By now, you've seen or heard about McPander's VP selection. I won't go into great detail about Sarah Palin, as there are many other places that you can go to get all of the pertinent information. What I will say is that this is strategery at it's finest.
Strategery is not synonymous with failure, so don't ever get that idea in your head. Strategery leads to long term failure, as it favors a short term gain. The best example of strategery I can present to you is the man who inspired the term: George W Bush.
I was sure that McCain was going to get the nod in 2000. When W came on the scene, I thought it was a joke. Well, it was a joke, and the joke was on us. We, we being me and many who had similar thoughts, broke rule #6: Don't underestimate your opponents.
W was a lightweight who only was even considered because of his name. It was an emotional appeal for those who hated Clintonism. I didn't think that anyone was that gullible. Yet, look who's been President for the last eight years.
So, don't underestimate strategery. Don't underestimate Sarah Palin. Don't underestimate disaffected Hillary deadenders. Don't underestimate America's penchant for shooting off its own foot.
Certainly Mrs Palin comes with her own set of issues. Certainly, she's a cipher. Certainly she turns the prospect of a McCain win from a disaster into the fucking Apocalypse. But don't count on Americans to realize it. Don't make the W mistake.
Instead, spread the truth.
Tell people that McCain has spent the last 3 months questioning Obama's experience. "He's the world's biggest celebrity, but is he ready to lead." At least he's a celebrity, who the hell is she?
She's an unknown governor from the 47th least populous state who used to be the mayor of a town of less than 10,000, and John McCain would put her a step away from the Presidency. If something were to happen to McCain, do you really think that either party would respect the rules of succession?
In many ways, she's the anti-Obama. A white female of the same generation. A woman with a colorful life story. Photogenic, made for our media obsessed age. Someone from a middle class background who was unknown only a few years ago. At the same time, unlike Obama, she's a highly partisan religious extremist. Unlike Obama, she won't have time to become familiar with the national stage, and all the media scrutiny that comes with it.
On Monday, the media will be uprooting her entire life. By Monday night, the tabloids will be digging through her trash.
Over the next week, every unemployed papparazzo will be taking pictures of her children.
In a little over a month, she'll have to goe toe to toe against Joe Biden in what will probably be the most watched Vice Presidential debate ever.
She may turn out like Katherine Harris, but then again, she may rise to the challenge. So I say to you, don't underestimate Sarah Palin. Remember George W Bush.
McAilin'/Phalin' '08
8.30.2008
8.29.2008
Strategery...
...boxing, Bush, Barack, and Big Brother.
Have you ever been in a fistfight? As an adult? Not one of those "I got drunk and had a tiff with my friend that our friends broke up after a few shoves" fight. I'm talking about a fight where you honestly felt that your life may have been in jeopardy. I'm talking about a fight where teeth are lost and bones are broken. I'm talking about a serious life or death street fight.
How about boxing? How about martial arts? While not as serious as a street fight (or a bar fight) as far as life or death goes, there's still the possibility of your demise.
A fist fight, be it in the street or in the ring, is the ultimate test of strategy. Every wrong move made is countered instantly with pain. Every correct move is a reward, because you cause pain to your opponent. In a physical confrontation, you get instant feedback. It may sound barbaric to some of you, but it's life.
No matter what kind of fight you're in, there are rules:
Each fight has it's own strategy. Obviously, the more familiar you are with your opponent, the better shape you're in. Watch what he does. Learn his tendencies. Know his weaknesses. When there is no familiarity, stand back for a minute. Deflect blows. Avoid bad positions. Keep your balance. Take mental notes. Obviously, strategy means nothing in a fight if you don't have the skills to test your strategy.
There are all sorts of strategy games, but my favorite test of strategy is US Electoral Politics.
Presidential politics is a street fight. It's a life or death situation. When was the last time you saw Walter Mondale? Michael Dukakis? Ross Perot? Bob Dole? Losing the fight doesn't always mean political death, but it always brings about a profound change. Al Gore, for instance. In the past, it was easier to come back and run again, but these days, it's a little different.
Understand, the election is a referendum on ideology. The candidate, for good and for ill, is the personification of his ideology. In these Rovian days, if you can make the election about a candidate, then all of his or her perceived personal failings become tied to that candidate's ideology. The more you concentrate on the candidate, then the election becomes referendum on the candidate rather than the ideology. This has a dual effect of destroying the candidate while simultaneously dismissing the ideology. An example:
See how easy that was? Want me to do it again?
Obviously, it's a bit more complex than that. It takes a lot of money and a lot of liars to make black into white. It takes endless repetitions that start as secretive whispers and eventually become "conventional wisdom." It takes bullying, and needs those who are being bullied to be frightened. Most of all, it requires a lie so incredible that people can't help but to believe it.
