October 14, 2010

Watch Christine O'Donnell dominate debate, even as Wolf Blitzer tries to control her.



She is not susceptible to pushback by people who imagine themselves her superiors. Extremely well done.

More on the debate here.

ADDED: I think this clip — I haven't watched the rest of the debate — will resonate with women. A lot of us have had experiences with men trying to control us like this, and we instinctively root for the woman in this situation. I was reminded of the famous Hillary Clinton-Rick Lazio debate, in which the male, Lazio, invaded the zone of personal privacy of the female, Clinton.

AND: You can really feel the disrespect for O'Donnell in that clip. Whether it's because she's a woman or not, I think it stirs something instinctive in many women. It's dangerous for men even to seem to give off the vibe that they're really saying: You don't really belong here, little lady. Hillary has often tried to get us to feel that vibe, and it's worked for her quite few times.

210 comments:

1 – 200 of 210   Newer›   Newest»
Emily said...

Huh, I don't think you were watching the same debate.

Fen said...

Emily, at least watch the clip

AJ Lynch said...

I could never vote for Ron "Opie" Howard.

Darrell said...

Fun fact: Chris Coons raised property taxes three times during the course of the debate.

Pogo said...

He called himself a 'capitalist'.

Ha ha ha.

Well, Delaware citizens are about to vote in another socialist like BHO.

You can't stop people from committing suicide.

David said...

Damn, not stupid after all. But she's a conservative Republican woman. Does not Compute. Must eradicate. Must destroy. Bzzzzst! Crash!

paul a'barge said...

More than anyone in America today, women need to wake up to the game that's being played with them.

Jenner said...

From the commentary, the only thing I heard she flubbed was not naming a recent US Supreme Court opinion with which she disagreed. I am not convinced that type of question is all that valid. I don't know that many people outside of the law who really follow the Court that closely - how would the answer mean that much to them? Other than to try to trip someone up?

Ann Althouse said...

Did she even say "un" once? The lady is articulate.

tim maguire said...

That is good. What she said more than a decade ago on a comedy show is relevant, but what he said two weeks ago in a serious interview isn't because he was joking.

Lem said...

Yes!!!

David said...

"Feel the disrespect . . . "

That, and more. Fear. Contempt. See how Coons grimaces and shakes his head as Christine speaks.

Remember, Coons is showing contempt for the well considered views of hundreds of thousands of his constituents, not just for Christine O'Donnell.

She may not win this election, but somehow I think she will have the last laugh.

Perhaps in the Palin White House.

MadisonMan said...

I think part of the problem is that Christine O'Donnell is polite, and listens to her opponent. In contrast, he tries to talk over her at the end.

As soon as he started talking about college, she should have been bringing up the more recent MSNBC comment -- that part got lost in the shuffle.

AJ Lynch said...

Delaware voters tend to send smug, phony pols to Congress. What else could explain their sending a dunce like Bite Me Biden to the Senate for 36 years?

Fen said...

but what he said two weeks ago in a serious interview isn't because he was joking.

Even better: "I treat commencement ceremonies as a joke, so send me to Congress, where I can star opposite Jon Stewart"

PatCA said...

I can't access the clip, but I watched the first hour of the debate and I was shocked at how well she did, given the gossip about her.

She was in command of her facts, lots of facts, and seemed open and friendly while Coons avoided answering her charges and just glared at her with contempt.

She won, hands down, the first hour anyway. I would feel fine about voting for her.

MayBee said...

I think it's hilarious. Obama is falling with female voters and his party thinks the answer is to treat female Republicans with outright disdain.

Not only that, but Christine O'Donnell is running in a small state and has never really been close in the polls. But it's her debate that gets nationally televised. It's her on SNL.
They want everyone to see how they will treat the wrong kind of woman.
The right kind of woman gets to see a show with the Mom in Chief and Sarah Jessica Parker.

AJ Lynch said...

Maybe Chris Mathews thinks the Donner Party members were the first Tea Partiers.

Lem said...

How much of a chance did Rove really give O'Donnell?

Lem said...

There is a good chance Rove may have treated her just Coons.

Cedarford said...

Ann Althouse said...
Did she even say "un" once? The lady is articulate.
=======================
Of course she is, she was a theater and drama major who worked hard over 23 years to get her undergrad degree.
For 20 years she has been a professionally cute and spunky media maven and "entertaining talking head". So she has a lot of practice being slick - but all that slick doesn't disguise the cringeworthy vacuity of the woman.

I was waiting for Ann to finish with "Clean, unusually articulate".

Yes, Coons is a liberal tool. Hopefully the "purity squad zealots" of the Tea Party will be held in check by the others that conclude it is embarassing to pick an unelectable candidate to "send a message" to electable moderate Republicans by sending a liberal tool like Coons to DC.

Because the Massachusetts Tea Party put moderate Scott Brown in office instead of guaranteeing Martha Coakley's victory - and the Delaware Tea Party snatched defeat from the jaws of victory - I'd say Mass Tea Party members have bragging rights to higher IQ's than the Delaware Tea Party folk.

1jpb said...

I hope it's not disrespectful/controlling to note that she's adorable.

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

"How much of a chance did Rove really give O'Donnell?"

Lem, he didn't give her any.

But what he did give her because of his instant comments was OVER $2 million dollars in donations in a little over 48 hours if I recall.


WV: hoppl, who's the hoppl now,eh?

AJ Lynch said...

"Vacuity"? Would you say a senator like John Kerry has that too?

The Crack Emcee said...

I saw lots of things but want a comment on this:

A lot of us have had experiences with men trying to control us like this, and we instinctively root for the woman in this situation.

How is getting a yes or no answer to a yes or no question "men trying to control" you?

I served in the military and that's what was expected. I've been in a few court rooms and that was expected. It's even been demanded of me on the job - sometimes by women - where's the sexism?

I find it fascinating because, as you said, it's one of those things feminists pick sides on - when there are no sides - so what are they doing, when they're immediately siding with whatever woman is being grilled, but wrecking havoc out of immaturity?

Patrick said...

Prof. Althouse:

I breezed down the comments and saw that you referred to her as "articulate." While I do think she got her point across, I wouldn't call her articulate. She did better than I would have anticipated, but that's not much of a bar. She tripped over her idioms a couple of times, and while she managed to avoid excessive "ums," she was halting. The difference in polish between she and Coons was evident.

You are very correct, however, that "you can feel the disrespect," both from Blitzer and Coons. It is very clear that they feel she does not belong there.

ricpic said...

It's not that she's a woman, or not entirely. What else do socialists and their media flacks have other than belittlement and snark against a stout opponent?..okay, she's not stout, she's firm.

Hagar said...

Christine O'Donnell is indeed all those things Joe Biden said about Barack Obama.

But she also sounds and looks like she is 15 years younger than what she is, and some of her personal opinions may be considered 10 years younger than that.

So what? It would have been better if she had practiced speaking in a lower register for a some time, but that is hardly material, though appearances matter. OTH, one advantage of appearing younger is to appear capable of learning, and Mr. Castle was obviously some time past that.

As for being "fit" for the office? You have to be kidding. A place where Joe Biden presides over the likes of Al Franken and Roland Burris cannot be anything but improved by the addition of Ms. O'Donnell!

traditionalguy said...

Coons must think the voters in Delaware just want to hear those old sweet loving lies about government solving everyone's problems. O'Donnell was brilliant in her presentation of her arguments without a hint of smugness or "bitchness" like we could see in the older generation conservative women such as Schlafly or Cheney. That lady moderator was hateful and tried to affect the outcome so obviously that she was a parody herself ready for a SNL skit.

madawaskan said...

Basically to think the way you do here, is to be "sexist".

The contempt for her might not be-because she's a woman.

It might be because as she calls [ or her backers call] Mike Castle a sore loser, no one mentions the fact that after she lost the Republican primary in 2006 not only did she fail to endorse the Republican candidate-Jan Ting, O'Donnell mounted a write in campaign.

There is a whole host of other problems.

Obviously most don't want to know all the facts about Christine O'Donnell and would rather play the victim/sexist game.

Have at it-don't let things like integrity get in your way.

Rumpletweezer said...

It would be refreshing to hear a candidate answer a gotcha question with "What is this? Jeopardy?" or "I was told this wouldn't be on the test."

DADvocate said...

I just love it when a talking head, Blitzer in this case, asks a "When you quit beating your wife?" question and then thinks he deserves a question. O'Donnell did an excellent job of intercepting the let me try to frame you as a whacko while tossing softballs to your opponent gambit.

Jon said...

But what he did give her because of his instant comments was OVER $2 million dollars in donations in a little over 48 hours if I recall.

$2 million which was essentially flushed down the toilet, and could instead have gone to other GOP candidates who actually have a realistic chance of winning.

Chase said...

Absolutely nothing is a greater political pleasure than seeing the likes of the underestimated conservative such as a Sarah Palin or a Christine O'Donnell score points against the self-righteous of all political stripes.

How stupid are the people who underestimated O'Donnell - didn't they know she more than held her own in the lion's den of Bill Maher's show numerous times? Idiots.

Remember how badly George W Bush was supposed to do against Al Gore?

Priceless!


Golddigger Vicky:"Your Father has underestimated you"

Susan: "You won't make that mistake now will you, Miss Vicky?"
The Parent Trap (1961)

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

"...$2 million which was essentially flushed down the toilet"

Maybe, maybe not, time will tell though.


"...There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear..."

Big Mike said...

Men help men; women don't help women. And then you complain about a "glass ceiling."

madawaskan said...

Oh hell let me plop a few more in here.

Everyone is suppose to feel sorry for her because she is in bad economic straits, right?

As she says repeatedly it took her 10 or 12 years to pay off her tuition.

