Best Answer To A Question That Had No Relevance
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (32) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
From Mike Huckabee.
I wonder if Wolf Blitzer will ask the Democrats to explain Sodom and Gomorrah.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Best Moment Of Last Night's Debate — Comments (6) »
Best Answer To A Question That Had No Relevance 32 Comments (0 topical, 32 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
And find where it says we elect a furher and not a President. The president is not in charge of science education in schools. He has only indirect power to even effect schools.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
He didn't seem to shy away from the question asked, just questioned its relevance.
But if your fears are that a president would involve himself in middle school curricula due to his personal belief system, then I think John Edwards is your man. He's already indicated his personal morals won't interfere with his governing the nation.
Poor Wolf must not have been paying attention to the governor's answer, to ask a follow-up like that.
"The President will be in charge of science and science education in this country."
Really? Where is that in the Constitution? I think you have stumbled into the wrong site. This site promotes conservative, Republican principles. Under no circumstances should the government be in charge of science.
ElmarBrok, I suppose you're not aware that the President isn't involved in the grant review process that operates out of the National Science Foundation?
The National Science Foundation is an independent federal agency that awards grants according to independent criteria of scientists and engineers.
The NIH also has safeguards that prevent Presidential interference.
A President's view on evolution is not relevant to any duty that a President currently has.
Clearly the evolution question was designed to trip up candidates and create a soundbyte controversy rather than get to any actually relevant matter--no argument there.
But if you're going to take the position that it is a big "R" Republican principle that government should not be in charge of science (which I would read to include political interference with independent scientific judgment), then I think this administration and party have left you long behind. Brief examples:
This is regarding Julie MacDonald, a former deputy assistant secretary in the Interior Department who recently resigned in the face of a congressional oversight committee hearing. The excerpts are from a report prepared by the Inspector General:
MacDonald tangled with field personnel over designating habitat for the endangered Southwestern willow flycatcher, a bird whose range is from Arizona to New Mexico and Southern California. When scientists wrote that the bird had a "nesting range" of 2.1 miles, MacDonald told field personnel to change the number to 1.8 miles. Hall, a wildlife biologist who told the IG he had had a "running battle" with MacDonald, said she did not want the range to extend to California because her husband had a family ranch there.
....
MacDonald argued with Hall over the Kootenai River sturgeon, a fish in Montana and Idaho that needs a certain level of river flow in order to spawn. Field biologists determined that the sturgeon's needed flow level ranged between 2.3 and 5.9 cubic feet per second, but MacDonald instructed them to cite only the 5.9 figure, which would have aided dam operators. After Hall demanded she put the request in writing, the report noted, "she ultimately relented and they kept the 2.3 to 5.9 range."
.....
...Ms. MacDonald lobbied for a decision to combine three different populations of the California tiger salamander into one, thus excluding it from the endangered-species list, and making the decision legally vulnerable. A federal district judge overturned it in 2005., saying the decision was made “without even a semblance of agency reasoning.”
Or how about George Deutsch, the party hack installed at NASA who was forced to resign recently after his rsume lies became known. He was a flack from Bush/Cheney 2004 war room. That's how he became the gatekeeper screening....wait for it, wait for it....the scientific information NASA personnel could communicate to the public. He told NASA scientists the "Big Bang" theory was "opinion" and told them "It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator ... This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half of this debate from NASA. That would mean we had failed to properly educate the very people who rely on us for factual information the most."
If I didn't have a family and a job I could find examples like this all day long. Ketchup is a vegetable? Anyone? Anyone?
It looks like there is a move on to push a collision of Branes (yes that is correct spelling) as the new cosmological darling. This is a result of String/M theory supplanting the standard model for unprovable underlying theories.
If you look at cosmology for the last two centuries its been an opinion with predominant theories being replace every 30 to 40 years.
The rest of what you cite is the result of obvious political disagreements. The question becomes what were the field techs about at interior.
If you think this a purely scientific issue, just wait to see how you feel if your home is designated a wetland or superfund site.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
It didn't sound like whining at all to me. I thought he sounded passionate, articulate and intelligent and I thought he gave a great answer.
