willing not only to be ignorant themselves, but visit that ignorance on
both their children AND ours. That, AND we find that truth, fact
reason, and logic are totally ineffective weapons with which to combat
this self inflicted lobotomy.
I know that all revolution are doomed to betrayal by their progeny, I
just never thought I'd see it in my lifetime.
I agree, but I think part of the problem is the excessive respect accorded
to anything in the nature of a religious belief in a politically correct
culture. There is no reason why faith, which by definition is unevidenced
belief little different from superstition, should have some sort of
'diplomatic immunity' from criticism.
For Biblical literalists to allege that the theory of evolution is flawed
by many "holes" is ironic in the extreme given the inconsistencies and
contradictions with which the Bible is riddled. There can be no "theory of
creation" - in the scientific sense - based on it until those problems are
resolved.
As for Intelligent Design, it is simply a faith "which dare not speak its
name".
If the Designer is _not_ God then it is simply conjecturing that some sort
of advanced alien intelligence had a hand in the development of life on
Earth. It fails as an alternative to the theory of evolution because these
aliens are not around now. Whatever hand they had in starting life on this
planet, it has been evolving ever since, apparently without their
involvement. It also fails as a theory of the origins of life because it
tells us nothing about where or how the alien life began. It simply sets
the whole quetion of the origins of life one stage further removed.
If the proposed Designer _is_ God - which is a reasonable assumption given
the religious beliefs of most if not all of the proponents of the claim -
then how do we identify the handiwork of a being who is capable of
anything? As human beings, we are able to recognise design to the extent
that it is similar to our artefacts and different from those things we know
we have not designed. But according to Chritian belief the whole universe
is God's creation; there are no things we can point to and say: "This was
definitely designed by God, now compare it with this thing which we know
was _not_ designed by Him."
Intelligent Design Creationism is simply a conjecture or statement of
belief asserted with the intention of establishing Biblical literalism as a
religious dogma to which all other forms of belief or knowledge must be
subordinate.
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Grumbine" |
|
| Title: Responding to O'Reillys Re: Bill O'Reilly defends ID |
20 Jan 2005 08:09:49 PM |
|
|
In article <csp2hp$83g$2@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
Ian H Spedding <harry@spedding53.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
"Robert Grumbine" <bobg@radix.net> wrote in message
news:10uv7oc222eiv27@corp.supernews.com...
In article <csnsr9$rl2$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>,
Ian H Spedding <harry@spedding53.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
This interview makes a telling point, though. The public furore over
creationism is not about science, it's about PR and you have to deal
with
it in those terms. O'Reilly's show is plainly about entertainment. Dr
Grant's scientific credentials are doubtless impeccable but as a
mouthpiece
for science in the context of O'Reilly's show he was a disaster. Think
evolution. O'Reilly's show is an environment, to survive and thrive in
it
you have to adapt to the conditions. And it's not as if there aren't
scientists who could handle it. There's our own P Z Meyearrghz or
Professor Moriarty - sorry - Moran, for example. In scientific debate
they
"eat nails and spit rust". Is there any doubt they could have made
mincemeat of O'Reilly in that interview?
Absolutely. In _scientific_ debate (that environment) they'd eat
nails and spit rust. But O'Reilly's show is not a scientific debate.
Different environment. In that other environment, they wouldn't fare
nearly so well. If nothing else, remember who owns the microphone.
If there were any threat of Paul or Larry scoring real points, O'Reilly
would simply shut them up, one way or the other.
I've no idea how good they are in person but, judging by their written
contributions, they could handle the likes of O'Reilly, except I'm sure
they have better things to do.
Writing is a different environment again than a circus. Perhaps
Larry and Paul, or others here, or elsewhere, would be sufficiently
nimble in the center ring of that circus. But it's rather irrelevant
whether there are such people, more in a moment.
The point is that if the likes of O'Reilly are influential opinion-formers
then science needs to learn how to exploit them properly. Be assured that
if you don't the other side surely will.
Other side already has, and owns those outlets.
It's that ownership that is what I was referring to in shutting
them up, one way or the other. The obvious is just O'Reilly shouting
down any scientist who started looking like he was going to score
any real points. The one you seem to be forgetting is -- he who
owns the microphone, decides whether the microphone stays on. Mayor
Daley (the elder) understood that rule well. Anyone who scores against
O'Reilly simply will find their mike not working, camera shot aimed
elsewhere, etc., then get shouted down per normal.