What most fail to mention is that her college had to sue her to get her to pay and it was in litigation. So her failure to pay probably had something to do with the time to process that.

Or hell how about her house being auctioned off?

She's a victim there too right?

Well guess again.

First she claims that the IRS accidently put a lien on her house and that they didn't straighten that out for five years.

OK so the IRS is out to get her.

Then she claims that the bank wrongfully put her house up for sheriff's auction because they didn't get the terms of her suit against-cripes I can't remember who-either her college or the Conservative think tank.

Then she says rather than going into foreclosure she sold her house, at the same time saying that it was done because both and/or the IRS and bank have it all wrong.

Then to top it all of her ex-boyfriend buys the house at auction then has her rent it back from him-which she charges her campaign fund for, that and the utility bills.

So let's keep tabs here; the IRS is wrong, the bank is wrong and the two campaign treasurers that quit in disgust before she hires her mother with campaign funds-are also wrong.

Then she says that Rasmussen polling has been bought off, a Conservative radio host has been bought off and that Mike Castle had people break into her campaign office and that they are threatening her safety. She makes these charges btw without filing a police report, and she keeps making those assertions that she is afraid for her very health but when it comes to getting independent verification or justice she can't even be bothered to file a police report.

Now don't let the fact that Mike Castle [having been in Delaware politics for over three decades] does not have any other politician but Christine O'Donnell making those kind of wild unsubstantiated claims against him.

And you can listen to Christine O'Donnell spew most of this stuff in her own words during this radio interview-

WGMD Radio

themightypuck said...

Cedarford nailed it.

LarsPorsena said...

"Basically to think the way you do here, is to be "sexist".

The contempt for her might not be-because she's a woman.

It might be because as she calls [ or her backers call] Mike Castle a sore loser, no one mentions the fact that after she lost the Republican primary in 2006 not only did she fail to endorse the Republican candidate-Jan Ting, O'Donnell mounted a write in campaign.

There is a whole host of other problems.

Obviously most don't want to know all the facts about Christine O'Donnell and would rather play the victim/sexist game.

Have at it-don't let things like integrity get in your way."

Karl? Karl Rove. Yeah, you. Get over it ,Karl.

Rialby said...

Do you guys all remember when Wolf Blitzer put the screws to Keith Ellison about his beliefs about evolution? Neither do I.

Wolf Blitzer's logic:
Christian - whackjob
Anything a brown person worships - beautiful and deserving of respect

El Pollo Real said...

Cedarford nailed it.

No, there is something about O'Donnell, (and Palin) that threatens his core. Either that or he's faking the whole charade. Either way, I don't really care because I live in CA and not DE.

Go Carly! Go Whitman.

BJK said...

Is it wrong that I see "O'Donnell" and "Coons" in the same sentence, and my first thought is always...

...She said what?

Before putting the words into their proper context. And I even remember seeing her on 'PI' in the '90s (back when our idea of political opposites were Al Franken and Arianna Huffington). It shouldn't come to surprise that she has experience debating in front of a national audience.

At the same time, we've set the bar so low that not drooling on the moderator would be taken as a win.

c3 said...

I watched this clip and the other one on CNN (regarding faith). Well clearly she's gotten some further coaching and she can better articulate her views. I leave it up to the voters of Delaware to decide if 1) the agree with her views and 2) she's sincere in representing those views.

But..

I was struck but Coons' response in the second clip regarding faith (the questioner had pointed out the influence of faith in his background). In distinguishing his faith from O'Donnell's, he mentioned as the first policy implication of that faith:

a woman's right to choose

I assume his handler's know the Delaware electorate well and if so I'd suggest Ms. O'Donnell has little chance to win.

LoafingOaf said...

She should've answered the question instead of changing the subject.

TMink said...

Real womyn support abortion. Any who do not at Palinized. End of lesson.

Trey

E Buzz said...

The GOP should keep on running women against these lefty jerks.

Nothing upsets them more than a conservative woman, one that think leftism is ridiculous and stupid, and having to debate one puts in stark relief their nastiness.

Wolf is nasty with conservatives regardless, he wraps it up in a nice mellow tone. I remember the time he pulled that shit with Cheney about his daughter...very uncool.

They look like such losers.

El Pollo Real said...

And for those who seriously wondered who could play Coons on SNL--I think the answer is obvious if you noticed his little pointy pate.

Coons --> cones --> conehead!

E Buzz said...

I tihnk lefties get confused with conservative women.

They are all rebelling against Daddy the mean conservative, but these people are women...that upsets their worldview...

LOL.

1jpb said...

One of the more interesting parts of the debate was the discussion over O'Donnell's secret clearances that allowed her to learn about the Chinese plot to take over the US. She vaguely rambled a bit (but stayed cute the whole time) as she didn't support the China conspiracy theory.

Next, Coons talked, with great specificity about the Chineses-US relationship. He was really in the wonk weeds. Then, O'Donnell says something like 'See he thinks China is going to take over America, too!" She was so excited. A.d.o.r.a.b.l.e.

Shanna said...

The contempt for her might not be-because she's a woman.

Whether it is or not, I think the point is that it might strike that nerve in some women who have experienced that kind of brush off before.

I can’t watch the clip yet, but I think that after the Sarah Palin saga I no longer am giving the benefit of the doubt that this stuff is not sexism, when people go BSC about a female republican politician. That has nothing to do with whether she is a good candidate or not.

LarsPorsena said...

"Next, Coons talked, with great specificity about the Chineses-US relationship. He was really in the wonk weeds. Then, O'Donnell says something like 'See he thinks China is going to take over America, too!" She was so excited. A.d.o.r.a.b.l.e.'

You can lay every Chinese expert in America end-to-end and they'd never reach a conclusion. In the end they are inscrutable to American academics and a total cipher to American politicians. Listening to the Chinese experts now reminds me of the Kremlin watchers 2 decades ago. Clueless to the nature and intent of the Soviets until the Berlin Wall collapsed.

madawaskan said...

Then, O'Donnell says something like 'See he thinks China is going to take over America, too!" She was so excited. A.d.o.r.a.b.l.e.

*gasp* I am so gonna...

Gawd! LOL!

****************************

Shanna

Given what I know about O'Donnell from a distance it's a wonder anyone in Delaware can give here a modicum of respect.

*Blinkered.*

Basically blaming the *environment* or everyone else for her own shortcomings seems to me antithetical to Republican philosophy.

I think playing the female/victim sexist card splinters the supporting plank so to speak.

I don't think it's a good tack to take.

roesch-voltaire said...

Interesting it was Coons who was cut off in giving his summation after O"Donnell took up all the time-- but Althouse makes no reference to this disrespect. But let us look at her argument that local schools should decide how science or evolution should be taught. Really is this how we are going to develop national standards to better compete with China? Further she ignored the recent Dover, Pa case which concluded that intelligent design is not a science. But then I doubt that O'Donnell knows about the Kitzmiller et. al v Dover decision any more than she knows about recent supreme court decisions.

Robert Cook said...

"Well, Delaware citizens are about to vote in another socialist like BHO."

In other words: not a socialist.

Christine O'Donnell revealed herself, in the clip at least, as being intellectually dishonest and unwilling to be forthright about her own beliefs. In other words, without even having obtained elective office, she's well-practiced at the weasel words of an experienced politician. She did state years ago that "evolution is a myth," and we know this is her belief, so she should just stand by it. As many Americans today are ill-educated ignorami, this would probably win her some votes. Likewise Ms. O'Donnell's purposeful and ludicrous smear of Coons as a "Marxist." If she wants to issue ludicrous epithets, she might as well call him an invader from Mars.

I don't think there's any value in harping on Ms. O'Donnel's long ago statement that in high school she "dabbled in witchcraft;" why anyone would place lasting significance in the beliefs, statements or acts of stupid people--and all teenagers are stupid people--is beyond me. She dabbled in witchcraft; Obama and Clinton dabbled in drugs; so what?

What's important is not some triviality from decades ago but what the candidates espouse today.

Hoosier Daddy said...

But let us look at her argument that local schools should decide how science or evolution should be taught. Really is this how we are going to develop national standards to better compete with China?

Well the liberal establishment which has dominated the educational system in this country has done such a bang up job in the last 30-40 years, I personally have no problem with the local yokels having a crack at it. Can't do much worse.

El Pollo Real said...

I'm just LOL'ing over the odd mix of partnering in this thread!

Synova said...

I honestly didn't think she was treated that badly by anyone. (Granted, I have pretty low expectations.) Yes, she got talked over, but she also butted right in there a number of times. She took some hits, but she delivered some pretty rude ones herself.

The game isn't Ladies Tea, after all.

I would think that it all depends on how carefully people listened and how open they were to either candidate.

O'Donnell really didn't make any mistakes. I'm not certain that not having her least-favorite SCOTUS ruling on the tip of her tongue was a mistake.

Coons pretended not to know what she was talking about when she asked if his company would profit from Cap and Trade green energy quotas, as if she was incoherent and he was confused by her babble... but he knew just what she was talking about and, yes, his company was likely to see future development and profit. Either he was very uncomfortable with that question or he's an idiot. Since he subsequently explained just *exactly* what obscure component product for fuel cells that his company made his claim not to know what she was talking about was clearly a lie and his attempt to portray her as incoherent was a diversion.

People committed to the notion that she's an ignoramous are committed. Nothing could have swayed them. Her views are certainly conservative, so she's not going to win over people who support Obama.

By the end, though, I was risking serious giggles everytime someone said "Delawarians." It's just a funny sounding word.

But no... I did not think she was treated badly. I was not offended for her.

traditionalguy said...

E buzz @ 1:44 wins the thread by telling the most powerful truth about these Momma Grizzlies this election cycle.

Oligonicella said...

"A lot of us have had experiences with men trying to control us like this, and we instinctively root for the woman in this situation."