I suspect there are two variations on the Southern accent in the US- the deep, rich voice of a Fred Thompson type and the higher pitched nasally voice of say a John Edwards or Linsday Graham. Unfortunately for Huckabee, his voice pitch/accent combo probably shakes out closer to the Edwards/Graham type, which may make him come off as somewhat "shrill" when he speaks passionately. But I don't think its fair to characterize that as whining. It sounded like the opposite of whining to me and I think he spoke forcefully and successfully make Blitzer and his sidekick look foolish (admittedly not hard to do).
I'd like to know who is dictating that the homosexual lifestyle be taught in our public schools now.
When did subjects like these become relevant to the basic, elementary school curriculum when these youngsters should be learning the basics in reading, math, and language?
Who said they should be learning about aberrant lifestyles and human sexuality at school?
I guess ElmarBrok would say President George W. Bush is to blame.
Let me guess... You probably also think that this nation's covert support (by not banning it) for homosexuality is partly responsible for the dead servicemen and -women in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Not sure how your little train jumped the tracks on to servicemen and women in Iraq and Afghanistan.
You were speaking of how the next President might have the ability to dictate the 8th grade science curriculum.
Logically speaking, your inference states that the current president dictates the curriculum.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Those who have "faith" are always being challenged by those who do not.
Why are the faithless so determined to have the faithfull hand them proof of that, which they insist does not exist?
_"Even when you fall on your face, you're still moving forward.""
Today is Earth Day, and I personally believe every day should be Earth Day. We have a duty to protect God's creation....
Which Republican had the audacity to bring up creation on the campaign trail?
Oh wait, these comments were from Hillary.
Gee, I wonder why Blitzer didn't ask Hillary to expand on and justify that remark during the Democratic debate.
Its easy to get confused about who you are pandering to. She probably thought she was in a southern church again.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Because Blitzer knows that only "initial questions" (given to Hillary in advance) are allowed. Questions intended to clarify her prepared answers are not permitted.
"Even when you fall on your face, you're still moving forward."
Who says that morals are not taught in middle school and that the President has no impact on what is taught in our schools. Take for example President Bush and sexual education. Bush tied federal grants for schools if the state decided to teach an abstinence-only program -- it's called the State Abstinence Education Program by the Dept. of Health and Human Services. A similar thing could feasibly be done for evolution-only or creationism-only curriculum. Therefore, knowing one's opinion on the topic is important.
So for anyone who argues that the President does not get involved in middle school education is mistaken. He may not in charge of the actual science, but he is partially responsible for the allocation to funding to states, and able to tie the money to caveats.
Teaching abstinence means to teach one to abstain from sexual contact -- not the same as teaching about or how to have sex.
What is your rhetoric reference to? I'm confused about your post. Of course I know what abstinence is; my post has nothing to do with the definition of abstinence. The post was saying that the President has gotten involved in what is being taught in schools. I never mentioned that I support it or not.
But I must differ with you regarding the funding issue. I believe it is the congress that determines funding and places earmarks on those projects. The president only submits his budget for approval. I don't believe he can withhold funds if they don't support a program - congress might be able to.
Although Huckabee mis-stated the question, he gave a very telling answer.
Blitzer: "Do you believe literally it was done in six days and it occurred six thousand years ago?"
Huckabee: "I don't know, I wasn't there...."
Clearly Huckabee is confident enough in his beliefs that he will not be influenced by the earth or life sciences. Do his comments speak to the kind of people he would appoint to oversee education, hurricane and bird flu preparedness, health?
Most certainly, Huckabee scored points among those who believe the Grand Canyon was created in a few days by the Biblical flood.
Byrd wouldn't know... He had the sheets pulled up over his head..
"Even when you fall on your face, you're still moving forward."
more likely Huckabee was talking about old-earth creationism, where the 6 days are not literal 24 hours, but eras (like how one says "in my father's day" and doesn't mean one day) - Google Hugh Ross for more.
___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
I didn't hear anything in his answer to suggest that this is more likely to be his interpretation, not that it really matters. The significance of him saying "I don't know, I wasn't there" is that he believes in Genesis literally, rather than in the coherent, evidence-based chronology that's emerged from the earth sciences.
The line of questioning is highly relevant to the selection process although it's a shame it ended with a silly question, and a sillier answer, about evolution.
I would love to hear more questions that reveal any candidate's level of scientific literacy and his sense of the role of science in maintaining our health, economic prosperity and international stature.
