I can't see McConnell losing to Chandler or Stumbo (despite Stumbo's strength in Eastern KY). First of all, if McConnell lost, everyone in KY should be embarrassed to say that Jim Bunning would be the senior senator from KY. Rather than Chandler (KY politics's wet blanket) or Stumbo (who has too much ambition for his own good), I'd like to see Daniel Mongiardo stack up to McConnell. Mongiardo has an Obama quality about him, and what's clear to me is that Beshear's campaign is a jumping off point for Mongiardo. Everyone was surprised that the upstart Mongiardo nearly defeated Bunning in 2004 (I think we all wish he had). My prediction is that it will be Mongiardo vs. McConnell and that McConnell gets re-elected. At the end of the day, KY voters are pretty practical, and they're not going to throw someone as powerful as McConnell under the bus since we're such a small state. Then, in 2010, it'll be a race between Northup and Mongiardo for Bunning's seat (let's hope to God that the old man retires by then). Mongiardo will be a seasoned candidate, a recognizeable name and could make a very interesting race with Northup, yet one with the same old story line: Louisville (Northup) vs. the rest of the state (Mongiardo). Though, there's always the ambitious Jack Conway who could give an interesting Democratic primary. I love KY politics! Thanks Chris!

bryant -

Thanx for responding. Before registration a regular poster used the pseudonym "reason". You are not s/he.

Mark in Austin asked I am "reason"? I do not entirely understand this question, so I guess the answer is no. I have reasons for my posts and reasons that I believe what I do, if that is what your asking?

Wow! Kentucky is just like Montana... we don't trust most of our politicians here either. After all, we had Conrad Burns, the King of Corruption, in the Senate for too damn long. It looks like the incumbent is hanging himself with his own rope, and in that regard, the GOP is doing it nationally with little exercises like the S-CHIP votes and continuing to fund the war in Iraq.

Bloodbath... is a word that comes to mind when I contemplate the GOP chances in 2008. They are proving every day that they are out of touch with what the people need and want. That fact does not bode well for them in the all too near political future.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/magazine/28Evangelicals-t.html?em&ex=1193803200&en=267bf647811d3d07&ei=5087%0A

judge -- the leaders will fall right in behind rudy, mark my words. they are complete hypocrites, who are only interested in persecuting anyone they don't agree with, and making $. just like rudy.

Mark -- you are right technically, but the kind of crony capitalism practiced today, with no-bid contracts and such, and price fixing in certain industries, does hew a little more to the gilded age than to any pure free-market capitalism, which we to a great extent don't practice now... it just doesn't work like the b-school textbooks...

This I post for Jonah Goldberg, zouk and other idiots who claim Hitler was a socialist:

'Martin Niemoller was a decorated u-boat captain in the First World War but subsequently became a minister of religion and a relatively high profile opponent of the Nazis as they increasingly gained firm hold of the reins to power in Germany.

Niemoeller was active as a leader in a so-called Pastors' Emergency League and in a Synod that denounced the abuses of the dictatorship in the famous "Six Articles of Barmen." Such activities finally led to his arrest on 1 July 1937. When the subsequent court appearance was followed by his release with only a modest 'slap on the wrist' Hitler personally ordered his incarceration with the result that Niemoeller remained in concentration camp, including long periods of solitary confinement, until the end of the war.

Niemoller occasionally traveled internationally after the war and delivered many speeches and sermons in which he confessed of his own blindness and inaction in earlier years when the Nazi regime rounded up the communists, socialists, trade unionists, and, finally, the Jews.

In this regard he framed a now famous quotation. Niemoller himself lived through the events associated with the Nazi seizure of absolute power and knew which groups had been persecuted by the Nazis and also knew the order in which those groups had come particularly under persecution.

'First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.'

" That sounds more like RUFUS than some supposedly serious columnist."

I'll give you that, dave. Rich does tend to pull in hyperbole when it suits his purpose. Still, no matter how you slice it things look grim for the American Taliban should Rudy win the nom.

hey mark, I will get back to that in a few --- but how do you have two names here?

Well, I'll tell you dave, the ayatollahs might have more credibility if they didn't say things like God gave us Hurrican Katrina because we tolerate homosexuals in our midst...

Rich would be a lot more credible if he did not write stuff like "Whichever candidate or party lands in the White House, this much is certain: Inauguration Day 2009 is at the very least Armageddon for the reigning ayatollahs of the American right." That sounds more like RUFUS than some supposedly serious columnist.