Welcome to real world discussion, where man and women always have to fight the control exerted by other men and women.

"we instinctively root for the woman"

That's really about all you had to say.

1jpb said...

"I'm not certain that not having her least-favorite SCOTUS ruling on the tip of her tongue was a mistake."

Agreed. But, this question was a total softball for her. She only needed to say something about her support of the "strict constructionist" record of the Roberts court, which is in line w/ the sorts of justices she would vote to confirm, blah, blah, balls and strikes, blah, blah.....

I have no idea why she wasn't ready for this one. Especially after Palin's fail in her Katie interview.

Dark Eden said...

Liberals like to think that Republicans are idiots and they are geniuses. Then there's a debate, and both positions turn out to be false, and the Republicans win because no one gave them any sort of chance anyway.

This happens over and over again and Libs never change their tune. They can't I guess.

edutcher said...

O'Donnell says she is still getting a hard time from the RNC (and, presumably, people like Karl Rove). If the DE Senate race comes down to the wire and may have been the measure of the Republicans controlling the Senate, a whole lot of people are gonna have some 'splainin' to do.

1jpb said...

I hope it's not disrespectful/controlling to note that she's adorable.

Only if you're a superficial, condescending Lefty.

One of the more interesting parts of the debate was the discussion over O'Donnell's secret clearances that allowed her to learn about the Chinese plot to take over the US.

The Red Chinese have been very open about their expectation of a US-PRC war to control the Pacific sometime in the next 30 years or so and have made no secret of their preparations for it.

People who want to talk down about Miss Christine might want to consult the Inside The Ring blog of the Washington Times or Strategypage.com before they make bigger fools of themselves than they like to think she is.

1jpb said...

"Coons pretended not to know what she was talking about..."

Coons did a great job in proving that the connections to his business were extremely limited, and separated by several processes.

His response made him seem extremely knowledgable regarding this technology because he laid out the many steps (and still incomplete development) between fuel cells and the particular internal component associated w/ him. And, he mentioned that they make more than a thousand products that are used in all sorts of industries. His knowledge and experience w/ a successful business made O'Donell look especially unserious, unaccomplished, and unsuccessful.

Clyde said...

And she doesn't even use a TelePrompTer! She certainly didn't come across as the sort of ditz that the liberal media would have us believe.

One other thought: If she's so far behind as the polls are telling us, why are the liberal media so obsessed with this particular race? Is it because it's one of the few contested races that is likely to go their way? Is it their Casablanca moment? "We'll always have Delaware"?

E Buzz said...

I know conservative women, and lefty, real lefty, women...the conservative women are by far the most settled and calm, and strong too. They can laugh and aren't angry at the world. You have to be angry to be an honest-to-goodness lefty...angry at injustice and all that malarky.

The lefty women are also strong, but they betray being vulnerable through being a little bit too strong. It is a bit off-putting, you don't know where you stand because one minute they need a strong man, the next they hate men and are angry about injustice and misogyny and all this...

The conservative women have better control of their emotions, I think...and that's why they can laugh at simple douchebags like Wolf that asshole...

He really is a dick, and just abuses the shit out of women. That he gets a pass is incredible.

Cedarford said...

Chase said...
Absolutely nothing is a greater political pleasure than seeing the likes of the underestimated conservative such as a Sarah Palin or a Christine O'Donnell score points against the self-righteous of all political stripes.

================
It sure makes it worthwhile to have a guy who votes 100% Democrat sent into office, vs an electable Republican who votes 90% of the time on the Republican side - doesn't it???
If you savor your "political pleasure" at Coon's guaranteed victory, admit it comes at a 6 year penalty.

Perhaps this will make Tea Party extemists reconsider the "it is better to lose than sacrifice our purity" mindset.

The person who truly legitimized the Tea Party movement was not Sarah Palin tweeting praises of her unfit cute, spunky, adorable and clueless "momma grizzly" clones - it was moderate Scott Brown. The new RINO. Who only is likely to vote Republican 85% of the time.

Not only did Tea Party extremists help give away a lock Republican seat in Delaware..the bumbling and inept Sharron Angle may still lose to the most hated man in Nevada.

But it is so wonderful to see those cute and spunky dimbulbs before they lose or quit - then get a book and TV contract!

Dust Bunny Queen said...

She should've answered the question instead of changing the subject.

No she shouldn't. She responded perfectly. The question is not relevant. What she 'personally' thinks about evolution has doodely squat to do with public policy. It was a gotcha question that was completely irrelevant to her run for Office.

Her stance that the education and parts of the ciriculm should be left to the local community and elected school board is the correct response.

Now, if she were runing for School Board.....THEN it would be a relevant question. Otherwise, it is about as relevant as quizing her on how often she flosses or what kind of tampons she uses.

Synova said...

"But let us look at her argument that local schools should decide how science or evolution should be taught. Really is this how we are going to develop national standards to better compete with China?"

Absolutely. Since you've just assumed that "national standards" are the unassailable necessity that need not even be discussed.

Local control, not national standards, allows flexibility and responsiveness. It also allows a multitude of different approaches that can be compared and evaluated.

If the math and science scores of largely fundy areas lag behind it will be apparent quickly that this is so. I *won't happen* though. What *might* actually happen is that math, physics and chemistry take the place of the more "squishy" biology emphasis and *gack* yet another political "Environmental Science" class. I would contend that the areas most concerned with the evolution boogieman are the least rigorous of all "science" offered to High School students. We would not be crippled in the sciences to lose it.

Frankly, I'd almost call this creation/evolution issue a fetish, a science-fetish. At *best* what the argument is over is a wish by parents to allow a measure of grace for their children not to have their religious faith attacked by government mandatory indoctrination during science class.

In HIGH SCHOOL the depth of scientific study about evolution in text books can't even be called "depth". Nothing whatsoever would be lost if the two pages about the theory of human origins was left out. Add two pages about peptide chains and we'd all be ahead of the game.

But this is a bridge to die on, it seems.

Oh, and Coons thought that Math should be taught... I'm trying to remember the word... it might have been cooperatively or something like that. With the "newest" methods.

We're failing at Math and Science because we are trying so hard to force those disciplines into something accessible for students without the inclination that we make them intolerable for the students who would absolutely blossom in the analytical, non wishy-washy glorious beauty of numbers, that are what they are. Absolute.

At my daughter's middle school the "best and newest super duper cutting edge research" math program is so heavily language based that boys who need special help in humanities can no longer be mainstreamed in math.

It's obscene.

In order for the US to lead the world in Math and Science we do not need to turn 80% of students into mediocre environmental scientists, we need to turn 10% of the class into brilliant mathematicians and physicists.

Robert Cook said...

"One other thought: If she's so far behind as the polls are telling us, why are the liberal media so obsessed with this particular race? Is it because it's one of the few contested races that is likely to go their way? Is it their Casablanca moment? 'We'll always have Delaware'?"

No, it's because this is all media is obsessed with: trivialities and flashy exteriors. You've got a pretty girl, a fundamentalist Christian with no experience but a glib presentation, going up against a boring, middle-aged politician, a "wonk," as it were. If a chimp was run for office the media would be obsessively covering that. It certainly doesn't reveal any fears the media might have that the chimp would win.

(Actually, given their prefernce for presenting carnival sideshows rather than substance, the media would love nothing better than if a chimp won higher office!)

Oh...by the way...NEWS FLASH! There is no "liberal media."

MadisonMan said...

I'm not certain that not having her least-favorite SCOTUS ruling on the tip of her tongue was a mistake.

What a ridiculous question to ask a Senatorial candidate. I'm not a fan of top-ten listings.

Had it been me, I'd say Why do you ask? and then mention the case about Eminent Domain and -- Bridgeport? Hartford? -- Connecticut. If I thought about it for 10 or so minutes, I might even come up with the name.

Roger J. said...

having watched this clip and the vid clip of Rachel Maddow and Dr Robinson running for deFazio's seat in Oregon, one thing is clear:these candidates are not letting the interviewers control the interview---they have learned some very good lessons it seems to me. And these are lessons that Gov Christie has applied to the MSM idiots even more elegantly.

The times are indeed changing.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

She dabbled in witchcraft; Obama and Clinton dabbled in drugs; so what?


One of those things is not like the other. One is not a crime.

Guess which.

Oooh this is a fun game.

Shanna said...

Given what I know about O'Donnell from a distance it's a wonder anyone in Delaware can give here a modicum of respect.

The choice is always between a turd and sh** sandwich. I don’t live in Delaware, so we’ll see what they choose. I’m focused on all the dem’s who may topple in Arkansas this year. Fingers crossed!!!

Roger J. said...

it does seem to me that these "interviewers" are only creating support for the interviewees they are trying to sandbag. So--MSM: keep it up! try even harder next time and keep the money and votes coming for the insurgents.

Hoosier Daddy said...

You've got a pretty girl, a fundamentalist Christian with no experience but a glib presentation, going up against a boring, middle-aged politician, a "wonk," as it were.

Sounds familiar.

Synova said...

"Coons did a great job in proving that the connections to his business were extremely limited, and separated by several processes."

He did. I didn't say he wasn't knowledgeable about which component parts of fuel cells that his company would potentially supply. He *claimed* it was negligible, far future, he doesn't even consider it.

But his knowledge sort of counter-indicated that he doesn't even consider it. No doubt the opportunity to supply more components would be a nice thing. I don't know why an increased demand would be so far removed from laws requiring the demand. That seems counter intuitive but maybe it's the case.

What I thought a little bit to-to, was his initial, "Ha ha, ain't she adorable when she babbles incoherently" routine, when he did know exactly what she was talking about.

Roger J. said...

Hoosier: only if you change pretty girl etc to articulate half black senator with no experience--then the parallel holds perfectly-- but then I suspect that was your intention all along

Synova said...

