--As I promised (some time ago) to post for the formation of my Traditionalist Party.
And here they are:
TRADITIONALIST PARTY PLATFORM
1. We believe the people have been ignored for too long. Too many nominees have gained votes by making promises to the people which they never intended to keep, or, once elected, they've turned their backs on the people to line their pockets with money from special interest groups.
This party hereby publicly renounces all ties, or interests in special interest groups.
The party accepts legal donations from ANY citizen/citizens or groups of citizens, but we will NOT be beholden to ANY, other than the individual American citizen and the country as a whole.
2. Recognizing the fact that this country is comprised of 95% religious citizens, we firmly believe and will actively strive to apply those principles to our every day activities. We also recognize the right of atheist citizens to disbelieve religious tenets but, while we cannot recognize, or sanction any one religion, by the same token we will not sanction, or recognize atheism, which is itself a form of religion.
3. We recognize the Constitution as our only guide to laws.
What the founding fathers have built, we will not break asunder.
We do not recognize "world opinion", or "one world government", when either of those conflict with our Constitution.
We will never allow any of our rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution to be usurped by any world, or state, government.
4. We do not believe in judicial activism. The only function of the United States Supreme Court is to review legislation initiated by Congress as to Constitutionality, or to decide those cases legally brought before it, using Constitutional yardsticks.
We believe one of the many functions of Congress is to oversee the legislative decisions of the Supreme Court. In the event that the Court determines a question cannot be answered by existing laws, then Congress may be called upon to legislate such required laws after full debate. We believe Justices actions maybe be subject to review by the Congress and articles of impeachment may be found warranted individually, or collectively, against the justices of said court if it has been determined they have rendered decisions based on other than Constitutional requirements!
We believe that to prevent party partisanship from occurring, United States Supreme Court Justices should serve a term of not more than 16 years.
5. It is the function of the Executive Branch to insure the safety of the citizenry. To that purpose, the borders of the United States must be secured from illegal trespass and all illegal entrants must be returned to their point of origin.
Immigrants may only be allowed to enter the country by legal means.
We believe penalties should be imposed upon those businesses that knowingly, or unknowingly, employ illegal workers. (There is no reason to NOT know the status of your employees!)
6. We firmly believe in States Rights. At the same time, we do not believe in allowing a state to infringe, or modify, ANY inalienable right of the people as described by the Constitution. To that end, we believe any state laws that counter Constitutional rights, must be declared automatically null and void and we will request Congress to so do.
As an example, we believe Roe vs Wade is unconstitutional, as is the abridging and infringement of the 2nd amendment by several of the states. We believe these infringements are unconstitutional and must be voided!
7. We believe in defending ourselves from any country that wishes us harm by any means at our disposal. We intend to use force only in the amount required for our own safety. We believe in the Geneva accords, and will observe them in various military actions, other than against terrorism. We believe terrorists forfeit their rights to trial by jury, or leniency, by their own actions and we will treat them accordingly.
8. We do not believe in socialism, therefore we do not believe it is the function of a Republic to provide health care for all citizens. We shall, however, provide health care to the needy.
We also believe it is the job of government to insure corporate institutions do not unfairly charge citizens for services, or profit unduly at their expense.
9. We believe the welfare of the people, in the context of a state of being healthy, well fed and comfortable in their lives and their belongings, is one of the primary concerns of a Republic. To that end, we support the creation of work programs for indigent peoples which will provide an increase in self respect, rather than the loss of self as brought on by degrading charity.
10. We believe in the law of Eminent Domain, except that it must be used only for the improvement of public facilities such as freeways, parks, and other items of public benefit. We do not believe in the use of ED for the benefit of a business that offers the payment of higher taxes.
The property of a citizen is exclusively his own and may not be taken, without a fair payment of market value as determined by independent assessors, for any reason other than those enumerated.
11. The Executive Branch shall have line item veto power. Upon veto by the president, the item(s) shall be returned to Congress who, by a 2/3 majority, may override the president’s veto.
The above are subject to change through editing, or addition.
I thought it would be interesting to see what some of the founding fathers had to say about our government and I've included the three comments, below.