Not for nothing is it observed that O'Reilly (et al.) fare far
worse in situations where they can't control the other people in
the room.
Also consider the probability of an O'Reilly, or any of the
hatchet shows, letting people on who could be any serious challenge
to them in the first place. Part of their 'appeal' is the ritual
bloodletting and victory by the righteous -- i.e., the host.
As you said, it isn't about science. That was settled generations
ago.
When it comes to getting its case across, what science really needs is
two-fold as I see it. On the one hand, it needs someone who can popularise
science with the dignity, skill, imagination and lucidity of a Stephen Jay
Gould, Carl Sagan or Jacob Bronowski. On the other, it would also be good
to have someone with a snappier, more journalistic approach - someone like
James Burke in Connections - who can take on the O'Reillys of this world on
equal terms.
O'Reilly's ground is lies and misrepresentation. You're pretty
well going to have to find some nonscientists to go after the hatchet
jobbers on equal terms.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Sigman" |
|
| Title: Re: Responding to O'Reillys Re: Bill O'Reilly defends ID |
20 Jan 2005 08:36:39 PM |
|
|
"Robert Grumbine" <bobg@radix.net> wrote in message
news:10v0p3dd03e20ff@corp.supernews.com...
It's that ownership that is what I was referring to in shutting
them up, one way or the other. The obvious is just O'Reilly shouting
down any scientist who started looking like he was going to score
any real points. The one you seem to be forgetting is -- he who
owns the microphone, decides whether the microphone stays on.
And O'Reilly did that to which "scientist"? Or is this just something you
channeled?
Mayor
Daley (the elder) understood that rule well. Anyone who scores against
O'Reilly simply will find their mike not working, camera shot aimed
elsewhere, etc., then get shouted down per normal.
Daley was a Democrat with a crooked political machine. Like Tammany Hall...
oops... Democrats again. Like in the current Washington state race. Or the
Wisconsin one... all the dead people voting, etc. I think O'Reilly says he
is an independent, FWIW.
Not for nothing is it observed that O'Reilly (et al.) fare far
worse in situations where they can't control the other people in
the room.
Example for O'Reilly.... it is observed where?
Also consider the probability of an O'Reilly, or any of the
hatchet shows, letting people on who could be any serious challenge
to them in the first place. Part of their 'appeal' is the ritual
bloodletting and victory by the righteous -- i.e., the host.
I don't watch O'Reilly all that much, but I've seen him get hammered a few
times. Usually it's women, but a couple of men. But he's an egomaniac.
Why emote so much about him?
As you said, it isn't about science. That was settled generations
ago.
When it comes to getting its case across, what science really needs is
two-fold as I see it. On the one hand, it needs someone who can
popularise
science with the dignity, skill, imagination and lucidity of a Stephen Jay
Gould, Carl Sagan or Jacob Bronowski. On the other, it would also be good
to have someone with a snappier, more journalistic approach - someone like
James Burke in Connections - who can take on the O'Reillys of this world
on
equal terms.
O'Reilly's ground is lies and misrepresentation. You're pretty
well going to have to find some nonscientists to go after the hatchet
jobbers on equal terms.
Well, I guess O'Reilly's reputation, personal attributes, etc., have been
hammered out pretty well.
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Responding to O'Reillys Re: Bill O'Reilly defends ID |
20 Jan 2005 09:06:33 PM |
|
|
Mike Sigman wrote:
<snip>
Daley was a Democrat with a crooked political machine. Like Tammany Hall...
oops... Democrats again. Like in the current Washington state race. Or the
Wisconsin one... all the dead people voting, etc.
Wisconsin? What do you say the Democrats did wrong in Wisconsin?
<snip>
--
Tom McDonald
http://ahwhatdoiknow.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Sigman" |
|
| Title: Re: Responding to O'Reillys Re: Bill O'Reilly defends ID |
20 Jan 2005 09:32:09 PM |
|
|
"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@nohormelcharter.net.lga.highwinds-media.com>
wrote in message news:Em_Hd.2536$nG3.2002@fe03.lga...