Bert, that is

RepubTards have problems when they lose in the fire engine-red bluegrass state. Ernie played himself. Well, at least he'll have more free time to spend with Burt. AMF!

Rich nails the 'Religious' Right ( http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/opinion/28rich.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin )

"But they gave Senator Brownback so little moral and financial support that he folded his candidacy a week ago. And they continue to stop well short of embracing Mr. Huckabee, no matter how many rave reviews his affable personality receives on the campaign trail. They shun him because they know he'll lose, and they would rather compromise principle than back a loser."

"Electricity can be measured and your monthly bill actually does this rather accurately."

Geez, KOZ, could you miss my point more completely than that? Are you really that clueless? And then you make inferences about other people's knowledge of science. WOW.

3:48P was mine.

drindl, that was interesting but I am going to pick a nit.

What Mussolini called corporativismo[sp?] had nothing to do with the American legal entity, the corporation. It was how he and the Italian fascisti described the various groups in society. The guilds and unions TOGETHER were "corporate", the steel industry AS A WHOLE was "corporate", etc. It was from the latin "corpus", meaning body. The "bodies" were the feudal components in Mussolini's fiefdom.

Ford was an antisemite who controlled a great American corporation. He was not a "corporatist". He was a competitive capitalist. When you call HRC a "corporatist" it makes an old econ major like me shudder. I cannot imagine how it squeaks the chalkboard for JD!

She is a capitalist. So is every American politician of note, even lil' Dennis. There are no feudal corporatists in America but the old trusts that TR busted were the closest we ever got to them. "Corporatism" is pre-capitalist and anti-competitive. Mussolini might have described it as "collaborative".

New Russia is so oligarchic that I could imagine Putin imposing actual Italian style fascism! Then Russia would be "corporatist", NOT capitalist.

I apologize for being pedantic, but I think the confusion of terms with defined meanings obfuscates conversation.

Jonah is the right name. He IS Jewish. The neocons are bizarre on a number of levels.

I just wrote you a long post which the WaPo ate--but perhaps one of the reasons these kinds of revisionist histories are being written is the fact that far from being a socialist, Hitler was a corporatist, who was supported by American corporatists like Prescott Bush and Henry Ford, very pro-business:

On December 20, 1922 the New York Times reported4 that automobile manufacturer Henry Ford was financing Adolph Hitler's nationalist and anti-Semitic movements in Munich. Simultaneously, the Berlin newspaper Berliner Tageblatt appealed to the American Ambassador in Berlin to investigate and halt Henry Ford's intervention into German domestic affairs. It was reported that Hitler's foreign backers had furnished a "spacious headquarters" with a "host of highly paid lieutenants and officials." Henry Ford's portrait was prominently displayed on the walls of Hitler's personal office:

The wall behind his desk in Hitler's private office is decorated with a large picture of Henry Ford. In the antechamber there is a large table covered with books, nearly all of which are a translation of a book written and published by Henry Ford.5
...
Hitler received a mild and comfortable prison sentence for his Bavarian revolutionary activities. The rest from more active pursuits enabled him to write Mein Kampf. Henry Ford's book, The International Jew, earlier circulated by the Nazis, was translated by them into a dozen languages, and Hitler utilized sections of the book verbatim in writing Mein Kampf.7

We shall see later that Hitler's backing in the late 20s and early 30s came from the chemical, steel, and electrical industry cartels. In 1928 Henry Ford merged his German assets with those of the I.G. Farben chemical cartel. A substantial holding, 40 percent of Ford Motor A.G. of Germany, was transferred to I.G. Farben; Carl Bosch of I.G. Farben became head of Ford A.G. Motor in Germany. Simultaneously, in the United States Edsel Ford joined the board of American I.G. Farben. (See Chapter Two.)

A decade later, in August 1938 -- after Hitler had achieved power with the aid of the cartels -- Henry Ford received the Grand Cross of the German Eagle, a Nazi decoration for distinguished foreigners. The New York Times reported it was the first time the Grand Cross had been awarded in the United States and was to celebrate Henry Ford's 75th birthday.'

bryant, were you "reason"?

drindl, NYT reports FOX now has sent "C&D" letters to everyone.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/27/us/politics/27fox.html

drindl, I read that capsule book reviewyou posted.