MadisonMan... Kelo?

sandra said...

She sounds like a zombie to me. Why was this "debate" televised if the race isn't even close?

Synova said...

I think that "the government can only steal your property if it enriches the government to steal it" ranks right up there with "the government can control any interaction you have with any market because you're not dead."

Granted, the second hasn't reached the Supreme Court yet.

HDHouse said...

are we watching the same clip you are ann? o'donnell sounds moronic. Blitzer is no prize and very much a lightweight - easily observed - but this looks like, at best, a tug of war between two patches of fog and in the end o'donnell has nothing to say. nothing.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Why was this "debate" televised if the race isn't even close?

Because the MSM wanted an opportunity to beat up on a conservative woman.

Because the MSM wants to help the other candidate (Coons) look good and try to make the challenger O'Donnell look stupid by asking gotcha questions.

Because the MSM is so deep in the tank for the liberals and they just can't help themselves.

Because they hope to tar ALL other Tea Party backed candidates as being weird, witches, right wing, religious fundamentalist nuts.

Pick one or all of the above.

*(I know the witches* and religious fundamentalist stances are not compatable. But that is OK it seems, Democrats can hold confliciting views with out blinking an eye)

AlphaLiberal said...

Argh. Blogger ate my post.

O'Donnell Claimed Coons Spent $53K On A 'Men's Fashion Show' (He Didn't)

O'Donnell's choice of words -- she said Coons used money on a "men's fashion show" twice last night -- echo tactics she used during the Republican primary. During the primary, she called her opponent, Mike Castle, "un-manly" after distancing herself from a former campaign aide who suggested Castle was gay.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/did_chris_coons_really_spend_53000_on_a_mens_fashi.php

former law student said...

I think this clip — I haven't watched the rest of the debate — will resonate with women.

Women who believe, as O'Donnell does, that creationism is equally valid as evolution, and that local school districts should be free to decide whether to teach nonsense or science.

In junior high I thought the premise of "Inherit the Wind" was so ridiculous, the blatant stupidity of a long-ago time,
yet O'Donnell continues to support ignorance today.

Synova said...

"In order for the US to lead the world in Math and Science we do not need to turn 80% of students into mediocre environmental scientists, we need to turn 10% of the class into brilliant mathematicians and physicists."

Ha! That's sort of like a grammar error when snarking about grammar isn't it.

I meant to follow the custom of adding to 100% of course... 80% and 20%... not 10%.

1jpb said...

"ha, ain't she adorable when she babbles incoherently"

Oh no. She's even more adorable when she knows what she's talking about.

And, for the record, I declared that she did well in a thread yesterday. So, I'm not saying otherwise today. I'm sure she's smarter than many (most?) senators. But, I think she's one of those unquestioning true believer types (like W), I like my politicians to be more cynical, they're easier to control.

Clyde said...

@ Robert Cook

"Oh...by the way...NEWS FLASH! There is no "liberal media."

That's exactly what I'd expect your masters in the liberal media would have you say.

Seriously, you're telling me that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, Headline News, the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc., aren't liberal? Get outta town! That's like saying that Fox News, almost all talk radio, the New York Post and the Washington Times aren't (mostly) conservative. But the vast majority of the people involved in the media ARE liberals. It's just not 99% like it used to be before those conservative alternatives became available.

AlphaLiberal said...

Argh. Blogger ate my post.

O'Donnell Claimed Coons Spent $53K On A 'Men's Fashion Show' (He Didn't)

O'Donnell's choice of words -- she said Coons used money on a "men's fashion show" twice last night -- echo tactics she used during the Republican primary. During the primary, she called her opponent, Mike Castle, "un-manly" after distancing herself from a former campaign aide who suggested Castle was gay.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/did_chris_coons_really_spend_53000_on_a_mens_fashi.php



Also.....

Interesting that you, a law professor, took no interest in her response to questions about the Supreme Court. Granted, it's painful to even watch.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/christine-odonnells-confused-debate-night-candidate-asks-for-hint-on-recent-scotus-cases.php?ref=fpb

HDHouse said...

Chase said...
Absolutely nothing is a greater political pleasure than seeing the likes of the underestimated conservative such as a Sarah Palin or a Christine O'Donnell score points..."

but must those points always be in minus numbers?

is there some sort of republican contest to find and select the dullest bulbs for the Christmas tree? talk about "bubble lites"...geezus..toss in that nitwit from Nevada and you have the three stooges without the humor.

can't you guys on the right side of the dial do any better than this?..you are making the case for outsourcing.

HDHouse said...

Clyde said...
" It's just not 99% like it used to be before those conservative alternatives became available."

hey Clyde...its the numbers in the audience that count - not the number of commentaters...

also truth has something to do with it....you are entitled to your own opinion...just not your own set of facts....something in perilously short supply in Rushland....gosh, why do they call it Faux News for heaven's sake...

ya'betcha!

Cedarford said...

Palinista Operative trolling for new cute and spunky candidates:

Excuse me young lady, have you thought of running for the Presidency or the Senate? As a true faithful Republican?

Girl on verge of Goddess adoration by conservative older males:

Why, no! Right now I'm focused on winning this beauty pageant, writing children's books that aren't too complicated for me to write, bringing world peace and solving world hunger. Then getting the vaseline off my teeth! Tee-hee!

Pause:

And I am true and faithful to my Creator, and the flag! I suppose I could be to Republicans too! Is there money in it? I have 2 bankruptcies and my school is about to kick me out for unpaid tuition bills..

Palinista Operative trolling for new cute and spunky candidates:

My, how adorable and spunky you are!! No, minor little financial flubs don't mean you can't be a Senator! Can you speak well on air.

Girl on verge of Goddess adoration by conservative older males:

Tee-hee! Of course, silly, I'm a theater and TV communications major!

Palinista Operative trolling for new cute and spunky candidates:

Perfect! Now, you gorgeous feisty thing - can I delicately ask if you have any embarassing things you wouldn't want the public to see during a campaign for high office?

Girl on verge of Goddess adoration by conservative older males:

Well, I had to repeat 3rd grade. That was VERY embarassing. I also made some tapes..you know..before I found God and abstinance. But my boyfriend said that he destroyed all the tapes, especially the really sinful 3-ways, and I have the only copies.

Palinista Operative trolling for new cute and spunky candidates, now a little red-faced and breathing heavily:

Well, that shouldn't be a problem if give me all your tapes for safekeeping. I have a special "Sarah Palin Shrine Room" for tapes of Sarah, Christine, Anne Coulter I keep under lock and key. Not even my wife is allowed in.

AlphaLiberal said...

It's freaking hilarious that her debate coaches were Sarah Palin's people.

former law student said...

Now, to support O'Donnell: I just checked, and the belief that inheritance tax is a Marxist concept is held by no less a Marxist scholar as former Senator Phil Gramm. And I believe no one would have snickered when Gramm said it.

chuck said...

In junior high I thought the premise of "Inherit the Wind" was so ridiculous, the blatant stupidity of a long-ago time,

Yeah, I though the real events were much more interesting than that pathetic bit of propaganda.

Synova said...

"It's freaking hilarious that her debate coaches were Sarah Palin's people."

But not, I'm quite certain, McCain's people.

Belkys said...

Catholic Church accepted evolution in the 70´s. My biology professor at basic schoo,l 9 th yea,r was a priest . We studied evolution and creationism was never mentioned but for one of my classmates. And the Pope apologized sort of, for Galileo´s prosecution( BTW : He was supported in his time by his professor, a priest and he was proven the hypothesis revived by a monk, the original idea was stated in Alexandria circe 320 BC)
Am i wrong or the Judge who wrote Doe vs Wade was catholic?

Belkys said...

http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

Clyde said...

@ HD House

"gosh, why do they call it Faux News for heaven's sake..."

Because they're fucking idiots.

Pardon my French.

jamboree said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Belkys said...

In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points.
http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

jamboree said...

Some of it is back to the same old - all this crap about she looks 15 years younger than her age, etc. No, she doesn't. That's what 41 often looks like if you're that type of woman (as I am). A lot of it is your voice. If your voice is naturally higher, you're perceived as a little girl. If you artificially lower it to seem more commanding, like a male, then you have the grating "cackle" problem like Hillary. The Peanut Gallery is never satisfied. Fuck 'em.

I absolutely despise the fake voices that female newscasters are forced to adopt. Rachel Maddow can pull it off and seem natural - probably because (HELLO!) she's GAY.

You can take it back to Marsha Clark being perceived as "hysterical" because she naturally talked in faster, higher voice than Cochran and team. Personally, I often find traditional male voices irritating because they seem very slow and therefore stupid, but the societal backup doesn't exist for me to penalize them for this trait which I realize amounts to a personal, gender-based bigotry.

I'm far happier with guys that can actually speak quickly (more "female") instead of lumbering along like they are mentally challenged. Steve Jobs comes to mind as someone who society as a whole accepts as being charismatic/articulate - but he actually speaks much faster, and slightly higher, than your average guy. It possibly made him seem younger into his 40s as well - but there was a lot less bitching about it - though there was some.

I find it interesting that these "women of faith" are making the huge societal leaps lately. I don't think it's just because of their pandering to a religious base (who can be just as full of shit as to what they pretend to respect as anyone else) - I think their faith has actually given them the psychological backup they needed to leap into these territorial pissing arenas where they are clearly unwanted.

Roger J. said...

the only people that use the term "faux news" are the idiots on the left side of the dial--the far left side at that as amply demonstrated in that inane post.

1jpb said...