Mike Sigman wrote:
<snip>
Daley was a Democrat with a crooked political machine. Like Tammany
Hall...
oops... Democrats again. Like in the current Washington state race. Or
the
Wisconsin one... all the dead people voting, etc.
Wisconsin? What do you say the Democrats did wrong in Wisconsin?
<snip>
Oh, there were a bunch of reports on it. Mainly, there were far too many
votes compared to the actual number of voters, dead people voting, etc.
Pretty close to the number of possible fraudulent voters is the number that
Kerry won by. Here's one site; a few key words in Google News should bring
up a lot of the rest:
http://www.polstate.com/archives/006546.html
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Responding to O'Reillys Re: Bill O'Reilly defends ID |
20 Jan 2005 11:12:17 PM |
|
|
Mike Sigman wrote:
"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@nohormelcharter.net.lga.highwinds-media.com>
wrote in message news:Em_Hd.2536$nG3.2002@fe03.lga...
Mike Sigman wrote:
<snip>
Daley was a Democrat with a crooked political machine. Like Tammany
Hall...
oops... Democrats again. Like in the current Washington state race. Or
the
Wisconsin one... all the dead people voting, etc.
Wisconsin? What do you say the Democrats did wrong in Wisconsin?
<snip>
Oh, there were a bunch of reports on it. Mainly, there were far too many
votes compared to the actual number of voters, dead people voting, etc.
Pretty close to the number of possible fraudulent voters is the number that
Kerry won by. Here's one site; a few key words in Google News should bring
up a lot of the rest:
http://www.polstate.com/archives/006546.html
Mike
You had me worried for a while. Shouldacouldawoulda; nothing
more. The brouhaha seems to be by sour-grapes Republicans. I
don't oppose a real investigation of the situation; but I also
don't see anything that jumps out at me as voter fraud.
BTW, at least Owen, in the article you linked to, suspected
that fraudulent votes constituted about three times the margin
of Kerry's victory, not "[p]retty close to the number of
possible fraudulent votes...."
The problem is that for there to have been the massive fraud
alleged, the poll workers would have had to have either been in
on the deal, or would have had to have been massively
incompetent in the matter of making sure of the identity and
domicile of same-day voter registrants. This, in a situation
where the poll workers are of both parties, in a place where
Republicans suspected there might be fraud, and where challenges
could be made by anyone to any voter registering on election day.
There is also the fact that Milwaukee is overwhelmingly
Democratic, and has a very large minority population. Is it
surprising, then, that in this hotly contested election, more
Democrats than Republicans would have registered at the polls?
This election, a lot of minority voters who had felt
disenfranchised before turned out, and would have needed to
register at the polls. There were some hot state races,
including a well-financed Republican Senate candidate taking a
shot at Feingold.
There were reasons for a big turnout of folks who hadn't voted
in their precinct before; fraud of the level and quality
suggested in the article isn't needed to explain things.
Now how about those paper-trailless voting machines in Ohio?
--
Tom McDonald
http://ahwhatdoiknow.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Sigman" |
|
| Title: Re: Responding to O'Reillys Re: Bill O'Reilly defends ID |
21 Jan 2005 09:42:30 AM |
|
|
"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@nohormelcharter.net.lga.highwinds-media.com>
wrote in message news:Ac0Id.2588$Tq6.1907@fe03.lga...
Mike Sigman wrote:
"Tom McDonald"
<tmcdonald2672@nohormelcharter.net.lga.highwinds-media.com>
wrote in message news:Em_Hd.2536$nG3.2002@fe03.lga...
Mike Sigman wrote:
<snip>
Daley was a Democrat with a crooked political machine. Like Tammany
Hall...
oops... Democrats again. Like in the current Washington state race. Or
the
Wisconsin one... all the dead people voting, etc.
Wisconsin? What do you say the Democrats did wrong in Wisconsin?
<snip>
Oh, there were a bunch of reports on it. Mainly, there were far too many
votes compared to the actual number of voters, dead people voting, etc.
Pretty close to the number of possible fraudulent voters is the number
that
Kerry won by. Here's one site; a few key words in Google News should
bring
up a lot of the rest:
http://www.polstate.com/archives/006546.html
Mike
You had me worried for a while. Shouldacouldawoulda; nothing
more. The brouhaha seems to be by sour-grapes Republicans. I
don't oppose a real investigation of the situation; but I also
don't see anything that jumps out at me as voter fraud.