During the Democratic Primaries, Barack Obama was in a fight with Hillary Clinton. To many people, Hillary was beating up on Obama, and he was too weak to fight back. Hillary threw the kitchen sink at him. His response, at best, was perceived as tepid. This is because more Americans watch "Big Brother" than play chess.
I never learned how to play chess, but I understand the game. Like any test of strategy, you have to understand the goal(s) while staying 3 or more steps ahead of your opponent. Hillary may have won the battle of personal rhetoric, but she lost the war.
While she was throwing the kitchen sink, she never really thought about where it would land, regardless of whether or not it hit her target. In terms of a street fight, she ran into it, both arms flailing wildly, hoping for a lucky hit. That's not strategy, although many people think that it is. The Kitchen Sink "strategy" is actually "strategery."
Reality shows are lessons in expert strategery. I don't watch TV, except when I visit my family on Sundays. There is always a reality show on. Lately, they've all been addicted to "Big Brother," a game where people routinely fuck up their winning strategies over some personal bullshit. When called on that personal bullshit by a former ally, the accused often falls into the refrain of "It's not personal, it strategy. This is a game, and I'm trying to win," or some such nonsense. It's not strategy, it's strategery.
He beat Hillary by letting her make the election about him. At the start of the primary season, she was inevitable. When she saw there was competition, she panicked. Ideologically, there's not much daylight between the two. They were rivals, not opponents. She treated him like an opponent, and tarnished herself in the process. Had he treated her like she treated him, he would have faced a wide backlash. He understood this. He also understood that she was trying to bait him. He didn't fall for it. He understands strategy.
Fast forward to August. Obama has won his fight against Hillary, Bill, the GOP, the BBQ media, the PUMA's, and many of his own nervous supporters. Now, he must fight all the same people again, except you can exchange Hillary and Bill for John McCain.
John McCain's campaign claims to have watched the Obama/Hillary fight and learned how to beat Obama from Hillary's mistakes. It's interesting that they use the same strategy. First, they try to make the election about him, and not his ideas. Then, the Kitchen Sink.
Much like Hillary before him, McCain comes in arms flailing, hoping to get a lucky shot. Obama dodges when he can, and takes hits when he can't. When it's prudent, he gives a quick jab. For many of his supporters, that isn't good enough. Nevermind that it's August, and the general population isn't really paying attention. Nevermind that every McCain attack is more ridiculous than the last. Never mind that McCain is spending $10 million more than he's bringing in. Nevermind that the last thing America wants to see is an angry, indignant black man yelling at an old white man. Nevermind all that, let's panic instead.
While McCain has been telegraphing every move, Obama has been watching, waiting to strike when he could cause the most damage to his opponent while causing as little collateral damage as possible. McCain's been putting himself out on a limb, throwing punches that don't connect, while opening himself up to counter punches. Obama could play gotcha games, but what would be the point? Instead of gotcha's, we watch McCain dig himself deeper into a hole, thinking that he's safe. He's free to contradict himself, change positions, and lie about it. While he's doing that, all of this is going into the record.
Obama's strategy is simple. It starts with a single idea: People don't know the real John McCain. Let him put himself on the record. Let him define himself. You might think that's dangerous, and in many cases, I would agree. John McCain is a special case. John McCain is not the same as he was when he faced off against Bush in 2000. At least then, he had some core principles. Over the last 8 years, he's kissed the rings and asses of the people he used to despise.
McCain was never a maverick. He was a guy who wasn't an extremist, but made some questionable calls, all while spinning himself as a moderate. He is a guy who, while still not an extremist, is more than willing to spout extremist rhetoric, and still try to spin himself as a moderate. The extremist rhetoric scares the moderates, and the moderate rhetoric angers the extremists.
Obama is smart enough to know that there are people who would never vote for him. The challenge is to get the votes of the people who can vote either way. So, he let McCain tie himself closer to extremist right-wing ideology. He let McCain sing a the praises of BushCo.
Then, on August 28, 2008, Barack Obama fired his first salvo. He didn't cause a fatal wound, but he seriously damaged the right-wing ideology, and by implication, John McCain. This is a reversal of the Rove doctrine on a level that will fly above the heads of most observers. An example:
"He just doesn't know."
"He just doesn't get it."
Now that we've seen Obama throw some excellent punches without putting himself at risk, I hope we'll see less of the concern trolling recently put out by weak kneed, weak willed progressives. I hope they can now begin to understand that strategy is better than strategery. I hope we all spend a little less time watching "Big Brother," and more time learning how to play chess.
I know I will.
Have you ever been in a fistfight? As an adult? Not one of those "I got drunk and had a tiff with my friend that our friends broke up after a few shoves" fight. I'm talking about a fight where you honestly felt that your life may have been in jeopardy. I'm talking about a fight where teeth are lost and bones are broken. I'm talking about a serious life or death street fight.