"The Constitution on which our Union rests, shall be administered ... according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States at the time of its adoption...." --Thomas Jefferson
"Nothing has yet been offered to invalidate the doctrine that the meaning of the Constitution may as well be ascertained by the Legislative as by the Judicial authority." --James Madison
"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." -- Thomas Jefferson
Saturday, August 13, 2005
Hiroshima--Facts?
Indeed! Protestors would have us believe we deliberately "incinerated" 100,000 people in Hiroshima without regard for the damage done, or the lives lost.
Being cruel people, we deliberately destroyed a city and left radiation within it's boundaries which contributed to the deaths of an additional 70,000 people.
Sounds terrible, doesn't it?
There's an old saying---"War is hell"! And now we, and the Japanese people, know what Hell is actually like!
You see, I remember well the 2nd World War. I remember who started it and how it was started! I also remember the treatment of our prisoners. We foolishly expected the Japanese to adhere to the Geneva Conventions, forgetting the Japanese were one of the countries who refused to sign the accords, thus declaring their intention of handling prisoners as THEY saw fit.
So they did.
The list of atrocities is long, beginning with the Bataan Death March, where Allied prisoners who had been marched for hours, or days, without food or drink were bayonetted when they fell out of line because of their weakness.
The list of atrocities in China were even longer and are available to any who care to look up the numbers.
But those were not all the reasons why we used the bomb at Hiroshima. No!
It was the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, while continuing negotiations in Washington.
It was the suicidal Kamikaze attacks on ships.
It was the resistance to the last man at Iwo Jima and Tarawa.
It was reports of the arming of the citizenry, with every indication that the Japanese would fight to the last man on their mainland---which they have admitted they would have done.
And, finally, It was the refusal to surrender unconditionally, which demand was made weeks and days before the Hiroshima bomb was dropped.
It would have cost 1 million lives if we had invaded Japan.
It would also have meant the total destruction of Japan, because, having air superiority over the mainland, we would have systematically destroyed ALL of the major cities through conventional bombings just as we did in Europe.
Remember, the allies had destroyed eight major cities in Germany, creating fire storms that raged for days, killing over 800,000 people! Where's the outrage over that?
Apparently it's OK to kill nearly 1 million people--as long as you do it by conventional methods!
Over 100,000 people died in the initial conventional bombing of Tokyo.
What would the loss have been if we had continued and destroyed the whole city?
--Or if we had continued and destroyed ALL major cities in Japan?
Does "1 million" sound familiar? Would it have approached 2 million? And all of this could have been accomplished BEFORE one American set foot on the mainland!
Assuming the forgoing had already happened, when the Marines and their Allies finally landed on the mainland, how many would have died, due to the fanaticism of the Japanese soldier? How many Japanese would have died, due to the materiel superiority of the Americans and their allies?
No, to complain about the dropping of the first Atomic bomb on Hiroshima, is to deny the reality of what war WOULD have been like WITHOUT the bomb!
Americans should never feel shame for ending a war that had already claimed more lives than any war in the history of the planet!
Think about this--Germany was within 6 months of developing an Atomic bomb, when the war ended.
Does ANYBODY think there would have been ANY hesitation about using the bomb on England, or the U.S.? We already have Hitler's words of impatience at the slowness of it's development.
The world should be grateful the United States developed the first Atomic bomb and USED it to END a devastating war!
Being cruel people, we deliberately destroyed a city and left radiation within it's boundaries which contributed to the deaths of an additional 70,000 people.
Sounds terrible, doesn't it?
There's an old saying---"War is hell"! And now we, and the Japanese people, know what Hell is actually like!
You see, I remember well the 2nd World War. I remember who started it and how it was started! I also remember the treatment of our prisoners. We foolishly expected the Japanese to adhere to the Geneva Conventions, forgetting the Japanese were one of the countries who refused to sign the accords, thus declaring their intention of handling prisoners as THEY saw fit.
So they did.
The list of atrocities is long, beginning with the Bataan Death March, where Allied prisoners who had been marched for hours, or days, without food or drink were bayonetted when they fell out of line because of their weakness.
The list of atrocities in China were even longer and are available to any who care to look up the numbers.
But those were not all the reasons why we used the bomb at Hiroshima. No!
It was the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, while continuing negotiations in Washington.