BTW, at least Owen, in the article you linked to, suspected
that fraudulent votes constituted about three times the margin
of Kerry's victory, not "[p]retty close to the number of
possible fraudulent votes...."
The problem is that for there to have been the massive fraud
alleged, the poll workers would have had to have either been in
on the deal, or would have had to have been massively
incompetent in the matter of making sure of the identity and
domicile of same-day voter registrants. This, in a situation
where the poll workers are of both parties, in a place where
Republicans suspected there might be fraud, and where challenges
could be made by anyone to any voter registering on election day.
There is also the fact that Milwaukee is overwhelmingly
Democratic, and has a very large minority population. Is it
surprising, then, that in this hotly contested election, more
Democrats than Republicans would have registered at the polls?
This election, a lot of minority voters who had felt
disenfranchised before turned out, and would have needed to
register at the polls. There were some hot state races,
including a well-financed Republican Senate candidate taking a
shot at Feingold.
There were reasons for a big turnout of folks who hadn't voted
in their precinct before; fraud of the level and quality
suggested in the article isn't needed to explain things.
Now how about those paper-trailless voting machines in Ohio?
Tell you what, Tom. I'll save this post of yours in a separate file and
let's see what the investigation finds (and it will only take a small amount
before the feds have to enter into it because it will be fraud in a federal
election). The numbers are too skewed for there NOT to be an investigation.
There was a lot of pre-election objection to some odd "recognition of
eligible voters" rule found in Wisconsin, I believe and a memo to volunteers
(before the election) indicating that they were to "recognize" anyone and
everyone was found. Let's see what happens, shall we? But in the meantime,
perhaps a gentleman's bet on what is found? I'll wager 10 dollars that
more than just minor fraud (a few here and there) will be found. Done?
Mike Sigman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Responding to O'Reillys Re: Bill O'Reilly defends ID |
21 Jan 2005 10:48:01 AM |
|
|
Mike Sigman wrote:
"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@nohormelcharter.net.lga.highwinds-media.com>
wrote in message news:Ac0Id.2588$Tq6.1907@fe03.lga...
Mike Sigman wrote:
"Tom McDonald"
<tmcdonald2672@nohormelcharter.net.lga.highwinds-media.com>
wrote in message news:Em_Hd.2536$nG3.2002@fe03.lga...
Mike Sigman wrote:
<snip>
Daley was a Democrat with a crooked political machine. Like Tammany
Hall...
oops... Democrats again. Like in the current Washington state race. Or
the
Wisconsin one... all the dead people voting, etc.
Wisconsin? What do you say the Democrats did wrong in Wisconsin?
<snip>
Oh, there were a bunch of reports on it. Mainly, there were far too many
votes compared to the actual number of voters, dead people voting, etc.
Pretty close to the number of possible fraudulent voters is the number
that
Kerry won by. Here's one site; a few key words in Google News should
bring
up a lot of the rest:
http://www.polstate.com/archives/006546.html
Mike
You had me worried for a while. Shouldacouldawoulda; nothing
more. The brouhaha seems to be by sour-grapes Republicans. I
don't oppose a real investigation of the situation; but I also
don't see anything that jumps out at me as voter fraud.
BTW, at least Owen, in the article you linked to, suspected
that fraudulent votes constituted about three times the margin
of Kerry's victory, not "[p]retty close to the number of
possible fraudulent votes...."
The problem is that for there to have been the massive fraud
alleged, the poll workers would have had to have either been in
on the deal, or would have had to have been massively
incompetent in the matter of making sure of the identity and
domicile of same-day voter registrants. This, in a situation
where the poll workers are of both parties, in a place where
Republicans suspected there might be fraud, and where challenges
could be made by anyone to any voter registering on election day.
There is also the fact that Milwaukee is overwhelmingly
Democratic, and has a very large minority population. Is it
surprising, then, that in this hotly contested election, more
Democrats than Republicans would have registered at the polls?
This election, a lot of minority voters who had felt
disenfranchised before turned out, and would have needed to
register at the polls. There were some hot state races,
including a well-financed Republican Senate candidate taking a
shot at Feingold.
There were reasons for a big turnout of folks who hadn't voted
in their precinct before; fraud of the level and quality
suggested in the article isn't needed to explain things.