In college, I learned that "fascism" in Italy was modeled on the feudal system - a pyramid with the guilds or unions and the towns at the bottom, the industry and regional interests in the middle, and Mussolini at the top, or something close to that.

I read "Mein Kampf" from which I perceived Hitler's virulent anti-semitism, his anti-slavic sentiments, and his reverence for Wagnerian views of the ancient Teutonic religion. He did not propose a socialist theory that I could recognize, but the book was so insane that it was not exactly an organized political treatise.

Later Hitler may have adopted a reflection of Mussolini's ideas.

A man named "Noah Goldberg" may have a Jewish ancestor, do you not think? Sort of a doubly twisted rereading of Naziism, in that case, IMHO.

Wow, what an ad! This is the type of ad that moves polls enough to win at the end of an election if your behind! Like Corker's ad against Ford with the white woman @ the Playboy mansion or Tester's ad against Burns cursing the firefighters. If Fletcher were up, he'd be falling. Right now, though, I don't think he will fall any futhur...that's the good news for Fletcher. The bad news is that he is already losing the election and this likely sways any undecided voters and those leaning Beshear but thinking about the casino issue from coming back to Fletcher. He's likely dead in the water and Beshear will ride into the governor's mansion on the unpopularity of Fletcher. In my view, I think Fletcher will outperform the polls on election day and lose closer than the pundits think. Either way, the new Kentucky governor will likely be Beshear barring something extradinary. Unless, of course, not many people show up to vote.

This to me is one of the most fascinating aspects of 2008- I thnk ultimately they will go for rudy, for strictly business reasons [for gov money for their programs, etc] but it will be a really blatant and public sellout, tho Brownback has already gone for it:

'Today we've been chronicling the fallout from the surprising remarks made yesterday by conservative Senator Sam Brownback, who startled a lot of people in GOP primary politics by saying that he'd grown "more comfortable" with Rudy's abortion views after meeting with him face to face.

The latest: A top official with the Family Research Council, a top social conservative group, expressed surprise and dismay at Brownback's dalliance with Rudy in an interview with Election Central.

"The wording is curious," said Charmaine Yoest, a vice president at FRC. "It goes beyond what I would have expected of him."

The larger question right now is whether social conservatives will really desert Rudy should he become the GOP nominee. More and more evidence suggests that conservative leaders who are threatening to bolt are just blowing smoke. For instance, James Bopp, a leading conservative supporter of Mitt Romney, acknowledged earlier today that he too would support Rudy in a general election and predicted that a third-party challenge from the right was unlikely to happen.

The Family Research Council, though, is continuing to insist that social conservatives will in fact desert Rudy in droves -- and doesn't believe Brownback will ultimately support Rudy. "I'll believe he supports Giuliani when I see it," FRC veep Yoest says. "For the pro-life movement as a whole, life is a deal-breaker. There would be no better way to demoralize the GOP base than to nominate Giuliani. It would be a disaster for the Republicans party."

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/10/frc.php

A new independent poll out today shows just how vulnerable KY Senator Mitch McConnell is -- as he is ahead by 5 only against his main Democratic opponents. Link:

http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/10/morning-polls-is-mitch-mcconnell-really.html

Rasmussen says Huckabee has passed Romney in national polls and is now 4th. Rasmussen says Huckabee is second in IA.

Go Bosox!

'Liberal Fascism: The Totalitarian Temptation from when I got my advance until I finally hand in the manuscript in 2011 (Hardcover)'

This is a real book title, by the heritage con [son of the rich witch Lucianne] Jonah Goldberg. Baffling.

http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-Totalitarian-Temptation-manuscript/dp/0385511841/ref=sr_1_1/103-8631080-0992632?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193512028&sr=1-1

But you read the description, this book has the most fantastical revisionism I have ever seen. It is startling to see how far sunk into a delusional altenative universe these people are, how willing to beleive the most blatant lies, the most outrageous accusations. A chillingly Orwellian example of mass derangment. I fear for this country.

drindl, I refer intellectual property cases.

Colin may have an informed opinion.

With that caveat, McCain's commercial use of copyrighted material is not for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. That would seem to make it subject to permission.

On the other hand, it would seem that having made the web site accessible to the public, FOX may be complaining too much if someone has directed attention to it.

Your other point: that selective copyright permission might be a corporate in-kind contribution, depends in part on whether RG paid the going rate for a license or not.
[What does CBS pay to run a FOX excerpt?]