"I find it interesting that these "women of faith" are making the huge societal leaps. I don't think it's just because of pandering to a religious base who can be just as full of shit as to what they pretend to respect in private as anyone else - I think their faith has actually given them the psychological backup they needed to leap into the territorial pissing arenas where they are clearly unwanted.
"

Does this hold for both parties? Maybe the R base is less comfortable w/ a woman who doesn't exude Christianity than the D base is? But, I don't know--too lazy to look for the data relating to religiosity of women elected to office by Rs and Ds, if such a thing can even be measured.

AlphaLiberal said...

OK. I watched that video. Christine O'Donnell avoided the question and Wolf Blitzer tried to get her to answer it.

This often happens in these sorts of debates. Actually, it doesn't happen enough.

I'm sure you're fine when she cuts off other people, though.

This is one of your leading lights, eh? God save America.

bagoh20 said...

That's the first time I ever saw her debate. Amazing how uninformed you can be about a candidate if you rely on the media to develop the character for you.

She is the exact opposite of what I've been told. I have liberal friends that have been telling me what an idiot she is, and how unqualified she is. I doubt they ever watched her either.

AlphaLiberal said...

The term "Faux News" reflects the reality that they don't report news but are the propaganda arm of the Republican Party.

Survey after survey has shown that people who get their news from Faux News are misinformed.

The part I find fascinating is that almost every likely Republican candidate for President is on the payroll of Faux News. (Thune and Pawlenty being exceptions).

It's also stunning that the second largest shareholder is a Saudi royal prince! So this network is owned by an Australian media tycoon and a Saudi prince.

You guys let these foreigners lead you around by the nose. Wow.

AlphaLiberal said...

bagoh, I suggest you watch this clip where she couldn't name a single Supreme Court decision she disagreed with:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sSWLuPJac0&feature=player_embedded

1jpb said...

"Amazing how uninformed you can be about a candidate if you rely on the media to develop the character for you."

You need to stick w/ librul news sources. Quite a while back TPM had clips of her from an earlier debate where it was obvious that she could hold her own in that format. And, her competence was the point of the TPM post, i.e. a warning to not underestimate her debating skill.

Contrary to the hype she is a master-debater.

AlphaLiberal said...

So, Christine O'Donnell falsely accused Coons of spending $53,000 on a "men's fashion show."

Wrong on both counts. Did she lie or is she just gullible? I think someone else lied and she's gullible.

We'll see if she apologizes.

bagoh20 said...

"bagoh, I suggest you watch this clip where she couldn't name a single Supreme Court decision she disagreed with: "

Admittedly she no Alvin Green(D) or Obama, but If that kind of recall is what you're looking for you can find it in any Law school cheerleader.

Synova said...

" I think their faith has actually given them the psychological backup they needed to leap into these territorial pissing arenas where they are clearly unwanted."

That's an interesting possibility. Maybe it counteracts a female tendency to seek approval.

Maybe that's what makes so many people so angry as well when these women have the *gall* to just go out there and pretend they have a right to do it without going through the correct channels first.

madawaskan said...

OK - I missed the beginning of the debate I guess she says the IRS admits it's a mistake.

The whole problem is you really can't take what "she says" at face value.


And that folks is all she wrote.

Tant pis.

AllenS said...

Hillary has often tried to get us to feel that vibe, and it's worked for her quite few times

Yeah, ain't that the fucking truth.

I remember when she got caught bullshitting about dodging sniper fire. Fuckin-A, she sure caught absolute hell over that lie.

Synova said...

I think I want to reiterate that I didn't think she was particularly disrespected during the debate. Not even the "ain't she cute when she babbles" bits. I think she gave as good as she got.

I think she needs a different hair cut though.

madawaskan said...

bagoh20

Actually bagoh20 should listen to the first 3 minutes and 16 seconds of the radio interview I linked to above.

She's telling the out of state crowd that she won in two of three counties when she ran against Biden.

Then she says she didn't say that.

Then when the Conservative radio show host says let's listen to the tape-she claims that she meant tied.

Then when he tells her that losing by 10,000 in one county in a small state is not a "tie" she calls that "almost a tie".

Ya it's not almost a tie .

It 56.9%
to 43%

Some would call that a wipe out but when O'Donnell is in another state she tells people it was a win.

Here is the link to the Conservative radio show:

WGMD

You only have to listen to the first 3 minutes and 16 seconds of it.

And here is a direct link to the state of Delaware's election results for that race broken down by county.

You can double check m math it isn't my strong suit.

Elections Delaware.gov

Because I Said So said...

I happened to see ABC's take on the debate this morning...very condescending towards her. They provided tiny 3 second voice clips of her talking - mainly to push their POV that she's a wacko who's in over her head. The reporter stated that the students were more impressed with her than they thought would be, but probably only because they expected so little of her to begin with.

BJM said...

I totally agree with Althouse, Coons and Blitzer were very condescending, and given that O'Donnell was debating three opponents, she acquitted herself fairly well.

Frequently the local female newsperson/moderator spoke over O'Donnell's answer to prompt Coons with word cues. Incredible.

The MSM no longer bothers with the pretense of fairness. However, their heavy-handedness only stokes political opposition while undermining their own industry. There's a pleasing symmetry in that.

BJM said...

@AL

Gosh, I didn't realize that Carlos Slim HelĂș was an American.

El Pollo Real said...

However, their heavy-handedness only stokes political opposition while undermining their own industry. There's a pleasing symmetry in that.

Yes, there's almost a pleasing charge balance physicality to the whole thing.

madawaskan said...

Basically if she gained funds from that out of state audience while misrepresenting the very basic facts-

as a basic street, second generation ghetto republican we have a name for what that is-it's called grifting.

And value voters who want the Tea Party to be represented well and to succeed are selling out.

Reputations precede themselves and now you are co-mingling your fate with the likes of O'Donnell.

You are playing to your weakest hand while ignoring good candidates all around.

Keep swallowing the poisoned pill.

bagoh20 said...

Madawaskin, I didn't get the impression from my liberal friends and the media that she was one to stretch the truth (like that's unheard of in debate). I was told that she was an ignoramus that was not up to the high standards of government work, and that it was apparent as soon as she spoke. She was usually described as an idiot. I'm just saying that's obviously not true, and I've learned a lesson about judging people by what their opponents say, and the media is her opponent as Blitzer and Bill Maher demonstrated.

madawaskan said...

bagoh20

Gotcha.

Yep, the liberal media doesn't get how to fairly go after somebody.

I've never called her stupid anywhere.

That's probably what is scary. I just think some things matter-that others are willing to toss away.

Cripes I think I'm first generation ghetto I'm not sure how that works.

Anyways the more you dig into what happened in Delaware the more grossed out you get.

I wouldn't advice it to anyone.

Basically though the Conservative blogosphere use to rail against the MSM for lies of omission and the like and now they've sold out for even less-a ride on the Tea Party Express.

Take a listen to that first 3 minutes and 16 seconds and ask yourself if you feel good about people[ looking for a candidate that was suppose to be the Tea Party-not politics as usual] giving their money to her-while she is lying to them.

Are you really going to believe that during that one interview she says-hey I forgot or what ever,I said I won in two counties, wait I said I tied in two counties, no wait I nearly tied and then ten seconds later she remembers that she lost by 10,000 votes?

The differential is 13% points in some circles they would call that a landslide.

O'Donnell who does have experience in politics, for years so she doesn't have an excuse at first calls it a win, than a tie and then almost a tie.

Better yet-don't listen to it-you're probably better off.

madawaskan said...

Ugh-than=then

*********************

I give up.

You guys win

Yeeeeaaah O'Donnell.

BJM said...

@AL

Do you have the same disdain for naturalized Mexican house maids?

Murdoch became a naturalized American citizen in 1985 and moved News Corp's base of operations from Australia to the US in 2004.

btw-The Aussies do not allow duel citizenship.

Prince Al-Waleed owns 7% of Newscorp stock, while Mexican Oligarch Carlos Slim Helu owns 15% of the NYT. Are you Islamophobic or just talking out your ass as usual.

Al-Waleed also owns over a billon dollars (6%) of Citicorp stock, the parent corp of Citibank, the guys with OUR tax dollars. Treasury Sec Geithner didn't seem any too bothered by Al-Waleed's participation in Citibank.

Al-Waleed also made large investments in AOL, Apple Inc., MCI Inc. and Motorola. He owns the Savoy, The Plaza Hotel and the Fairmont Hotel Group. I haven't noticed any Code Pink protests at these hotels.

Al-Waleed also donated $27 mil to Palestinian martyr's families..which is obviously just peachy keen with Harvard who accept a $20 mil donation. So who's hands are bloody and who's are clean?

Hey..how about George Soros? Isn't he a foreigner?

somefeller said...

One would think that a longtime anti-abortion activist could name one Supreme Court case she didn't like, such as, for example, Roe v. Wade. But I guess it's just elitist to make such assumptions.

c3 said...

If a chimp was run for office the media would be obsessively covering that.

racist

Synova said...

"One would think that a longtime anti-abortion activist could name one Supreme Court case she didn't like, such as, for example, Roe v. Wade. But I guess it's just elitist to make such assumptions."

One would think.

Did you watch that bit?

Blitzer or the lady asked the question, O'Donnell said "I'm sorry, no I'm sorry. I'll have it on my website tomorrow." Blitzer (IIRC) says, "But what about Roe vs. Wade?" and O'Donnell says something like, "Yes, of course, but you said *recent*."

Which they had.

Recent.

Doesn't count Roe vs. Wade. Are you really going to criticize her for paying attention to the question actually asked?

Jeremy said...

Good Lord...not The Queen thinks Christine O'Donnell is some kind of terrific example of a powerful woman?

I watched the debate and she came off as she always does; completely out of control, disingenuous and unable at every turn to defend her insane rhetoric.

Oh, and as for Blitzer coming right back at her relating to her inane comment that evolution is a myth, well...that's exactly what he should be doing. Allowing candidates to spout nonsense or act as if what they themselves have said is not important, is patently ridiculous.