Now how about those paper-trailless voting machines in Ohio?
Tell you what, Tom. I'll save this post of yours in a separate file and
let's see what the investigation finds (and it will only take a small amount
before the feds have to enter into it because it will be fraud in a federal
election). The numbers are too skewed for there NOT to be an investigation.
There was a lot of pre-election objection to some odd "recognition of
eligible voters" rule found in Wisconsin, I believe and a memo to volunteers
(before the election) indicating that they were to "recognize" anyone and
everyone was found. Let's see what happens, shall we? But in the meantime,
perhaps a gentleman's bet on what is found? I'll wager 10 dollars that
more than just minor fraud (a few here and there) will be found. Done?
Mike Sigman
Mike,
By all means keep my post and bring it up again after whatever
investigation occurs. I won't bet, both because I can't spare
the money, and the definition of "minor fraud (a few here and
there)" seems fraught with opportunities for dispute. Not that I
think either one of us is particularly prone to argument for
argument's sake. (:-))
I am aware that in my county seat, which has a university with
many students from elsewhere, the main student voting precincts
had Republican poll watchers who kept ragging on the poll
workers about what constituted adequate proof of residence. The
interesting thing is that the poll workers themselves were well
aware of the issue and as necessary sent students back to their
residences to get the exact kind of proof that the Republican
folks demanded.
IOW, the poll workers were doing their jobs, and the Rep. poll
watchers were an impediment to voting. In the event, many
students waited in line for three or four hours to vote, and few
that were told to get better proof of residence failed to return
to vote. This was repeated all over Wisconsin.
This election was under a microscope because of Florida last
time, and because of pre-election stories of hanky panky by both
parties. The Milwaukee story might have a more-than-minor
element of fraud; but that is to be proven, not to be assumed.
How about this. If the Milwaukee case turns out to involve
fraud on the part of the Democrats that is 10% over the rate of
suspected fraud in the last election nation-wide, I'll publicly
post on whatever newsgroups you like that George W. Bush is the
best president ever, and deserves three more terms. If that
level of fraud is not proved, or if the level of Republican
fraud in Milwaukee is higher than Democratic fraud, you will do
the same, only singing the praises of Sen. John Kerry. Deal?
--
Tom McDonald
http://ahwhatdoiknow.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Sigman" |
|
| Title: Re: Responding to O'Reillys Re: Bill O'Reilly defends ID |
21 Jan 2005 11:36:14 AM |
|
|
"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@nohormelcharter.net.lga.highwinds-media.com>
wrote in message news:MoaId.4182$FV6.848@fe03.lga...
By all means keep my post and bring it up again after whatever
investigation occurs. I won't bet, both because I can't spare
the money, and the definition of "minor fraud (a few here and
there)" seems fraught with opportunities for dispute. Not that I
think either one of us is particularly prone to argument for
argument's sake. (:-))
I think you'll find that I don't quibble about bets, Tom, but thinking for a
moment, I realize that I don't really have a grasp for the norms in these
elections. Basically, my position is that the percentage of fraud will be
high enough to be remarkable from the norm.
I am aware that in my county seat, which has a university with
many students from elsewhere, the main student voting precincts
had Republican poll watchers who kept ragging on the poll
workers about what constituted adequate proof of residence. The
interesting thing is that the poll workers themselves were well
aware of the issue and as necessary sent students back to their
residences to get the exact kind of proof that the Republican
folks demanded.
IOW, the poll workers were doing their jobs, and the Rep. poll
watchers were an impediment to voting. In the event, many
students waited in line for three or four hours to vote, and few
that were told to get better proof of residence failed to return
to vote. This was repeated all over Wisconsin.
This election was under a microscope because of Florida last
time, and because of pre-election stories of hanky panky by both
parties. The Milwaukee story might have a more-than-minor
element of fraud; but that is to be proven, not to be assumed.
I agree.
How about this. If the Milwaukee case turns out to involve
fraud on the part of the Democrats that is 10% over the rate of
suspected fraud in the last election nation-wide, I'll publicly
post on whatever newsgroups you like that George W. Bush is the
best president ever, and deserves three more terms.