At 1:14 left he says "and how long did it take? I don't know", then at :23 to go, he says "6 days or 6 days that represented periods of time"
___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
"At 1:14 left he says "and how long did it take? I don't know", then at :23 to go, he says "6 days or 6 days that represented periods of time""
True, but then he made a swipe at people who "choose to believe that they're descended from apes", setting himself apart from that cohort of people. So, though it's unclear from his comments as to whether he thinks 6 days or 6 million years, he seemed to gesture towards his skeptical opinion of the Darwinian evolution of the species. Just saying.
I actually thought Sen. Brownback's editorial on this in the New York Times was very intelligently done. I disagree with him on some things, but he seems to be able to stake out a middle ground: "If belief in evolution means simply assenting to microevolution, small changes over time within a species, I am happy to say, as I have in the past, that I believe it to be true. If, on the other hand, it means assenting to an exclusively materialistic, deterministic vision of the world that holds no place for a guiding intelligence, then I reject it."
And finally, I think a previous poster took umbrage at another poster's comment, saying that it's "sophomoric" to broadly label Huckabee as "believing in Genesis literally". I think this question that was posed to Huckabee does come down to an important question regarding how one balances conflicting "truths", and understanding the means by which a man who would be President comes to his conclusions. Considering that there is a plethora of scientific evidence that indicates that man and the dinosaurs (to give a pop culture cliche example) never walked the earth together, I think it IS relevant to know if someone thinks that they did. If Huckabee thinks that, it indicates that he grants Scripture's words a certain impregnable authority that is troubling. Good Christians can take away the spiritual and religious truth, without relying upon the Bible for science. I think a certain "flexibleness" of opinion is important when reading a book like Genesis that does contradict many other "truths" that we know to be true. You can throw either side out entirely, or you can pause to see if there isn't a way to reconcile the important part of each.
And yes, I know that some would counter by saying "the Bible is inspired by God and infallible", but rejecting the story of Creation doesn't mean that I have to give up God's infallibility, nor his influence over the writing of Scripture. I could very well simply believe that the perfect truth that God imparted to the writer was "I created this!! I am the big man on campus here!" and that the Jewish male from many years ago, who had no understanding of our current knowledge of science, conveyed the truth "God created us" in the best narrative manner that he could manage. A nice story about 6 days in a garden. And I think it is fair to question the judgement of people who say "no, 6 days means 6 24 hour periods." Though you are entitled to your belief, I am equally entitled to sit here scratching my head in pure incredulity, wondering how such an unequivocal statement can be made after stopping to appreciate all the facts. To me it shows a rigidity of thought, an inability to think outside the literal and the simple (and I don't want that to be taken in a demeaning way), and a dangerous willingness to deny uncomfortable facts in favor of pursuing an ideology. Those are qualities that I don't want in my President.
is ordinarily code for "I think this guy is a raving lunatic, and anyone with a brain should, too." Is that what you are trying to say? If not, what exactly are you trying to say? Thank you so much for your sophmoric analysis of both Genesis and Huckabee. Hopefully, one day rubes such as Huckabee can come to your obvious enlightened level of discourse and understanding. Of course you realize that you have just completely insulted many who post on this board. And have proven your complete and total ignorance of biblical exegesis. If you want to believe anyone that believes in the bible literally is insane (or incoherent - what, afraid to say what you really mean?), feel free - but somehow I don't expect that to go over very well here. Hint: a literal interpretation of the bible does not necessarily mean what whichever theocratic conspiracy theorist you have been listening to claims.
Huckabee comes off as a cry baby after that answer. Other candidates were okay with answering questions about evolution.
This is an important topic. And contrary to what Huckabee says, it is relevant to the job of the President. The President will be in charge of science and science education in this country. He's right in that he won't be writing eighth-grade textbooks, but the President will be responsible for allocating moneys to schools and research that would have a great deal of impact on the evolution debate. Just think about this: A president has the authority to push for removing the word 'evolution' from all textbooks and re-allocate money to that end -- or even push for a Constitutional amendment removing evolution if they were so inclined.
Also, the appointment of Supreme Court justices. Many cases might argue that teaching creationism is akin to a violation of the church and state principle. Will the next President nominate a judge who supports that viewpoint or not? I don't know.
So how is this not relevant? Huckabee is just complaining because he sees his chances of winning the nomination slipping day by day. I remember my eighth-grade teacher had a poster that like a no smoking sign, but instead of a depiction of a cigarette, it had the word "whining" inside the crossed out circle ... "NO WHINING" ... He should get a poster like that.