It was the suicidal Kamikaze attacks on ships.
It was the resistance to the last man at Iwo Jima and Tarawa.
It was reports of the arming of the citizenry, with every indication that the Japanese would fight to the last man on their mainland---which they have admitted they would have done.
And, finally, It was the refusal to surrender unconditionally, which demand was made weeks and days before the Hiroshima bomb was dropped.
It would have cost 1 million lives if we had invaded Japan.
It would also have meant the total destruction of Japan, because, having air superiority over the mainland, we would have systematically destroyed ALL of the major cities through conventional bombings just as we did in Europe.
Remember, the allies had destroyed eight major cities in Germany, creating fire storms that raged for days, killing over 800,000 people! Where's the outrage over that?
Apparently it's OK to kill nearly 1 million people--as long as you do it by conventional methods!
Over 100,000 people died in the initial conventional bombing of Tokyo.
What would the loss have been if we had continued and destroyed the whole city?
--Or if we had continued and destroyed ALL major cities in Japan?
Does "1 million" sound familiar? Would it have approached 2 million? And all of this could have been accomplished BEFORE one American set foot on the mainland!
Assuming the forgoing had already happened, when the Marines and their Allies finally landed on the mainland, how many would have died, due to the fanaticism of the Japanese soldier? How many Japanese would have died, due to the materiel superiority of the Americans and their allies?
No, to complain about the dropping of the first Atomic bomb on Hiroshima, is to deny the reality of what war WOULD have been like WITHOUT the bomb!
Americans should never feel shame for ending a war that had already claimed more lives than any war in the history of the planet!
Think about this--Germany was within 6 months of developing an Atomic bomb, when the war ended.
Does ANYBODY think there would have been ANY hesitation about using the bomb on England, or the U.S.? We already have Hitler's words of impatience at the slowness of it's development.
The world should be grateful the United States developed the first Atomic bomb and USED it to END a devastating war!
Warnings for Family and Country--
This site is turning into something other than what I intended!
It was to be a chronicle of my events, for the information of my family.
Thus, I could pass on items that should be of great interest to them, whether they concerned me, or our family.
Instead, I find I've included other events I deemed necessary to their knowledge as well.
A few of my posts have mentioned things which I believe the family needs to take note of---things like the recent Stupid Supreme court decisions! Also, the continual and annual hullabaloo over the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings! Abortion practices and Gay marriages as well as loss of religion from our institutions!
The major events occurring now are something every family should take note of. Unfortunately, too many of us go our merry way doing our daily routines--commute, work, commute--collapse, so that we hardly have time for our own families.
The threats to the country are extreme and immediate! Socialists have been joined by communists (who now call themselves "progressives") and, between the two, have taken over the Democrat Party, along with the many fools in Follywood!
The Democrats, who used to be dependable for their leaders, now do nothing but nominate, or appoint idiots who spit invective and invidious comments into our airwaves and then have the nerve to expect us to vote for them!
So, on those occasions where I see threats to our country, or to our family, I'll be posting my warnings, accordingly.
(Posted 8/22/05 from original draft!)
It was to be a chronicle of my events, for the information of my family.
Thus, I could pass on items that should be of great interest to them, whether they concerned me, or our family.
Instead, I find I've included other events I deemed necessary to their knowledge as well.
A few of my posts have mentioned things which I believe the family needs to take note of---things like the recent Stupid Supreme court decisions! Also, the continual and annual hullabaloo over the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings! Abortion practices and Gay marriages as well as loss of religion from our institutions!
The major events occurring now are something every family should take note of. Unfortunately, too many of us go our merry way doing our daily routines--commute, work, commute--collapse, so that we hardly have time for our own families.
The threats to the country are extreme and immediate! Socialists have been joined by communists (who now call themselves "progressives") and, between the two, have taken over the Democrat Party, along with the many fools in Follywood!
The Democrats, who used to be dependable for their leaders, now do nothing but nominate, or appoint idiots who spit invective and invidious comments into our airwaves and then have the nerve to expect us to vote for them!
So, on those occasions where I see threats to our country, or to our family, I'll be posting my warnings, accordingly.
(Posted 8/22/05 from original draft!)