I don't know what the "rate of suspected fraud" is and it might just be
another sliding and imprecise figure, giving no stability to the bet. If
there is just "some fraud", but nothing as earth-shaking as suspected, I'll
send you the dough. ;^) Insofar as me requiring anyone to sing Bush's
praises, I wouldn't do that, either. I'm not much of a Bush fan. I would
have preferred Evan Bayh, frankly. However, the wholesale and mostly
unjustified attacks on Bush are things I'm against. Everyone talks about
how "Bush is dividing the nation", but I suggest you read the posts on this
NG and other liberal dominated outlets and think about just who is divisive.
Let's leave Bush out of it.
If that
level of fraud is not proved, or if the level of Republican
fraud in Milwaukee is higher than Democratic fraud, you will do
the same, only singing the praises of Sen. John Kerry. Deal?
Couldn't do it. I was in Vietnam and for far longer than Kerry was. What
Kerry did in Vietnam is most probably exactly what those Swift Boat veterans
say he did... and nothing they say he did has been disproved, while Kerry
has had to admit that a number of his stories were false... but that doesn't
interest me too much. And Kerry was a pawn of the enemy and did meet
illegally with North Vietnamese negotiators and probably did get a
less-than-honorable discharge (which is why he won't release his
records).... but that's not all that important either. What is important is
that Kerry signed off saying that there were no more POW's despite protests
from the Pentagon and families... and records found in the 1990's indicate
that in excess of 200 men were probably still in captivity when he did it.
That's too much... no man that sacrificed his fellow countrymen should ever
be in public office and I could never sing his praises.
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Responding to O'Reillys Re: Bill O'Reilly defends ID |
21 Jan 2005 06:16:28 PM |
|
|
Mike Sigman wrote:
"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@nohormelcharter.net.lga.highwinds-media.com>
wrote in message news:MoaId.4182$FV6.848@fe03.lga...
By all means keep my post and bring it up again after whatever
investigation occurs. I won't bet, both because I can't spare
the money, and the definition of "minor fraud (a few here and
there)" seems fraught with opportunities for dispute. Not that I
think either one of us is particularly prone to argument for
argument's sake. (:-))
I think you'll find that I don't quibble about bets, Tom, but thinking for a
moment, I realize that I don't really have a grasp for the norms in these
elections. Basically, my position is that the percentage of fraud will be
high enough to be remarkable from the norm.
I am aware that in my county seat, which has a university with
many students from elsewhere, the main student voting precincts
had Republican poll watchers who kept ragging on the poll
workers about what constituted adequate proof of residence. The
interesting thing is that the poll workers themselves were well
aware of the issue and as necessary sent students back to their
residences to get the exact kind of proof that the Republican
folks demanded.
IOW, the poll workers were doing their jobs, and the Rep. poll
watchers were an impediment to voting. In the event, many
students waited in line for three or four hours to vote, and few
that were told to get better proof of residence failed to return
to vote. This was repeated all over Wisconsin.
This election was under a microscope because of Florida last
time, and because of pre-election stories of hanky panky by both
parties. The Milwaukee story might have a more-than-minor
element of fraud; but that is to be proven, not to be assumed.
I agree.
How about this. If the Milwaukee case turns out to involve
fraud on the part of the Democrats that is 10% over the rate of
suspected fraud in the last election nation-wide, I'll publicly
post on whatever newsgroups you like that George W. Bush is the
best president ever, and deserves three more terms.
I don't know what the "rate of suspected fraud" is and it might just be
another sliding and imprecise figure, giving no stability to the bet. If
there is just "some fraud", but nothing as earth-shaking as suspected, I'll
send you the dough. ;^)
I'd prefer not to put money on this, or anything really. I did
it once on-line and, though I won, it didn't feel right to me.
I'm sort of a Midwestern prude on stuff like this.
Insofar as me requiring anyone to sing Bush's
praises, I wouldn't do that, either. I'm not much of a Bush fan. I would
have preferred Evan Bayh, frankly. However, the wholesale and mostly
unjustified attacks on Bush are things I'm against. Everyone talks about
how "Bush is dividing the nation", but I suggest you read the posts on this
NG and other liberal dominated outlets and think about just who is divisive.
Let's leave Bush out of it.
If only I could :-).
If that
level of fraud is not proved, or if the level of Republican
fraud in Milwaukee is higher than Democratic fraud, you will do
the same, only singing the praises of Sen. John Kerry. Deal?