Cool law school exam question.

Any IP lawyers out there? I would like to hear the analysis of someone who knew what s/he was talking about, too.

Mark, wondered what you thought of this, and are there any legal issues involved... Fox is demanding that McCain yank all mention of the network fromhis website, including debate footage, whereas they area allowing Rudy to use anything he wants. Is this like an in-kind donation or something? Are there any laws about a TV station blatantly campaigning for someone?

'The letter says: "Fox News demands that John McCain 2008 immediately cease and desist from any further use of the copywrighted material and that access through the Website to the Ad, the Fox News Debate or any portion thereof, and/or any other Fox news materials, be immediately disabled." That seems clear: No Fox footage of any sort on his site at all. That's surprisingly onerous.

What's amusing, though, is that if you head over to Rudy Giuliani's campaign web site, you find that it is absolutely festooned with Fox News footage. It even prominently features footage from the very same debate that Fox is demanding McCain yank down from his site.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/10/fox_news_tells.php

Blarg and Dave had an interesting discussion on the recent Edwards thread. They addressed poverty, and what could or should be done about it, and who or what might do it.

It is very complex, as both of them know, and beyond these threads to explain.

We have historic examples of what works well, what works that is expensive, what works that is relatively cheap, and what does not work well enough to try again.

Some examples follow.

Low hanging fruit: The public school systems. Local and state burden. Imagine the USA without them [No Nobel Prizes for science, I suspect, from native born citizens. Small work force.].

Community colleges. Absolute big bang for the buck. My preference is not to federalize them.

Slightly higher hanging, but still big bang:

parent training/prenatal/neonatal for single teenage moms.

Two consecutive years of preschool.

In the sense of socialization to education and
high school graduation rates, and moving out of poverty, Head Start has worked [Dave, the
stat work done out of Texas Tech is not available on the web or I would cite it].

Unemployment compensation.

Very high fruit and no track record of success:
welfare as we knew it before Clinton-Gingrich partnered in the 90s to kill it.

What exactly does Edwards propose and who will pay for it and how will it be delivered? The devil is in the details, and in the nature of Congress. Each Congressperson must look out for his/her district and federal programs are inherently subject to porking up regardless of party in power.

But having a "War on Poverty" is as dumb as the "War on Drugs", or dare I say it, the "War on Terrorism." Poverty, drugs, and terrorism are here to stay. Make the goals measurable.

I am a very strong Republican, have been all of my life. In fact I've never voted for a Democrat in my life. I'm solidly behind Mitt Romney for President and have been touting his campaign for going on 2 1/2 yrs.

With all that said, I am not voting for Ernie Fletcher. The ethics things are of concern, but my biggest issue is that I haven't seen him do anything since he came to office. I just can not stand the thought of another four years of him.

So, I'm giving his Democratic competitor a shot at the job. I definitely don't agree with all of his policies, but one thing that can be said is the guy has a plan, and a well laid out one at that. I might not be loved by my fellow Republicans for saying so, but geez we need competent leadership and I think that Beshear can't be even remotely worse than Fletcher.

Another thing to be said, is that I contacted both of Fletcher's opponents during the primary. I wanted straight answers about what they would do with Health Care (as it's an important issue to me since I'm one of the massive number of uninsured here in Kentucky), and Anne Northrup's office didn't have an answer but promised me that someone from her office would call me back and give me an answer. It never happened. I was even willing to help her campaign because I didn't like Fletcher (that's if had she shown any interest in me or my concerns...which she didn't). I did the same with Buddy Harper. I contacted one of his internet people about the Health Care issue and he didn't even know what his position was on it, nor did he ever get back to me about it. I didn't need to ask Governor Fletcher, because I didn't feel that I should have to (he's been our Governor for Pete's Sake) and he hasn't done anything to try and change the level of uninsured people in the state.

So, what I'm left with is a Democrat whom I don't agree with on many issues. But, at least he has some sort of Health Care plan [http://www.stevebeshear.com/node/348]. I'm ready for a change in the Governors office, and I hope this is a wakeup call for high level Republicans in the state. We need some major changing there too.

Ann Marie Curling
Founder - Elect Romney in 2008 [http://blog.electromneyin2008.com]

Sorry, just read ruf's earlier post.

Hello, Mark, did I miss something? What was that about?