Monday, August 08, 2005
SOME SISTERS CAN BE A PAIN IN THE A**,
or, HOW LEONARD BECAME A MARKSMAN!
You know, when you're great white hunters, it's pretty easy to get yourself, through no fault of your own mind you, into serious trouble with people who have no sympathy for great white hunters!
One day Leonard and I just happened to be about 50 yards out behind his house lying in the tall grass watching the big, white cloud formations overhead. As most eight year olds will do, we were talking about what great men we were going to be someday, when we heard the back door of his house bang shut. We sat up and observed, in thoughtful silence, Leonard's six year old sister Mary making a quick trip to the outhouse. The front door of Leonard's outhouse was situated at a right angle to us, which made observation of entrances and exits quite clear. After a couple of minutes, Mary was ready to exit. By mutual agreement and for want of anything better to do, we waited until the latch lifted and the door started to swing toward us. We both fired one round from our ever-present BB guns at the center of the door.
The door slammed shut. Not a sound. The door slowly started to swing open once more. Two more shots zinged off the front of the door. The screams of outrage from sister Mary brought Mother to the rescue from the house. Of course, Leonard's Ma couldn't see us in the tall grass. Ten minutes later, after the uproar had died down, Leonard went into the house to ask his Mother's permission to go hunting with me in the Durant woods. I knew there was something amiss when Leonard came out of the house followed by sister Mary. With a hang-dog expression, he informed me that his Mother, as punishment for our shooting at the outhouse door, had said he could go hunting, but had to let sister Mary tag along. Talk about inventive punishment!
It was an impending disaster from the start!
Sister Mary skipped joyfully ahead of us towards the woods. Occasionally she would stop, bend over, flip her skirt over her back baring her panties in our face and comment, scathingly, "Nyah, Nyah!" The comment annoyed me, but I was appreciative of the view.
The third time this happened, Leonard pushed the barrel of his BB gun within one inch of her left buttock and pulled the trigger. So ended the hunting trip for sister Mary!
It was two weeks before I saw Leonard again!
I remember once, Leonard and I were trying to knock a squirrel out of a tree by tossing rocks at him. Leonard's aim, that day, was better than mine; his rock conked the squirrel upside the head, knocking him cold! Leonard went over and picked him up while I looked on enviously.
As we stood admiring his fur--which was full of fleas--Mr. Squirrel suddenly woke up. He took one look at Leonard's face and demonstrated his desire to become a living flag by turning his head and chomping onto the web between Leonard's thumb and first finger, which, of course, caused Leonard to hoist the squirrel into the air, and flap him vigorously while running for the house making big hunter noises like, "Yowch! Eeyow! Ma-a-a-a!"
When he figured he'd flapped long enough to make his point, Mr. Squirrel dropped off and zipped up the nearest tree.
Leonard was a neat guy and funny, too! He was also fast as hell when he wanted to be!
AMAZING FACTS! (YEAH! SURE!)
In the Winter, the pond in the woods had ice to skate on and nearby were small hills for the older kids to ski on. My buddies and I used the hills for sledding, sometimes getting in the way of the skiers, which invariably ticked them off something fierce! They didn't argue with us too much, though. After all, sleds are built ankle height!
As all ponds do, this one had thin spots in the ice around the edges, which were easily broken through if you didn't have enough sled speed to carry you up onto the bank. Stop short and you dropped into a foot of freezing water.
I'll never forget watching Leonard, out in the center of the ice, as he came running hell-bent for leather for the shore. After reaching what he judged to be exit speed, he threw himself down on his sled and glided swiftly to within two feet of the shore where the sled, slowing, stopped dead. For one agonizing second, I could see the cold facts of his circumstance soaking into Leonard's swift little brain, then, with a soft CRACK, Leonard dropped into water that closed completely over his back! He came up sputtering and blowing and spent the next hour by a roaring fire on the bank, trying to get dry.
All the time he sat there drying out, he kept muttering about how he was going to "--fix my wagon", because I wouldn't stop laughing.
I couldn't sympathize with him because whenever I came home with half-frozen feet, my Mother would take my boots off and rub my feet with snow and, young as I was, that never made sense to me. My feet were cold and she put more snow on them? Well, what did I know? I was only a kid and the rubbing did warm my feet up--eventually!