Couldn't do it. I was in Vietnam and for far longer than Kerry was. What
Kerry did in Vietnam is most probably exactly what those Swift Boat veterans
say he did... and nothing they say he did has been disproved, while Kerry
has had to admit that a number of his stories were false... but that doesn't
interest me too much. And Kerry was a pawn of the enemy and did meet
illegally with North Vietnamese negotiators and probably did get a
less-than-honorable discharge (which is why he won't release his
records).... but that's not all that important either. What is important is
that Kerry signed off saying that there were no more POW's despite protests
from the Pentagon and families... and records found in the 1990's indicate
that in excess of 200 men were probably still in captivity when he did it.
That's too much... no man that sacrificed his fellow countrymen should ever
be in public office and I could never sing his praises.
OK. I disagree with your general view of Kerry, but respect it.
Why not just wait and see about the fraud allegations.
--
Tom McDonald
http://ahwhatdoiknow.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Sigman" |
|
| Title: Re: Responding to O'Reillys Re: Bill O'Reilly defends ID |
21 Jan 2005 06:30:20 PM |
|
|
"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@nohormelcharter.net.lga.highwinds-media.com>
wrote in message news:gZgId.5983$5n5.1382@fe03.lga...
Mike Sigman wrote:
"Tom McDonald"
<tmcdonald2672@nohormelcharter.net.lga.highwinds-media.com>
wrote in message news:MoaId.4182$FV6.848@fe03.lga...
By all means keep my post and bring it up again after whatever
investigation occurs. I won't bet, both because I can't spare
the money, and the definition of "minor fraud (a few here and
there)" seems fraught with opportunities for dispute. Not that I
think either one of us is particularly prone to argument for
argument's sake. (:-))
I think you'll find that I don't quibble about bets, Tom, but thinking
for a
moment, I realize that I don't really have a grasp for the norms in these
elections. Basically, my position is that the percentage of fraud will
be
high enough to be remarkable from the norm.
I am aware that in my county seat, which has a university with
many students from elsewhere, the main student voting precincts
had Republican poll watchers who kept ragging on the poll
workers about what constituted adequate proof of residence. The
interesting thing is that the poll workers themselves were well
aware of the issue and as necessary sent students back to their
residences to get the exact kind of proof that the Republican
folks demanded.
IOW, the poll workers were doing their jobs, and the Rep. poll
watchers were an impediment to voting. In the event, many
students waited in line for three or four hours to vote, and few
that were told to get better proof of residence failed to return
to vote. This was repeated all over Wisconsin.
This election was under a microscope because of Florida last
time, and because of pre-election stories of hanky panky by both
parties. The Milwaukee story might have a more-than-minor
element of fraud; but that is to be proven, not to be assumed.
I agree.
How about this. If the Milwaukee case turns out to involve
fraud on the part of the Democrats that is 10% over the rate of
suspected fraud in the last election nation-wide, I'll publicly
post on whatever newsgroups you like that George W. Bush is the
best president ever, and deserves three more terms.
I don't know what the "rate of suspected fraud" is and it might just be
another sliding and imprecise figure, giving no stability to the bet. If
there is just "some fraud", but nothing as earth-shaking as suspected,
I'll
send you the dough. ;^)
I'd prefer not to put money on this, or anything really. I did
it once on-line and, though I won, it didn't feel right to me.
I'm sort of a Midwestern prude on stuff like this.
Insofar as me requiring anyone to sing Bush's
praises, I wouldn't do that, either. I'm not much of a Bush fan. I
would
have preferred Evan Bayh, frankly. However, the wholesale and mostly
unjustified attacks on Bush are things I'm against. Everyone talks about
how "Bush is dividing the nation", but I suggest you read the posts on
this
NG and other liberal dominated outlets and think about just who is
divisive.
Let's leave Bush out of it.
If only I could :-).
Pack up your troubles in your old kit bag And smile, smile, smile.
If that
level of fraud is not proved, or if the level of Republican
fraud in Milwaukee is higher than Democratic fraud, you will do
the same, only singing the praises of Sen. John Kerry. Deal?
Couldn't do it. I was in Vietnam and for far longer than Kerry was.
