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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
210 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 210 of 210@Synova:
a sticker for the inside of the front cover of the textbook that said something or other about theory or people disagreeing.
The sticker was a lie and a misrepresentation. Shall I quote it for you?
This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.
The first sentence is true. The second theory contains two misrepresentations. The third is trite, because biologists have never done anything else.
The two misrepresentations:
"Theory" and "fact" are presented as opposites. A stone falls when you drop it, that's a fact, and gravity is the theory that explains how it happens. Likewise, humans are related to the other primates, this is a fact, and the theory of evolution by natural selection explains it.
"Evolution" is not concerned with the origin of life, and evolution by natural selection has still happened however the first life got there.
"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:"
Oh for Pete's sake, Gabriel. I didn't say a thing about how much and my not knowing enough (thank you) is mitigated by the fact that your boogie men know *less* and really, all I actually suggested or meant to suggest was respecting people's concerns. You made up what that meant all on your own.
Sure, it's all snowballed. I think it's snowballed because of attitudes like yours... where just saying "theory"... not on everything but just maybe under that stupid apes turning into a naked Caucasian picture... is a bridge too far.
If you want to be all inclusive and thorough, give everyone a 2 x 3 inch disclaimer sticker they can put anything they want on it and stick in the front of the text book. The kids won't pay them any attention and everyone will have a band aid for their boo-boo.
It's not a Holy Book after all, so that it would become defiled by being touched by irrationality cooties.
@synova:
I've never thought that, or said it. People can criticize the science all they want, and that's a good thing. But I care if they lie about the science, and that;s what the denialist movement does, and that's what creationists do about all science--like O'Donnell and her statement about Mt St Helens rocks. It's a lie about physics, and been exposed as one, and she repeats it and wants my kids to be taught it in school.
how dare you question the Lab Coat.
AGAIN, you can question all you like. But you can't lie about what he says, or why he says it--and if you want me to take what you say seriously you have to know the subject as well as he does--and he's put the time in. You haven't.
Case in point: continental drift. Proposed over a hundred years ago. Few geologists took it seriously. Then the mid-ocean ridges were discovered, and then it was in all the textbooks within ten years?
Why? Because Wegener could not explain how solid rock could move. When the Earth was shown to have molten layers and the mid-ocean ridges were found with rocks getting older as you got farther from the ridges it was obvious what the mechanism was.
Wegener's adherents did the work. When the weight of evidence was on their side geologists converted in short order.
Now there's geologists in Tanzania who've said for fifty years that the Earth is expanding, and no one takes them seriously--because they don't have the evidence for the mechanism. If they do, then the opinion will change.
All of this involves "questioning the Lab Coats".
"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."
You. Are. Irrational.
Okay... You don't like that they say evolution specifically regarding the origins of living things (genesis) is not a fact. Note that this is not even evolution of species or the genetic change in cells over time, but specifically origins of life, not even origins of *people*, just life. And then you manufacture outrage that they have the gall to say something about open minded study and critical consideration... not because it's *wrong* but because that's what scientists should do.
And THIS is going to destroy science education in America. THIS is too much, too defiling a thing?
@synova:
is mitigated by the fact that your boogie men know *less* and really, all I actually suggested or meant to suggest was respecting people's concerns. You made up what that meant all on your own.
The guys who believes in the talking snake and the worldwide flood are the vast majority of those trying to change the definition of science by legislative fiat.
I think it's snowballed because of attitudes like yours... where just saying "theory"... not on everything but just maybe under that stupid apes turning into a naked Caucasian picture... is a bridge too far.
Because when you say "theory" you mean "unsupported speculation". When a scientist says "theory", he means "a conceptual framework which explains a great deal of observations and predicts future ones".
To call evolution an "unsupported speculation" is a lie. To call it a scientific theory is accurate, but to put a sticker saying implying that it's all speculation and no one really knows for sure is a lie. Tell your own kids that lie if you want. Don't use taxpayer money to tell it to mine.
I look forward to telling my kids all kinds of stuff they are taught is false--but I don't demand that the state put my objections in the science book if the scientific community disagrees.