I've talked about how the Winters were cold but never mentioned how wonderful I thought the Summers were. I really liked it most when the humidity was 98 percent and the temperature hovered around 85 degrees. Adults hated it, but it usually rained then and Mom would let me go out on the front lawn and play in the rain. I'd wear a bathing suit and run all over the lawn just like I was in a sprinkler, only I'd never actually seen a sprinkler, of course!
One day, under those same rainy conditions, Mom wouldn't let me go outside. I couldn't understand why. She pointed out the door at several blue gossamer balls, probably four to six inches in diameter, some rolling quickly over the lawn while others zigzagged a little more thoughtfully.
They looked harmless to me. In fact, they looked like it might be fun to chase a few of them and give 'em a good kick, and I wished Mom wasn't such a scaredy-cat as I watched her go back to her ironing.
Eventually I lost interest in watching balls I couldn't chase and moved to the front room floor to goof around with some small cars. Moments later, I heard a strange sizzling sound and when I looked up, the screen door was covered in a blue haze--and just as I looked--BANG!-- there was a streak of blue that zipped up to the ceiling, striking a conduit carrying electrical wiring to a light bulb in the middle of the ceiling, and POW the bulb blew out!
POW, I was under the couch!
My Mother didn't have time to be frightened. The iron, which had been plugged into the outlet on the other end of the conduit was now deader'n a doornail and left her standing there wondering what the hell had happened. She didn't have a mark on her, but the con-duit and wiring were black!
I was a lot more careful about what I wished for from then on, let me tell you! I also decided maybe Mom knew what she was doing, after all!
or, HOW LEONARD BECAME A MARKSMAN!
You know, when you're great white hunters, it's pretty easy to get yourself, through no fault of your own mind you, into serious trouble with people who have no sympathy for great white hunters!
One day Leonard and I just happened to be about 50 yards out behind his house lying in the tall grass watching the big, white cloud formations overhead. As most eight year olds will do, we were talking about what great men we were going to be someday, when we heard the back door of his house bang shut. We sat up and observed, in thoughtful silence, Leonard's six year old sister Mary making a quick trip to the outhouse. The front door of Leonard's outhouse was situated at a right angle to us, which made observation of entrances and exits quite clear. After a couple of minutes, Mary was ready to exit. By mutual agreement and for want of anything better to do, we waited until the latch lifted and the door started to swing toward us. We both fired one round from our ever-present BB guns at the center of the door.
The door slammed shut. Not a sound. The door slowly started to swing open once more. Two more shots zinged off the front of the door. The screams of outrage from sister Mary brought Mother to the rescue from the house. Of course, Leonard's Ma couldn't see us in the tall grass. Ten minutes later, after the uproar had died down, Leonard went into the house to ask his Mother's permission to go hunting with me in the Durant woods. I knew there was something amiss when Leonard came out of the house followed by sister Mary. With a hang-dog expression, he informed me that his Mother, as punishment for our shooting at the outhouse door, had said he could go hunting, but had to let sister Mary tag along. Talk about inventive punishment!
It was an impending disaster from the start!
Sister Mary skipped joyfully ahead of us towards the woods. Occasionally she would stop, bend over, flip her skirt over her back baring her panties in our face and comment, scathingly, "Nyah, Nyah!" The comment annoyed me, but I was appreciative of the view.
The third time this happened, Leonard pushed the barrel of his BB gun within one inch of her left buttock and pulled the trigger. So ended the hunting trip for sister Mary!
It was two weeks before I saw Leonard again!
I remember once, Leonard and I were trying to knock a squirrel out of a tree by tossing rocks at him. Leonard's aim, that day, was better than mine; his rock conked the squirrel upside the head, knocking him cold! Leonard went over and picked him up while I looked on enviously.
As we stood admiring his fur--which was full of fleas--Mr. Squirrel suddenly woke up. He took one look at Leonard's face and demonstrated his desire to become a living flag by turning his head and chomping onto the web between Leonard's thumb and first finger, which, of course, caused Leonard to hoist the squirrel into the air, and flap him vigorously while running for the house making big hunter noises like, "Yowch! Eeyow! Ma-a-a-a!"