Ruf, you should also look up the Haupt case and the Kawakita case.

Quiz on Monday.

The Cramer Case.--Since the Bollman case, the few treason cases which have reached the Supreme Court were outgrowths of World War II and have charged adherence to enemies of the United States and the giving of aid and comfort. In the first of these, Cramer v. United States, the issue was whether the "overt act" had to be "openly manifest treason" or if it was enough if, when supported by the proper evidence, it showed the required treasonable intention. The Court in a five-to-four opinion by Justice Jackson in effect took the former view holding that "the two-witness principle" interdicted "imputation of incriminating acts to the accused by circumstantial evidence or by the testimony of a single witness,"even though the single witness in question was the accused himself. "Every act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses,"Justice Jackson asserted. Justice Douglas in a dissent, in which Chief Justice Stone and Justices Black and Reed concurred, contended that Cramer's treasonable intention was sufficiently shown by overt acts as attested to by two witnesses each, plus statements made by Cramer on the witness stand.

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 115

§ 2381. Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Dear debaters of evolution. I recommend an excellent bedtime reading : The Origin of Species. It's written to general audience and I promise it won't destroy your faith in God (if you believe).
It is also avialable online, not subject to copyright.

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/

I'm sorry to disappoint the detractors, but direct observational and experimental evidence of real time evolution is abundant and is published daily in leading peer reviewed scientific publications. Here is a recent example if you are not afraid of hard core science.

Rapid Evolution of a Geographic Cline in Size in an Introduced Fly
Raymond B. Huey, George W. Gilchrist, Margen L. Carlson, David Berrigan, and Luís Serra
Science 14 January 2000 287: 308-309 [DOI: 10.1126/science.287.5451.308] (in Reports)

"A lie in a time of war is treason"

Gordon Bloyer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tOPRIghEPc

so I guess Fox news is going to be put under the laws of treason. They lie in a time of war daily. What is the penalty for treason in this country? Anyone.

the mor eI learn about the fascists, the angrier I get. "I know you are but what am I."

The crumbling dylusional gop would be funny if they weren't destroying the coutnry and murdering people. I guess it's a joke to you people. Fun and games. I'm not laughing.

Free speech? only the fascist republcians have free speeach in this country. Teh rest of us have to pay. Whether money. Or jobs. Or jail. Or attacked. The left has to pay. The right hides behind the skirts of their propogandsits while real patriots take the lumps for OOUR country. your fascist time is up.

"for those out there how love to attack me. for those that love to silence the left, yet think Fox is serious responsible news. Here you go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nI1nPCuh57g

Calling the true patriots treason. Asking when the republcains are going to silence olberman and the ny times and exile them. Who are the real traitors? The gop sell-out fascists.

You people make me so angry. The more I learn about you, the angrier I get.

'but creationists aren't trying to get the opposing view completely out of the picture. '

Well, actually that is what they would like. This is my clan, I know them well.

Why don't you stop your sandbox insults, zouk? What is the point? You can be better than that.

I found something on Rasmussen today about Senator Dole in NC, my Crystal Ball must be working, for only a couple days ago I asked about this.

claudialong: I think you are on track about religious beliefs. None of us can come close to the understanding of others beliefs. I think it goes back to our childhood and the beliefs of our parents passing it along to us as to what we should believe. I was raised as a Babtist and later on in life found there were hundreds of different opinions in that one church alone, The Church of Christ [Holiness], which I think you have mentioned before is a good example. I think you will find the same in the Jewish and Catholic faith, as well as the Muslim faith.

drindl is agreeing with me. time to go home. Have a nice weekend everyone.

that's what I get for talking about something I know nothing about (for the first time ever).

Peace and love all.
Next week - the facts about Hillary Clinton - a matter of faith???

drindl is agreeing with me. time to go home. Have a nice weekend everyone.

that's what I get for talking about something I know nothing about (for the first time ever).

Peace and love all.
Next week - the facts about Hillary Clinton - a matter of faith???

and when you say this --' there are no facts, only beliefs. do not confuse the two'-- that is what I would say to the creationists

but creationists aren't trying to get the opposing view completely out of the picture. It is the evolutionsists who can't handle the opposition. I think my kids can handle both.

spread of disease through germs and the heliocentric model of the solar system are also theories.

