Is George Bush smart enough to be able to pretend to sound as stupid as he does?

How many times has Palin said anything really stupid when taken in the context of the situation?

I think she learns no more than she needs to; thus she is deficient for her current candidacy. But that will not be the case in another few weeks. In the meantime, sombody has to speak for the Repubs, and he is not so bright. More attention there.

wrote: No one, and I mean NO ONE who understands and accepts the truth of evolution would argue that creationism should be taught as well.

A politician often preaches to the choir.

I think BBC News is just a shadow now.

If you say in your fundamentalist church that you believe that both creationism and evolution should be taught, then you are taking a liberal position. You are in effect saying, I am with you folks on this, but not everyone one believes in our point of view, and it is not possible for us to get what we want at this time. Is this not what governor Palin would say, given her background and her ambitions? Would this say anything about what she believes?

Shooter: you can believe in evolution without being so sure how it all got started. But even you knew that?

No. Evolution is a scientific theory, mostly verified. Creationism is a particular belief. There is no way they can be taught in an equivalent way. For example, one can invent some other possibilities. Should they be taught equally? How many different ones should catered to?

Urging the teaching of both is either ignorant or dishonest, possibly both. But not everyone who does so has the same reason. What is SP's

wrote: And seriously, how long would it take? One classroom discussion a year to suggest, "And by the way, here's one of the major arguments posited against the theory of evolution in this country today."

OK, you really do not get it. Creationism is not an argument against evolution, no matter what some might say. It is just a statement that the bible trumps all. Nothing wrong with discussing creationism in high school, but not in a science class.

I know something about what is in science text books. There is nothing wrong with placing science in context with a discussion of historical ideas. That is nothing like including creationism in a science book. Do you think any publisher of science textbooks would dare include creationism as historical context?

No, I never believed that you are a creationist. I think you do not understand science very well, or how beliefs are handled in US society.

You might consider the following definition of materialism from WP:

The philosophy of materialism holds that the only thing that can be truly proven to exist is matter, and is considered a form of physicalism. Fundamentally, all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions; therefore, matter is the only substance.

Note that there is no suggestion that matter is the only thing, just that interactions involving matter (in the more general sense including energy) are all that we can know about, and indeed are the mechanism of information transfer. The origin of the universe is not constrained by this definition.

Web sites with a religious bias, often hidden, use a much harsher definition of materialism so they can demonstrate that it is deficient as a philosophy. I think that is what you are doing, whether intentionally or not, I do not know.

No, I do not think you are a bible thumper, and did not imply that you are. But you do not understand the meaning or implications of materialism. If you did, you would not have made the statement about worshiping matter, or would have backed off a bit when challenged.

wrote:

The other part of the case, if correct, is the really scary one: that provisions in the PATRIOT act, or state implementations of it that mimic it's language, make it possible to do what would normally be illegal pre-emptive actions against lawful free speech, at the sole price of charging those arrested with terrorism (even knowing the charges will be thrown out and part of the insurance policy will have to be dipped into to pay for it). It suggests that there are people in jail in Minneapolis/St. Paul -- today -- who are there solely to allow actions that would have been illegal if they weren't put in jail, not because they are even believed to have done anything.

I suspect that some of those terrorism charges will not be thrown out. Plenty of hard work will go into this; it is how careers of a kind are made. Just another bonus for the repubs: a complete justification of preemptive demonstration busting.

Where is the evidence for this?

wrote, in part:

so re-arrest the person to make the terrorism charge credible enough to make the argument of good faith belief in a terrorist plot.

Thanks, I understood all but the "re-arrest", thinking that y (OK, maybe I have the wrong letter!) was still in jail. The Feds would prefer that the charges go away, but if y has been charged under the local MN version of the P act, then maybe the Feds do not get to decide. Maybe the local guy wants to see how far he can take it.

It is time to drop the bridge to nowhere and concentrate on raids to your wallet. In her speech (yes, that one, is there another significant one yet?) Palin claimed that McCain will cut your taxes and Obama will raise them. Not true unless you are quite wealthy. Some folks have been known to vote on economic issues, and this is a big one. We have a lie about money; should we hit this one a bit harder?

...Good for him!