When he figured he'd flapped long enough to make his point, Mr. Squirrel dropped off and zipped up the nearest tree.
Leonard was a neat guy and funny, too! He was also fast as hell when he wanted to be!
AMAZING FACTS! (YEAH! SURE!)
In the Winter, the pond in the woods had ice to skate on and nearby were small hills for the older kids to ski on. My buddies and I used the hills for sledding, sometimes getting in the way of the skiers, which invariably ticked them off something fierce! They didn't argue with us too much, though. After all, sleds are built ankle height!
As all ponds do, this one had thin spots in the ice around the edges, which were easily broken through if you didn't have enough sled speed to carry you up onto the bank. Stop short and you dropped into a foot of freezing water.
I'll never forget watching Leonard, out in the center of the ice, as he came running hell-bent for leather for the shore. After reaching what he judged to be exit speed, he threw himself down on his sled and glided swiftly to within two feet of the shore where the sled, slowing, stopped dead. For one agonizing second, I could see the cold facts of his circumstance soaking into Leonard's swift little brain, then, with a soft CRACK, Leonard dropped into water that closed completely over his back! He came up sputtering and blowing and spent the next hour by a roaring fire on the bank, trying to get dry.
All the time he sat there drying out, he kept muttering about how he was going to "--fix my wagon", because I wouldn't stop laughing.
I couldn't sympathize with him because whenever I came home with half-frozen feet, my Mother would take my boots off and rub my feet with snow and, young as I was, that never made sense to me. My feet were cold and she put more snow on them? Well, what did I know? I was only a kid and the rubbing did warm my feet up--eventually!
I've talked about how the Winters were cold but never mentioned how wonderful I thought the Summers were. I really liked it most when the humidity was 98 percent and the temperature hovered around 85 degrees. Adults hated it, but it usually rained then and Mom would let me go out on the front lawn and play in the rain. I'd wear a bathing suit and run all over the lawn just like I was in a sprinkler, only I'd never actually seen a sprinkler, of course!
One day, under those same rainy conditions, Mom wouldn't let me go outside. I couldn't understand why. She pointed out the door at several blue gossamer balls, probably four to six inches in diameter, some rolling quickly over the lawn while others zigzagged a little more thoughtfully.
They looked harmless to me. In fact, they looked like it might be fun to chase a few of them and give 'em a good kick, and I wished Mom wasn't such a scaredy-cat as I watched her go back to her ironing.
Eventually I lost interest in watching balls I couldn't chase and moved to the front room floor to goof around with some small cars. Moments later, I heard a strange sizzling sound and when I looked up, the screen door was covered in a blue haze--and just as I looked--BANG!-- there was a streak of blue that zipped up to the ceiling, striking a conduit carrying electrical wiring to a light bulb in the middle of the ceiling, and POW the bulb blew out!
POW, I was under the couch!
My Mother didn't have time to be frightened. The iron, which had been plugged into the outlet on the other end of the conduit was now deader'n a doornail and left her standing there wondering what the hell had happened. She didn't have a mark on her, but the con-duit and wiring were black!
I was a lot more careful about what I wished for from then on, let me tell you! I also decided maybe Mom knew what she was doing, after all!
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Intelligent Creation, or Darwinism?
Another flap is brewing over the theory of evolution. This time between some teachers, who resist classes that have any hint of the religious, and those who believe there should be classes that teach intelligent design.
Intelligent design, of course, is the theory that the universe is too complex to have been designed through chance, but instead, follows the design of a superior intelligence.
Critics claim the latter is just teaching religion.
Personally, I think Darwin's theory is just the opposite---teaching atheism, since it denys a supreme being had any hand in the creation of the universe!
Here's an article on the subject, along with my remarks:
Contra Costa Times
Posted on Wed, Aug. 03, 2005
Bush re-ignites debate over teaching evolution
By Elisabeth Bumiller
NEW YORK TIMES
WASHINGTON - A sharp debate between scientists and religious conservatives escalated Tuesday over comments by President Bush that the theory of intelligent design should be taught with evolution in the nation's public schools.
In an interview at the White House on Monday with a group of Texas newspaper reporters, Bush appeared to endorse the push by many of his conservative Christian supporters to give intelligent design equal treatment with the theory of evolution in public schools.