BJM said...

If a chimp was run for office the media would be obsessively covering that.


One would think the MSM could be a tad more discreet in pandering to the lowest common denominator.

Tastefully showing a bit of lacy bra is acceptable but the MSM has ripped off their panties and are flashing the Democrat tat on their vajayjay.

Jeremy said...

PoliFact:

O'Donnell kicked it off by charging that "unemployment here in New Castle County rose, almost doubled in the last two years under (Coons') watch as New Castle County executive."

One of the moderators, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer, interjected, "Let's ask her. Where did you get those numbers?"

O'Donnell responded, "The Department of Labor statistics. And we'll have them on our web site by tomorrow."

PolitiFact: How much did unemployment rise in New Castle County, the most populous of Delaware's three counties?

In the most recent available month, August 2010, New Castle County, Del., registered an 8.7 percent unemployment rate. Two years before, in August 2008, the rate was 5.5 percent.

That's a difference of 3.3 percentage points, or an increase of 58 percent over the August 2008 unemployment rate of 5.5 percent.

As it happened, New Castle County performed better than the nation as a whole at each of these three points in time. The county's 4.7 percent unemployment rate in January 2005 was lower than the national 5.3 percent rate that month.

The 5.5 percent unemployment rate in August 2008 was lower than the national rate of 6.2 percent that month, and the county's 8.7 percent in August 2010 was lower than the national rate of 9.6 percent.

In fact, unemployment grew slightly more slowly in New Castle County over that period than it did nationally.

blake said...

Gosh, November's gonna be fun!

William said...

Over the course of the last century how many Darwinists have been sent to reeducation camps or gulags because of their beliefs? Over that same period how many Christians have perished because of their beliefs? Compare those two numbers, and explain to me why Christians are considered intolerant?......For the record, I think Darwin was right and Marx was wrong. I would prefer a politican who is right about Marx to one who is wrong about Darwin. People rarely discuss Darwin on the unemployment line.

Synova said...

Jeremy, you watched the debate through Jeremy-glasses.

What did you expect to see? You saw it.

I don't expect anyone to suddenly become a conservative because she's just so awesome, and she articulated conservative policies so there you go. A liberal isn't going to like what she said.

That's different from how she said it.

Deb said...

When O'Donnell brought up the "bearded Marxist" thing, the female "moderator" said, "We're going to clarify that" to Coons. Did she also reach over & pat his hand? Because I didn't notice....

somefeller said...

Recent. Doesn't count Roe vs. Wade. Are you really going to criticize her for paying attention to the question actually asked?

A thin reed, and I saw the clip. Blitzer was helping her out by mentioning Roe, and she didn't disagree when Blitzer said that Roe could be considered "relatively recent" (which it can be). Also, a thoughtful social conservative activist could have come up with a more recent case or two (Lawrence v. Texas, Planned Parenthood v. Casey?). O'Donnell is running for US Senate, a position which includes the task of voting on US Supreme Court nominees, and she has made a career out of being a social conservative spokesperson. She flubbed the question, and it isn't a matter of not knowing some lawyerly trivia.

Synova said...

Deb... particularly as the clarification went from a claim of "Two or three weeks ago on MSNBC (or some-such) you said..." to "When I was 20-something I told a Bearded Marxist joke."

Certainly there was no "clarification" at all of what Coons said in an interview no more than a few weeks ago.

somefeller said...

Gosh, November's gonna be fun!

Not for O'Donnell.

Synova said...

Somefeller, I personally think she didn't prepare for that question because it's sort of stupid. She might have had an answer for "What do you think of Citizens United?" or some other case. So she asked, "Which one?"

Yeah, it was a flub. I'm not saying it's not. I just don't think it was devastating.

But I think that Coons flubbed the crap out of the same question because *suddenly* he wasn't all for supporting the "current" Constitution anymore. Saying that he would do what he could to reverse or mitigate Citizens United undermined everything he'd said about supporting his other pet causes on constitutional grounds. Obviously, it's just that he likes those other rulings.

I don't imagine that really registered with most people though.

El Pollo Real said...

Synova That's different from how she said it.

Jeremy doesn't comprehend hints or suggestions to improve his style. He's only here to offend.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ritmo Brasileiro said...

I was really impressed with Ms. O'Donnell's assertion that America fought the Soviets in Afghanistan. It made me think what a proud day this must be for all women.

BTW, whatever happened to the Tea Party's insistence that their candidates exhibit the ability to balance a checkbook and attain success in the private sector? O'Donnell's using her campaign funds to subsidize the housing she wasn't able to afford prior to rolling off the right-wing assembly line.

Synova said...

Oh, Geez, Ritmo.

A different day, a different dollar, and you'd be insisting that the US was all over Afghanistan at that time, providing weapons certainly and probably responsible for the Taliban to boot.

El Pollo Real said...

Her point was that we left and that was a huge problem," he said. "Her point that we were there fighting the Soviets, that's also fundamentally true. The CIA was in Afghanistan. We were arming, equipping, training.

--Goldfarb

Gosh, even I remember us failing Massoud.

Here Ritmo, let me add you to my list:

Cedarford
Jeremy
c3

You need more women.

blake said...

>>>>Gosh, November's gonna be fun!

>>Not for O'Donnell.

If that's all the forces of statism have to comfort them, I shall be quite pleased.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

What have you got against detail?

We, along with many others, helped bankroll the mujahideen.

At the same time, it's hard to use a word like "bankroll" when it comes to an outfit as primitive as theirs - or any in a place as impoverished as Afghanistan.

The point is, her facts are all wrong, but she had no compunction against fitting them together to make a point that wasn't there.

We did not see the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan as a major conflict, upon which the future of capitalism hinged. It was not a major investment. We did not "fight" the Soviets there. Our involvement was so peripheral that it wouldn't have even risen to the description of a proxy war.

These are the sort of details that one of a privileged, elite club of 100 people helping America to run the world might be expected to know.

But not a Tea Partier.

To them, everything under the sun is part of the War To Save Civilization TM.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Gosh, even I remember us failing Massoud.

So you prove my point, then. We didn't have any substantial investment in Massoud until even 1989, at the least. That's a fact.

What do women have to do with this? Some women aren't threatened by men with brains and a love of accuracy and historical detail. Not all of them are as enamored of and tethered to fiction and fantasy as EBL's fanbase - or the Tea Partiers, for that matter.

Synova said...

These are the sort of details that one of a privileged, elite club of 100 people helping America to run the world might be expected to articulate in a 30 second sound bite".

FTFY

El Pollo Real said...

We did not see the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan as a major conflict, upon which the future of capitalism hinged.

May be I was privy to something back then but I recall it being called the Soviet Union's Vietnam.

Of course Vietnam was in no way or form a proxy war.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

What have you got against detail?

We, along with many others, helped bankroll the mujahideen.

At the same time, it's hard to use a word like "bankroll" when it comes to an outfit as primitive as theirs - or any in a place as impoverished as Afghanistan.

The point is, her facts are all wrong, but she had no compunction against fitting them together to make a point that wasn't there.

We did not see the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan as a major conflict, upon which the future of capitalism hinged. It was not a major investment. We did not "fight" the Soviets there. Our involvement was so peripheral that it wouldn't have even risen to the description of a proxy war.

These are the sort of details that one of a privileged, elite club of 100 people helping America to run the world might be expected to know.

But not a Tea Partier.

To them, everything under the sun is just another part of the War To Save Civilization TM. No details needed. Those pesky things just get in the way of the larger struggle, you see.

blake said...

To them, everything under the sun is just another part of the War To Save Civilization TM. No details needed. Those pesky things just get in the way of the larger struggle, you see.

Unlike?

I mean, who (beyond yourself) is a master of details, and how have they demonstrated that to your satisfaction?

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

The right's obsession with thinking in sound bites is precisely the problem, Synova.

There was no further context that would have fixed O'Donnell's error.

Synova said...

Actually, the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan would *seem* to be such a huge gaffe that it's a wonder that the moderators didn't jump right on it and insist that O'Donnell explain what she meant by US war with the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Why didn't they?

They were quick enough to press her about other issues.

El Pollo Real said...

By "us failing Massoud" I was referring to post 1989.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

I mean, who (beyond yourself) is a master of details, and how have they demonstrated that to your satisfaction?

By being willing to admit error, for one.

There are writers on both the right and left who do not only a satisfactory job of getting the details right, but an often splendid one.

To some they are considered "heretics", however - and that's a problem.

You could say my interest in accuracy is no more a problem than the interest others have in ideological purity.

Synova said...

"The right's obsession with thinking in sound bites is precisely the problem, Synova."

So you disapprove of debates? News programs?

Please, do tell.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

By "us failing Massoud" I was referring to post 1989.

The war was over by then. So your point was moot.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Why didn't they?

They were quick enough to press her about other issues.


A huge part of the problem is that the press has become just as ignorant and unwilling to challenge as the pols.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

So you disapprove of debates? News programs?

Please, do tell.


Tell what? This is not my opinion at all.

El Pollo Real said...

We did not see the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan as a major conflict, upon which the future of capitalism hinged.

I think we saw it as a major conflict upon which the future of the Soviet Union hinged.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Ok. Mea culpa. I gaffed with this one.

Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States Central Intelligence Agency program to arm, train, and finance the Afghan mujahideen during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, 1979 to 1989. The program leaned heavily towards supporting militant Islamic groups that were favored by neighboring Pakistan, rather than other, less ideological Afghan resistance groups that had also been fighting the Marxist-oriented Democratic Republic of Afghanistan regime since before the Soviet intervention. [1] Operation Cyclone was one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever undertaken;[2] funding began with $20–30 million per year in 1980 and rose to $630 million per year in 1987.