What
Kerry did in Vietnam is most probably exactly what those Swift Boat
veterans
say he did... and nothing they say he did has been disproved, while Kerry
has had to admit that a number of his stories were false... but that
doesn't
interest me too much. And Kerry was a pawn of the enemy and did meet
illegally with North Vietnamese negotiators and probably did get a
less-than-honorable discharge (which is why he won't release his
records).... but that's not all that important either. What is important
is
that Kerry signed off saying that there were no more POW's despite
protests
from the Pentagon and families... and records found in the 1990's
indicate
that in excess of 200 men were probably still in captivity when he did
it.
That's too much... no man that sacrificed his fellow countrymen should
ever
be in public office and I could never sing his praises.
OK. I disagree with your general view of Kerry, but respect it.
Why not just wait and see about the fraud allegations.
I will. Other than Kerry was a Democrat, why on earth would a thinking
human being vote for someone who only had 5 pieces of trifling sponsored
legislation passed in 20 years? Who would even hire such a dud? A man
known by his cohorts as always leaving at 5pm and whom even Ted Kennedy
called a phoney? People that would sponsor such a man for president are
voting emotion, not reason. ;^)
But all that's over and perhaps we'll have a contest between 2 people that
aren't sock-puppets next time.
Mike
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Sigman" |
|
| Title: Re: Responding to O'Reillys Re: Bill O'Reilly defends ID |
24 Jan 2005 04:18:44 PM |
|
|
"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@nohormelcharter.net.lga.highwinds-media.com>
wrote in message news:gZgId.5983$5n5.1382@fe03.lga...
Mike Sigman wrote:
That's too much... no man that sacrificed his fellow countrymen should
ever
be in public office and I could never sing his praises.
OK. I disagree with your general view of Kerry, but respect it.
Why not just wait and see about the fraud allegations.
OK, let's. In the meantime, here's an interesting other footnote about
illegal activities in Wisconsin by Dem's:
5 charged in election-day tire slashings
Sons of prominent Milwaukee politicians among those facing felonies
By DERRICK NUNNALLY
dnunnally@journalsentinel.com
Posted: Jan. 24, 2005
Milwaukee County District Attorney E. Michael McCann announced this morning
that five of the seven men arrested in the election-day slashing of
Republican vehicles' tires - including the sons of two prominent Milwaukee
Democratic politicians - have been charged with felonies and will appear in
court this afternoon.
The five who were charged with felony criminal damage to property for
slashing 40 tires on 25 vehicles are:
* Michael Pratt, 32, of the 400 block of N. 16th St., Milwaukee. Pratt is
the son of former acting mayor Marvin Pratt.
* Sowande A. Omokunde, 25, of the 4000 block of N. 19th Place, Milwaukee.
Omokunde is the son of U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore.
* Lewis G. Caldwell, 28, of the 2900 block of N. Summit Ave., Milwaukee.
* Lavelle Mohammad, 35, of the 4700 block of W. Lloyd St., Milwaukee.
* Justin Howell, 20, of the 2400 block of N. Olive St., Racine.
The vans had been rented by the state Republican Party to transport voters
to the polls on election day Nov. 2.
If convicted, each of the five faces up to a $10,000 fine and up to 3 1/2
years in prison. The crime met the $2,500 damage threshold as a felony
because the slashed tires and towing costs totaled more than $5,300,
according to the criminal complaint filed today. It says the men were caught
after a security guard in the Republican Party headquarters parking lot saw
the vandalism and wrote down the license-plate numbers of a fleeing car.
McCann said the state's relatively clean political history makes such
election-day sabotage without precedent in his memory.
"This isn't what goes on all the time in Wisconsin," he said, citing his
recollection of contentious elections from the late 1960s. "... There might
be signs torn down in those campaigns, but never anything like this."
He said the investigation had taken nearly 12 weeks because witnesses had
dispersed after the election to states including Georgia, Virginia, Maryland
and New York, and FBI investigators were sent to conduct the interviews.
"Lying to an FBI agent is a federal offense," McCann explained.
He said the FBI reports only got back to his office Jan. 14 because the
slashings, though locally controversial, probably weren't the highest
priority for federal investigators more concerned with terrorism threats.
"You've got to understand how this looks elsewhere," McCann said. "It's a
tire-slashing case. ... I never got a call from (Attorney General John)
Ashcroft about the case."
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