Recalling his days as Texas governor, Bush said in the interview, according to a transcript, "I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught."
Asked again by a reporter whether he believed that both sides in the debate between evolution and intelligent design should be taught in the schools, Bush replied that he did, "so people can understand what the debate is about."
Bush was pressed as to whether he accepted the view that intelligent design was an alternative to evolution, but he did not directly answer.
"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," he said, adding that "you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."
He spoke on the topic a second time after presiding over the ceremony Tuesday in the East Room of the White House, putting his signature on a free trade pact with six Latin American countries.
"Strengthening our economic ties with our democratic neighbors is vital to America's economic and national security interests," Bush told his audience shortly before he signed the Central American Free Trade Agreement.
Later Tuesday, the president's conservative Christian supporters and the leading institute advancing intelligent design embraced Bush's comments, while scientists and advocates of the separation of church and state disparaged them. (Ignoring the fact that there are scientists who ALSO advocate intelligent design!)
At the White House, where intelligent design has been discussed in a weekly Bible study group, Bush's science adviser, John Marburger III, sought to play down the president's remarks as common sense and old news.
Marburger said in a telephone interview that "evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology" and "intelligent design is not a scientific concept."
Marburger also said that Bush's remarks should be interpreted to mean that the president believes that intelligent design should be discussed as part of the "social context" in science classes.
Intelligent design, advanced by a group of academics and intellectuals and some biblical creationists, disputes the idea that natural selection -- the force Charles Darwin suggested drove evolution -- fully explains the complexity of life.
Instead, intelligent design proponents say that life is so intricate that only a powerful guiding force, or intelligent designer, could have created it.
Intelligent design does not identify the designer, but critics say the theory is a thinly disguised argument for God and the divine creation of the universe.
Invigorated by a recent push by conservatives, the theory has been gaining support in school districts in 20 states, with Kansas in the lead.
Marburger said that it would be "overinterpreting" Bush's remarks to say that the president believes that intelligent design and evolution should be given equal treatment in schools.
But Bush's conservative supporters said that the president had indicated exactly that in his remarks.
"It's what I've been pushing, it's what a lot of us have been pushing," said Richard Land, the president of the ethics and religious liberties commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Land, who has close ties to the White House, said that evolution "is too often taught as fact," and that "if you're going to teach the Darwinian theory as evolution, teach it as theory.
"And then teach another theory that has the most support among scientists."
But critics saw Bush's comment that "both sides" should be taught as the most troubling aspect of his remarks.
"It sounds like you're being fair, but creationism is a sectarian religious viewpoint, and intelligent design is a sectarian religious viewpoint," said Susan Spath, a spokeswoman for the National Center for Science Education, a group that defends the teaching of evolution in public schools.
"It's not fair to privilege one religious viewpoint by calling it the other side of evolution."
(Just as it's not fair to present only ONE side of a theory!)
Intelligent design, of course, is the theory that the universe is too complex to have been designed through chance, but instead, follows the design of a superior intelligence.
Critics claim the latter is just teaching religion.
Personally, I think Darwin's theory is just the opposite---teaching atheism, since it denys a supreme being had any hand in the creation of the universe!
Here's an article on the subject, along with my remarks:
Contra Costa Times
Posted on Wed, Aug. 03, 2005
Bush re-ignites debate over teaching evolution
By Elisabeth Bumiller
NEW YORK TIMES
WASHINGTON - A sharp debate between scientists and religious conservatives escalated Tuesday over comments by President Bush that the theory of intelligent design should be taught with evolution in the nation's public schools.
In an interview at the White House on Monday with a group of Texas newspaper reporters, Bush appeared to endorse the push by many of his conservative Christian supporters to give intelligent design equal treatment with the theory of evolution in public schools.
Recalling his days as Texas governor, Bush said in the interview, according to a transcript, "I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught."
Asked again by a reporter whether he believed that both sides in the debate between evolution and intelligent design should be taught in the schools, Bush replied that he did, "so people can understand what the debate is about."
Bush was pressed as to whether he accepted the view that intelligent design was an alternative to evolution, but he did not directly answer.