If you want to be all inclusive and thorough, give everyone a 2 x 3 inch disclaimer sticker they can put anything they want on it and stick in the front of the text book. The kids won't pay them any attention and everyone will have a band aid for their boo-boo.
Again, how post-modern of you.
Synova, "defiling" is your word.
The state put stickers on the book giving kids the impression that what they were learning isn't "real science". That was why they were put there. That was a lie. Those kids' parents object to anything but a literal interpretation of the Bible. Evolution by natural selection is only one of the many scientific facts they have a beef with.
The stickers were never about promoting free inquiry and skepticism. All you have to do is pay attention to what the people who fought for the stickers said about why they wanted them there, just like the school board in Dover.
And yet I'm the irrational one.
@Synova:
You can find the sticker ruling here:
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf
We will begin with the facts that appear to be undisputed. In 1995 the Cobb
County School District had an official policy concerning the instruction of
students on “Theories of Origin.” The policy acknowledged that “some scientific
accounts of the origin of human species as taught in public schools are
inconsistent with the family teachings of a significant number of Cobb County
citizens.” It provided that “the instructional program and curriculum of the school
system shall be planned and organized with respect for these family teachings.”
An accompanying regulation explained how the policy was to be
implemented. The 1995 regulation stated that out of “respect for the family
teachings of a significant number of Cobb County citizens,” the subject of the
origin of human species would not be taught in the elementary and middle schools, and instruction in it would not be mandatory in the district’s high schools. The
regulation did state that elective courses on alternative theories of the origin of
human species, including creation theory, would be offered to high school students
and noted in curriculum catalogs and listings. In compliance with the 1995 policy
and regulation, the school district provided students with science textbooks only
after any section containing material on evolution had been torn out of the books.
Yeah, it was all done to promote inquiry and skepticism. Come on.
In "Kitzmiller vs Dover" this was what Judge Jones found so disgusting, that ostensibly religious people were lying to him, and had left plenty of evidence to show that they did so.
You're talking about scientists, I'm talking about students and lay people.
Science itself is very good about questioning and adapting and being responsive to facts.
With people who aren't it's very different. Maybe, it's possible, that being on the inside you're unable to see this.
Telling students to question scientists and facts in their science textbook is not going to hurt them. They'll be interested or they won't. They'll understand or they won't. If they are interested it will not impair, even minutely, their path to becoming scientists. It might actually assist.
@Synova:
Telling students to question scientists and facts in their science textbook is not going to hurt them. They'll be interested or they won't. They'll understand or they won't. If they are interested it will not impair, even minutely, their path to becoming scientists. It might actually assist.
Uh huh. Do you encourage your kids, when they are little, to question your motives and moral proscriptions? No?
Kids have to learn the basics first. They can be taught scientific controversies, if those are presented neutrally and fairly.
But there is very little scientific controversy over evolution. There is a great deal of religious and political controversy, but creationists deal in distortions and lies about evolution, and they want those taught as fact.
Lynn Margulis made her name in biology by questioning whether the eukaryotic cell could have evolved by natural selection. She is now universally accorded to have been right--the cell nucleus was not evolved, but the result of symbiosis or parasitism. That was a scientific controversy which kids could have been taught about, same with continental drift before it was proved to everyone's satisfaction.
But that's not what the stickers and the Dover decision were about. Those were about presenting lies in science class to accommodate people's religion.
@Synova:
I don't know if you're still reading, but let me say that I usually like and enjoy your commentary. I think on this subject you are wrong, but I don't think you are dumb or anything and I do respect you.
What I do think is that what you are saying is well-intentioned but pernicious, because there are premises and consequences to this argument that I don't think you are aware of. Obviously I feel very strongly about it.
Even-handedness and promoting free inquiry and teaching critical thinking and all that are of course worthy objectives. But there are people, not just creationists, who use this rhetoric as a cover for goals that are diametrically opposed to the ones they profess. And you can can catch them at it, as happened (spectacularly) in the Dover trial. The whole point of the rhetoric is to trick people.
Post a Comment