Incorrect. the heliocentric model has been aptly demonstrated when modern telescopes and space probes emerged. It can be shown that any theory which claims the sun is not at the center is false. Likewise, it can be shown that germs spread disease or moreover, that no germs do not spread disease. this is not even comparable and shows a total ignorance of the scientific method.

Electricity can be measured and your monthly bill actually does this rather accurately.

our body is actually quite poorly designed - my eyes are a wonder. I see colors, depth, movement, etc. this is not a poor design. It is amazing.

Stringing together some ideas is not science, such as we die young, right after we multiply. that doesn't prove or disprove anything. you could then reason that umbrellas cause rain. or sunburn causes sun.

you Libs should stay away from pure science, it makes you seem so silly. but your views on faith are no better. your best terrain is emotionalism. All you Libs feel good or bad about something and demand action as a result. Never based on facts or morals.

'I recognize that faith aids people in many facets of life. I relish the idea that our country allows everyone to do their own thing without challenge in this realm.

but how could you challenge it? there are no facts. Only beliefs. do not confuse the two. they do not inhabit the same universe. and that is not a contradiction. It is the duality of man and always will be.

If you study science and math at the level I have, you begin to see a beauty and magnificence emerge that can only be described as awe inducing.

and you must remember that kids have always prayed to you know who during math quizzes. so there will always be religion in school.'

you know what? i agree with everything you said. just as there are no atheists in a foxhole. yes -- we want to beleive. but faith is what you have when you have no proof. it may simply be wishful thinking -- a desire for order in a chaotic universe. and the beauty and awe of the universe? oh, yes. but what if it just is, with no explanation, and the acceptance that we may never understand it, only appreciate it? and you are right, that is the duality of our being--but that may simply be an evolutionary quirk.

and when you say this --' there are no facts, only beliefs. do not confuse the two'-- that is what I would say to the creationists.

Maxwell's equations of electricity and magentism can be derived from coulombs law and special relativity IF you assume the invariance of electric charge. A law coincides with evidence but does not explain why. a theory is in accordance with most hypotheses on the matter but is never proven, it can only be disproven by an alternate theory.

Mathematics makes a grave distinction between a theory and a law.

Newtons laws worked great for a long time. they still do on human sized objects. but in the micro size, they are flawed. It is a question of accuracy.

so Newton laws are relatively (pun alert) truthful but not absolutely. they can be proven false. this is the only feature an actual scientist/mathmatician cares about. Can it be proven false?

so Darwins theory could also be mostly accurate with some important anomolies which need to be handled with a better theory. but the main problem with Darwin is that it can't readily be tested as a hypothesis. this makes it a very bad theory from a math point of view.

Electricity is another good example, thank you, Judge. I will add it to my list to cite when people say they don't believe in evolution. From now on, I'm going to not believe in electricity, that the sun revolves around the earth, or that germs spread disease.

Really off topic what the hell.

KoZ, I realize that it's a theory that has not yet been disproved or proved. Gravity is, likewise, a theory. I think that there is ample evidence for both. There is no evidence for creationism. The Bible says it is so. You think it's an odd occurance to have managed to evolve such complicated organic machinery to live. However, as any physiologist will tell you, our body is actually quite poorly designed. Our bodies are designed to last 20-30 years. That's long enough to grow up have a baby and teach that baby things before death. That's all evolution has to do: get us as good as it takes to get us to procreate and make sure that the offspring are capable of procreating, too. Into our thirties, our joints go bad, eyes get worse, etc.

judge, you might wade through

http://www.constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm

for the Monday quiz, too.

It is part of the most extensive scholarly work on why the 2d A really means something
available. It is an assessment that could have been written by an NRA lawyer, but this comes from a nationally known Constitutional Law Prof with "liberal" credentials.

so where did God come from?

you would have to ask a person who understands faith more than I. I am a scientist and a non-believer.

but that position allows me to advance certain ideas. I am highly skeptical of all theories, as a good scientist should be. As a result I am skeptical of Darwin and modern cimate models. I am not saying they are absolutely wrong, I am saying they are not absolutely right.

As far as where god came from - that is a question that by definition, is not subject to scientific enquiry. It is a matter of faith. Many educated and hgihly intelligent people throughout history and today have had a faith in a higher being. I can't claim to know more than them or claim to have a higher understanding. I recognize that faith aids people in many facets of life. I relish the idea that our country allows everyone to do their own thing without challenge in this realm.

but how could you challenge it? there are no facts. Only beliefs. do not confuse the two. they do not inhabit the same universe. and that is not a contradiction. It is the duality of man and always will be.