"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," he said, adding that "you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."
He spoke on the topic a second time after presiding over the ceremony Tuesday in the East Room of the White House, putting his signature on a free trade pact with six Latin American countries.
"Strengthening our economic ties with our democratic neighbors is vital to America's economic and national security interests," Bush told his audience shortly before he signed the Central American Free Trade Agreement.
Later Tuesday, the president's conservative Christian supporters and the leading institute advancing intelligent design embraced Bush's comments, while scientists and advocates of the separation of church and state disparaged them. (Ignoring the fact that there are scientists who ALSO advocate intelligent design!)
At the White House, where intelligent design has been discussed in a weekly Bible study group, Bush's science adviser, John Marburger III, sought to play down the president's remarks as common sense and old news.
Marburger said in a telephone interview that "evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology" and "intelligent design is not a scientific concept."
Marburger also said that Bush's remarks should be interpreted to mean that the president believes that intelligent design should be discussed as part of the "social context" in science classes.
Intelligent design, advanced by a group of academics and intellectuals and some biblical creationists, disputes the idea that natural selection -- the force Charles Darwin suggested drove evolution -- fully explains the complexity of life.
Instead, intelligent design proponents say that life is so intricate that only a powerful guiding force, or intelligent designer, could have created it.
Intelligent design does not identify the designer, but critics say the theory is a thinly disguised argument for God and the divine creation of the universe.
Invigorated by a recent push by conservatives, the theory has been gaining support in school districts in 20 states, with Kansas in the lead.
Marburger said that it would be "overinterpreting" Bush's remarks to say that the president believes that intelligent design and evolution should be given equal treatment in schools.
But Bush's conservative supporters said that the president had indicated exactly that in his remarks.
"It's what I've been pushing, it's what a lot of us have been pushing," said Richard Land, the president of the ethics and religious liberties commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Land, who has close ties to the White House, said that evolution "is too often taught as fact," and that "if you're going to teach the Darwinian theory as evolution, teach it as theory.
"And then teach another theory that has the most support among scientists."
But critics saw Bush's comment that "both sides" should be taught as the most troubling aspect of his remarks.
"It sounds like you're being fair, but creationism is a sectarian religious viewpoint, and intelligent design is a sectarian religious viewpoint," said Susan Spath, a spokeswoman for the National Center for Science Education, a group that defends the teaching of evolution in public schools.
"It's not fair to privilege one religious viewpoint by calling it the other side of evolution."
(Just as it's not fair to present only ONE side of a theory!)
Monday, August 01, 2005
Bolton Gets the Nod--
--Which should teach Kennedy and Klan that it's better to allow a vote, if you don't like the candidate. That way, you have a say in government!
As it is, President Bush appointed John Bolton as U.N. Representative.
The Dems, of course, are howling their heads off, but it's their own fault for delaying the vote on his nomination.
Personally, I suspect Bolton may turn out to be an excellent representative, simply because he won't take the crap the UN hands out on a daily basis.
He may also remind them of their failings in human rights in Africa where, at the first sign of trouble, they turned and ran.
The oil fiasco hasn't been cleared up to anybody's satisfaction--except those who benefitted from it, like Kofi's son and, maybe, Kofi, too.
Both should be kicked out of the UN, simply because of suspicious behavior! Annan has already said he won't resign, which is the honorable thing to do.
Of course, accusing Annan of displaying "honor" is like saying movie stars who play the part of a hero, are actually heroes!
As it is, President Bush appointed John Bolton as U.N. Representative.
The Dems, of course, are howling their heads off, but it's their own fault for delaying the vote on his nomination.
Personally, I suspect Bolton may turn out to be an excellent representative, simply because he won't take the crap the UN hands out on a daily basis.
He may also remind them of their failings in human rights in Africa where, at the first sign of trouble, they turned and ran.
The oil fiasco hasn't been cleared up to anybody's satisfaction--except those who benefitted from it, like Kofi's son and, maybe, Kofi, too.
Both should be kicked out of the UN, simply because of suspicious behavior! Annan has already said he won't resign, which is the honorable thing to do.
Of course, accusing Annan of displaying "honor" is like saying movie stars who play the part of a hero, are actually heroes!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)