Ok. Maybe O'Donnell's not in error. If so, she's referring to something that was too covert to have been captured on the radar screens of most Americans with a passing interest in the foreign policy details of the day, such as Iran-Contra, South America, and many other events that greatly overshadowed this one.

If so, it attests to the far left's excoriation of getting the CIA to do what the armed forces should be doing out in the open.

El Pollo Real said...

Why do you say that we did not see the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan as a major conflict and who exactly do you mean: the US general public or the Pentagon?

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

I guess I must have meant the U.S. public.

Of course, the Pentagon will always argue to see every minute detail in any potential conflict or show of force anywhere around the world as a major conflict.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

I have no problem labeling Afghanistan as a major conflict for the Soviet Union.

But was it a major conflict for us? Was our investment in it anywhere near our investment in Vietnam? I realize that we were direct combatants in the latter and the USSR was a direct party to the former. But what about the investments of other nations? What was our share compared to theirs?

blake said...

Ritmo--

I was asking who specifically met your criteria.

As for Afghanistan, it seems to be popularly considered a major contributing factor in the fall of the USSR.

El Pollo Real said...

But what about the investments of other nations? What was our share compared to theirs?

I do not now that.

I do know that we had a continuing interest in containing the Soviet Union since about 1945 or so. Seeing them fail in Afghanistan was in our interest.

Of course if you want to argue the morality of opposing the Soviet Union, I'll go there too.

garage mahal said...

You guys let these foreigners lead you around by the nose. Wow.

Yes the list is long these past two years of all the OUTRAGEOUS slights (unforced errors!) to foreign countries by the careless Obama, isn't it? Or so I'm hearing from the right. He even insults Communist and Muslim nations, routinely!


And Vladimir Putin Baby: I'll go whale hunting with you anytime! So hawt.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

As for Afghanistan, it seems to be popularly considered a major contributing factor in the fall of the USSR.

Yes. The impact of Afghanistan on the U.S.S.R. was significant. As was the impact of Vietnam on us.

wv: fiction

ha. which one?

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Of course if you want to argue the morality of opposing the Soviet Union, I'll go there too.

Glad to know you have the gusto, Chicklet but whatever gave you the impression that I had any interest in that? Watch out for bogeymen, my friend. ;-)

dbp said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dbp said...

I read Coons college newspaper article, so when he claims it is a joke, he must be counting on very few voters taking the trouble to find and read it.

I mean it is a joke, but not intentional: It would be an almost perfect parody of an earnest left-wing college paper writer's output. Somehow, I doubt that is what he was going for.

Puppet Central Headquarters said...

Argh. Blogger ate my post.

No it didn't. We did.

We were monitoring Alpha via uplink and thought it necessary to delete his comment before it could be sent. It was embarrassing to our scientists' efforts.

Alpha has been called into the lab for necessary maintenance. Apologies.

El Pollo Real said...

Argh. Blogger ate my post.

No it didn't. We did.


LOLOL!

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Argh. Blogger ate my post

"No it didn't. We did"

Thank GOD, someone is finally in charge.

Even if it IS the Muppet Brigade.

It couldn't possibly be any worse.

BTW: I alway loved Pigs in Space. Maybe you guys could take over the NASA program?

blake said...

Yes. The impact of Afghanistan on the U.S.S.R. was significant. As was the impact of Vietnam on us.

Well, some would say the impact of Afghanistan on the USSR was significant to us as well. Aaron Sorkin even wrote a pretty good movie (if curiously elided) about it.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Link Hogthrob for President!!!

Seriously....could it be worse?

c3 said...

Here Ritmo, let me add you to my list:

Cedarford
Jeremy
c3

You need more women.


How did I end up in this club? I'm a happily married man of 30 years.

LoafingOaf said...

Oh, and as for Blitzer coming right back at her relating to her inane comment that evolution is a myth, well...that's exactly what he should be doing. Allowing candidates to spout nonsense or act as if what they themselves have said is not important, is patently ridiculous.

Althouse hasn't watched the rest of the debate. She wanted to find one little clip to play some "sexism" card over. Somehow it's "sexist" to ask a female Tea Party candidate to answer the fucking question about what she herself has said on national TV in the past. Whatever. Althouse didn't send her kids to schools that abused the kids by telling them that creationism is a theory on equal footing with the science of evolution.

Palladian said...

Uh oh, Christine O'Donnell's pussy might have gotten a hold of PinchingLoaf's other leg!

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Synova:

Frankly, I'd almost call this creation/evolution issue a fetish, a science-fetish. At *best* what the argument is over is a wish by parents to allow a measure of grace for their children not to have their religious faith attacked by government mandatory indoctrination during science class.

Astrology/astronomy, homeopathy/real medicine, flat earth/round earth--what really matters in science class is FEELINGS?

To teach empirical facts is "indoctrination"?

I don't believe that the national government has a role to play in the education of children that is not better handled on the state or the district level. But what you say goes way beyond that. You want Bronze Age fables taught IN science class AS modern science, just because of how people FEEL about it.

You can't just yank one thing, like human origins, out of science. A 6000-year-old universe is refuted by virtually every branch of science. You want chemistry, physics, geology, and biology taught WRONGLY to conform with a minority religious preference.

You don't see what's wrong with that?

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Synova:

And if you think biology is "squishy", you just don't know what you are talking about. There's a lot of math and laboratory experiments in biology and has been for decades. It's not physics (what is), but it's not sociology either.

Physics at the fundamental level requires bigger and bigger budgets to study and I think we are seeing diminishing returns out of that; the low-hanging fruit has been picked long ago. Biology is the going to be the big science of the next fifty years probably and you want American kids left out because a few people think the Bible has to be inerrant and literally true.

Synova said...

Gabriel, I'm talking about High School science and High School science texts.

I have never said that any form of creationism should be taught in science class.

If I told you a story, would you listen?

In High School my biology teacher showed two films one day... one was something about the earth being destroyed and people being forced to live in domes... the other was about past lives revealed under hypnosis. Inappropriate? Yes. That's not what my story is about.

My story is about my friend who, when I felt the need afterward, as a Christian, to dispute reincarnation said: But that was science. The people in the film wore lab coats.

Thus, reincarnation is a scientific fact. Because it was science class and the people wore lab coats.

Do you think this is a problem or not?

We aren't teaching *science* in elementary or secondary school. We are not teaching inquiry or skepticism. Science itself is viewed and presented as more infallible than the Pope. You can doubt the Pope, after all, and still be a faithful Catholic, and the Protestants constantly disagree with each other on everything.

But SCIENCE is infallible and is received by young people (and far too many adults) as something beyond dispute. What my friend saw is what many people see... she saw authority.

And you present EXACTLY that... science is true, and religion a fable.
Well, you're partly right in that religion is something *else*... but science is not automatically true. Children and probably most particularly teens are extremely absolute in their thinking. You are cavalier about putting them into a situation where they need to pick *between* two things that don't actually occupy the same conceptual space. Parents are not.

Two highly influential people in the last generation, with the collusion of untold others, presented science and religion as occupying the same space. Rather than science dealing with the natural and religion the supernatural, only the natural exists and science disproves God by fiat. Asimov and Sagan. (I've heard that Sagan actually apologized for this in his old age.)

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Synova:

Gabriel, I'm talking about High School science and High School science texts.


So am I. You want American history taught wrongly, so Mormons aren't offended, and you want health class taught wrongly, so Christian Scientists aren't offended. You want geology not to mention the ages of rocks, and physics not to teach that nuclear plants work (or else the universe couldn't be 6000 years old) to suit Biblical literalists.

And you think that because it's high school it's okay?

I never saw any science text, in high school or out of it, say that what was presented therein was "infallible". If science is treated in our culture as the gold standard of knowledge, it's not because of a conspiracy of textbooks, but because science delivers. Men were not prayed to the moon, and prayers did not eradicate smallpox or prevent kids from dying of diarrhea.

The reliability of scientific knowledge is entirely due to the methods of science.

You want people to be able to enshrine their prejudices as "scientific" without bothering to do the work, because it makes them feel better.

What Sagan or Asimov thought of religious people has sweet fa to do with it. You think science should be gutted to spare peoples feelings and we should raise a generation of ignoramuses. And you don't see the problem.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Synova:

And you present EXACTLY that... science is true, and religion a fable.

Synova, the worldwide flood at the 6000-year-old earth are fables, whether the name of the guy with the boat is Ut-Napishtim or Noah, and the name of the God is YHWH or Enki, doesn't matter.

Those are empirical claims empirically shown false. Doesn't mean God doesn't exist, or religion is worthless. But He didn't flood the Earth or stop the Earth's rotation for Joshua ben-Nun. I don't care if it hurts peoples feelings or makes them believe their Bible less.

If you tell kids that they can believe in the Bible literally and that modern science does not conflict with that belief, you are telling them a lie, and at taxpayer expense.

Homeschool your kids and tell them whatever you want. You're free to do that.

Synova said...

Many enormously influential scientists in History were people of profound faith, but now something had changed. Now science and religion were antagonistic, at war, and one had to chose... faith and ignorance, or science and atheism.

Religion adapted to Copernicus, to Galileo, even to Darwin. Genesis was a "rearward facing prophecy" as accurate and important and *mysterious* as Daniel. Even my ultra conservative, Scriptural infalliblity, literal-interpreting fundy church did not make the interpretation of Genesis an official issue of doctrine.

Something changed. Instead of a few tolerated people here and there who insisted that dinosaur bones were a trick of Satan the whole thing became AN ISSUE. Instead of a few tolerated people here and there going on about the Missing Link it became AN ISSUE.

The problem with assuming that those who disagree with you are behaving irrationally is that you willfully blind yourself to truth.