If you study science and math at the level I have, you begin to see a beauty and magnificence emerge that can only be described as awe inducing.

and you must remember that kids have always prayed to you know who during math quizzes. so there will always be religion in school.

Jenn2: electricity is also a theory; we cannot DIRECTLY observe the flow/motion of electrons through the wires of the computer we are all typing on. They may all have little smiles on their electron faces. Yet the theory works pretty darn well regardless.

"I saw that article, Judge. I really like Huckabee. I'd hang out with him. But then I remember that he doesn't believe in evolution a "secularist" notion according to Huckabee endorser, Chuck Norris. I know a lot of Christians who don't believe that the two ideas, God and evolution, are mutually exclusive. It seems to reek of willful disregard of evidence."

Jason, I'm merely pushing for the best R candidate we can get. Having said that, the POTUS can only do so many stupid things and if MH was elected I'd bet he'd be far too busy actually trying to solve problems than to try and shove his nutty personal bias regarding evolution down everyone's throat. Although I could be wrong.

Zouk, the spread of disease through germs and the heliocentric model of the solar system are also theories.

Evolution is a theory accepted by scientists just as readily.

'Now I am not a religious person, but have become more skeptical of Darwin over time. I find it hard to believe that the human eye, such as it is, was a result of natural and random processes over a length of time. Still haven't seen the missing link yet either.

and the two ideas - creation and evolution are not necessarily a contradiction. ultimately, at some point, there is an original cause that starts whatever process you like. In math, if you beleive in the theory of induction, you can start with "one" and go on, but you never know where "one" came from. and even though the theory of induction works very nicely in every application we use it in, it is still a theory to this date - it has not been subjected to being disproven in the scientific manner.'

well, a thoughtful post, zouk. what an odd contradiction your are. but here's the logic problem to me.' I find it hard to believe that the human eye, such as it is, was a result of natural and random processes over a length of time.'

and so you want to beleive instead that a magical being created it? please show me how this is not a theory, without any evidence whatsoever to support it?

'ultimately, at some point, there is an original cause that starts whatever process you like' -- indeed. so where did God come from?

Polya more certain than Darwin? Surely.

Darwin did not know about Mendeleev and M did not know about D. Modern genetics grew from both.

KOZ, does RG believe in the unitary theory of the executive?

Evolution is still a theory, that is, it has not been disproven. but it has certain holes in it that are not going to be easily mitigated.

Now I am not a religious person, but have become more skeptical of Darwin over time. I find it hard to believe that the human eye, such as it is, was a result of natural and random processes over a length of time. Still haven't seen the missing link yet either.

and the two ideas - creation and evolution are not necessarily a contradiction. ultimately, at some point, there is an original cause that starts whatever process you like. In math, if you beleive in the theory of induction, you can start with "one" and go on, but you never know where "one" came from. and even though the theory of induction works very nicely in every application we use it in, it is still a theory to this date - it has not been subjected to being disproven in the scientific manner.

But you Libs are always confusing reason and faith. some things must be taken on an instinct and others can be examined in the lab. Creation can't really be resolved in the lab quite yet. nor can global warming. but you Libs think that it is settled science, when in fact, you regard it as settled faith actually.

Hot d*mn. That's gonna hurt. From a viewers perspective it's a well made ad, too.

I saw that article, Judge. I really like Huckabee. I'd hang out with him. But then I remember that he doesn't believe in evolution a "secularist" notion according to Huckabee endorser, Chuck Norris. I know a lot of Christians who don't believe that the two ideas, God and evolution, are mutually exclusive. It seems to reek of willful disregard of evidence.

Thought for the Day: There is no chin under Chuck Norris' Beard. There is only another fist.

I would like to see the D's make an ad like this for everyone they're challenging. I would like to personally make an ad like that about the Bush administration. It would be forty-five hours long, though, so no one would want to watch it.

Kentucky's election will be held on Tuesday November 6th, 2007.

http://OsiSpeaks.com or http://OsiSpeaks.org

OT: Slate has an in-depth interview with MH at http://www.slate.com/id/2176629

It's so hard not to like the guy.

Lots of zingers in that ad. And that's probably with a thoroughly corrupted Justice Department probably not helping in the background.

When is Election Day for KY?