Christian parents were/are responding to a real and substantial and *baseless* attack on their faith and the faith of their children in a situation of compulsion.

Period.

To solve that problem you do not beat your chest and holler "I'm right! I'm right!" over and over.

Nor does the solution require an abandonment of science and inquiry.

What you DO is dispassionately work to identify the source of the conflict and resolve it.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Synova:

Christian parents were/are responding to a real and substantial and *baseless* attack on their faith and the faith of their children in a situation of compulsion.

Period.


So you are saying that the earth really IS 6000 years old, and that nuclear plants don't work. To say otherwise, in science class, is a baseless attack on the Christian faith?

Instead of a few tolerated people here and there who insisted that dinosaur bones were a trick of Satan the whole thing became AN ISSUE. Instead of a few tolerated people here and there going on about the Missing Link it became AN ISSUE.


Who made it an issue? The school boards that decided they would misrepresent science, in science class? The people who made it illegal, in the 1920s, to teach science in science class? The people who took evolution out the curriculum altogether in Kansas in the 2000s? Not them, of course, must be those scientists with their baseless attacks on faith.

The last thirty years just passed you by, didn't it?

I don't care what anybody in any religion believes. If it is a tenet of their faith that the earth revolves around the sun, or vice versa, it has no place in science classes.

Gabriel Hanna said...

I honestly can't understand your position, Synova. To accomodate these people

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/10/15/dinosaurs-in-the-lobby

This lobby display of children playing near two young T.-rexes is designed to get people’s attention, and to cause them to think from a biblical perspective. Since both man and land animals—including dinosaurs—were created on the sixth day, we can be certain that man lived at the same time as dinosaurs.

you want their demonstrably, empirically false claim taught in school to kids on par with what actually happened.

Un-freaking-believable. How postmodernist of you.

Synova said...

I'd like to leave one last thought here.

You've complained about the difficulty of getting people to take global warming science seriously.

What the deniers are objecting to is certainty.

It's not a *lack* of faith in Science that is the problem. It's the utter unquestioning faith given anything in a Lab Coat that is the problem.

Working SO HARD to perpetuate this unquestioning faith doesn't serve science at all.

I'm not advocating teaching creationism in the classroom, or intelligent design or anything else but asking public schools to serve their students by presenting origins... not evolution... but *origins* as theory. Because it is.

BUT I can think of far far worse results for scientific inquiry than inserting a good huge dose of uncertainty and doubt into High School science texts.

Perhaps the children taught this way will want more proof than Lab Coats.

And that would be a huge step forward.

Gabriel Hanna said...

Synova, let's walk down memory lane--you were alive in the 80s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLean_v._Arkansas

A lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas by various parents, religious groups and organizations, biologists, and others who argued that the Arkansas state law known as the Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act (Act 590), which mandated the teaching of "creation science" in Arkansas public schools, was unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Science textbooks don't have "Goddidit" in them anymore. Creationists were upset. Having had over a hundred years to scientifically validate their claims, and failed to do so, they decided to use government power to force the teaching of their religion in science class as equally scientific.

And to you this is about scientists and their "baseless" attacks on religion?

They had their chance, in the scientific world, and they lost. Just like astrologers and flat-earthers. And they just decided to legislatively mandate that away? And you're okay with it, and blaming the victims. Fantastic.

Synova said...

It's like speaking into the aether.

It really is.

Seriously, how do you follow a scientific train of thought from one point to another?

I amend my statement.

I'm convinced that Science and the scientific process was utterly dependent on the mental disciplines of theological study of abstract concepts and that Science... is now dead.

And that dead corpse will be strangled with great vigor in the futile belief that strangling it even harder will bring it back to life.

Gabriel Hanna said...

It's the utter unquestioning faith given anything in a Lab Coat that is the problem.

That's the problem of the people who misplace their faith, isn't it?

Working SO HARD to perpetuate this unquestioning faith doesn't serve science at all.

This UNQUESTIONING FAITH exists only your imagination. Ask me what I think about the reality of electrons and fields sometime. I can write REAMS on whether those things are, or are not, really REAL. If science was about UNQUESTIONING FAITH how could I do that?

but *origins* as theory. Because it is.

GERMS are "theory". GRAVITY is "theory". "Theory" is not an unsupported speculation.

The origins of life itself are speculative, but the origins of humans among the primates is not--it is as well supported by evidence as the fact that Jupiter is made of hydrogen, or that smallpox is caused by germs.

Creationists object to ALL of it. Anything that contradicts their pet book. You're trying to pretend that doesn't happen. But it does. They don't want the age of rocks discussed, or how long ago people came to the Americas.

Gabriel Hanna said...

I'm convinced that Science and the scientific process was utterly dependent on the mental disciplines of theological study of abstract concepts and that Science... is now dead.

Yeah, NOTHING has happened in science since Newton, right? Give me a break.

Because you know SO MUCH ABOUT SCIENCE that you can just pronounce on how it works. Everybody who actually IS A SCIENTISTS just doesn't know what they are doing.

You know, I wouldn't tell a plumber that. Yet people who didn't spend their entire adult lives doing science feel perfectly free to tell those who have that they're doing it wrong.

blake said...

Synova--

Clearly you don't understand that the sole purpose of Science class is to destroy religion.

Gabriel Hanna said...

I'm convinced that Science and the scientific process was utterly dependent on the mental disciplines of theological study of abstract concepts and that Science... is now dead.

Did you know that Isaac Newton missed out on a discovery because he assumed that God and His angels kept the planets stable in their orbits? And the discovery was made by someone else a hundred years later.

Yes, by all means we need more arguments from theology.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@blake:

Clearly you don't understand that the sole purpose of Science class is to destroy religion.

It's to understand the natural world. The natural world cannot be understood if we appeal to supernatural causes when we don't understand something.

Religion is fine. I am not against religion. I am against fables being taught as science in science classes funded by taxpayers.

It's one thing to say God is love. it is something entirely different to say that God created the universe last Thursday, including our memories preceding last Thursday, and that this needs to be taught in science class because my religion is offended otherwise.

Synova said...

I guess I just don't have this overwhelming fear of someone being wrong about something.

You've made assumptions that it's a critical problem if people believe the wrong thing. But people believing the wrong things brought us modern medicine, space travel, nuclear power, and spandex.

blake said...

Because you know SO MUCH ABOUT SCIENCE that you can just pronounce on how it works.

Well, yeah, actually anyone can. That's kind of the beauty of it. Science doesn't respect Authority.

Of course, that wasn't what Synova was doing. She was simply pointing out that integrity was necessary to pursue Science effectively.

I am against fables being taught as science in science classes funded by taxpayers.

Find some place where Synova suggested she was for that.

wv: pophyok (indeed!)

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Synova:

I guess I just don't have this overwhelming fear of someone being wrong about something.

That's not it at all. There is nothing wrong with incomplete knowledge or honest errors.

You've made assumptions that it's a critical problem if people believe the wrong thing.

No. It's a critical problem when people lie about what is, and is not, science.

When I had to teach evolution in my class, I told my students that I don't care what they believe about it. All they had to do was demonstrate that they understood the material presented.

I'm not interested in making anyone believe anything. Homeschool your kids if you want, tell them the stork brings babies. They can grow up to be idiots. More jobs for my kids.

But people believing the wrong things brought us modern medicine, space travel, nuclear power, and spandex.

What a bizarre statement. People believing the wrong things brought us bleeding and leeches, too.

The "wrong" things were corrected by applying the principles of science, not by persistently being wrong about things.

I have a lot of patience for alternative scientific theories--meaning they have to follow the rules. I have no patience for misrepresentations and lies, such as creationism or cell phones causing cancer or homeopathy.

Synova said...

Yeah, one of those terrible horrible Creationist ideas that had to be defeated at all costs or the world would end... was... drumroll... a sticker for the inside of the front cover of the textbook that said something or other about theory or people disagreeing.

OH. MY. GOD.

If the kids were allowed to even see that their brains would turn to snot and flow out their ears.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@blake:

Well, yeah, actually anyone can. That's kind of the beauty of it. Science doesn't respect Authority.

Science respects knowing what you are talking about. An argument from authority of course is not a scientific argument. But if you think you know science better than those who do it for a living, you are almost certainly wrong, not because some university gave them a piece of paper but because they've been doing the work and you haven't.

Of course, that wasn't what Synova was doing. She was simply pointing out that integrity was necessary to pursue Science effectively.

No, she wasn't. She wants to leave out large chunks of science that offend people. And she has no idea HOW MUCH she'd have to leave out, because she doesn't know enough about it:

I would contend that the areas most concerned with the evolution boogieman are the least rigorous of all "science" offered to High School students. We would not be crippled in the sciences to lose it.

Frankly, I'd almost call this creation/evolution issue a fetish, a science-fetish. At *best* what the argument is over is a wish by parents to allow a measure of grace for their children not to have their religious faith attacked by government mandatory indoctrination during science class.

In HIGH SCHOOL the depth of scientific study about evolution in text books can't even be called "depth". Nothing whatsoever would be lost if the two pages about the theory of human origins was left out. Add two pages about peptide chains and we'd all be ahead of the game.


But that wouldn't be enough, as I pointed out. There are too many religious prejudices that cannot be accommodated without a) preferring one religion over others or b) gutting science.

Synova said...

And if you don't think that unquestioning faith in the Lab Coat is a problem and THE reason you can't get more traction trying to convince people of global warming, just keep beating your head on that wall. It must feel good.

For every embarrassingly ignorant New Earth Creationist out there there are two vapid watermelon crusaders wanting to remake the world economy into an agrarian paradise, three journalists aiding and abetting, and a fellow with a club ready to explain that Freeman Dyson doesn't have the credentials to criticize computer models, and how dare you question the Lab Coat.

I think his name is Jeremy.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 210   Newer› Newest»