How about boxing? How about martial arts? While not as serious as a street fight (or a bar fight) as far as life or death goes, there's still the possibility of your demise.
A fist fight, be it in the street or in the ring, is the ultimate test of strategy. Every wrong move made is countered instantly with pain. Every correct move is a reward, because you cause pain to your opponent. In a physical confrontation, you get instant feedback. It may sound barbaric to some of you, but it's life.
No matter what kind of fight you're in, there are rules:
1. Don't fight if you don't have to.
2. Don't fight someone you know you cannot beat.
3. If you find yourself in a fight you cannot win, cheat.
4. If you're fighting someone below your skill level, end the fight as quickly as possible.
5. If you have advance knowledge of your opponent, study him.
6. If you don't know your opponent, don't underestimate him. Take it slowly, and stay focused.
7. Never, ever, ever overestimate yourself.
Each fight has it's own strategy. Obviously, the more familiar you are with your opponent, the better shape you're in. Watch what he does. Learn his tendencies. Know his weaknesses. When there is no familiarity, stand back for a minute. Deflect blows. Avoid bad positions. Keep your balance. Take mental notes. Obviously, strategy means nothing in a fight if you don't have the skills to test your strategy.
There are all sorts of strategy games, but my favorite test of strategy is US Electoral Politics.
Presidential politics is a street fight. It's a life or death situation. When was the last time you saw Walter Mondale? Michael Dukakis? Ross Perot? Bob Dole? Losing the fight doesn't always mean political death, but it always brings about a profound change. Al Gore, for instance. In the past, it was easier to come back and run again, but these days, it's a little different.
Understand, the election is a referendum on ideology. The candidate, for good and for ill, is the personification of his ideology. In these Rovian days, if you can make the election about a candidate, then all of his or her perceived personal failings become tied to that candidate's ideology. The more you concentrate on the candidate, then the election becomes referendum on the candidate rather than the ideology. This has a dual effect of destroying the candidate while simultaneously dismissing the ideology. An example:
Al Gore invented the internet. He's lying. He's a liar. Al Gore believes in global warming. Al Gore's a liar. Global warming is a lie. Al Gore is a Liberal. Liberals are liars.
See how easy that was? Want me to do it again?
John Kerry was in Vietnam. He hated the things he did in Vietnam. America sent him to Vietnam. He hates the things America asked him to do in Vietnam. John Kerry hates America. John Kerry is a Liberal. Liberals hate America.
Obviously, it's a bit more complex than that. It takes a lot of money and a lot of liars to make black into white. It takes endless repetitions that start as secretive whispers and eventually become "conventional wisdom." It takes bullying, and needs those who are being bullied to be frightened. Most of all, it requires a lie so incredible that people can't help but to believe it.
During the Democratic Primaries, Barack Obama was in a fight with Hillary Clinton. To many people, Hillary was beating up on Obama, and he was too weak to fight back. Hillary threw the kitchen sink at him. His response, at best, was perceived as tepid. This is because more Americans watch "Big Brother" than play chess.
I never learned how to play chess, but I understand the game. Like any test of strategy, you have to understand the goal(s) while staying 3 or more steps ahead of your opponent. Hillary may have won the battle of personal rhetoric, but she lost the war.
While she was throwing the kitchen sink, she never really thought about where it would land, regardless of whether or not it hit her target. In terms of a street fight, she ran into it, both arms flailing wildly, hoping for a lucky hit. That's not strategy, although many people think that it is. The Kitchen Sink "strategy" is actually "strategery."
Reality shows are lessons in expert strategery. I don't watch TV, except when I visit my family on Sundays. There is always a reality show on. Lately, they've all been addicted to "Big Brother," a game where people routinely fuck up their winning strategies over some personal bullshit. When called on that personal bullshit by a former ally, the accused often falls into the refrain of "It's not personal, it strategy. This is a game, and I'm trying to win," or some such nonsense. It's not strategy, it's strategery.
He beat Hillary by letting her make the election about him. At the start of the primary season, she was inevitable. When she saw there was competition, she panicked. Ideologically, there's not much daylight between the two. They were rivals, not opponents. She treated him like an opponent, and tarnished herself in the process. Had he treated her like she treated him, he would have faced a wide backlash. He understood this. He also understood that she was trying to bait him. He didn't fall for it. He understands strategy.
Fast forward to August. Obama has won his fight against Hillary, Bill, the GOP, the BBQ media, the PUMA's, and many of his own nervous supporters. Now, he must fight all the same people again, except you can exchange Hillary and Bill for John McCain.
John McCain's campaign claims to have watched the Obama/Hillary fight and learned how to beat Obama from Hillary's mistakes. It's interesting that they use the same strategy. First, they try to make the election about him, and not his ideas. Then, the Kitchen Sink.
Much like Hillary before him, McCain comes in arms flailing, hoping to get a lucky shot. Obama dodges when he can, and takes hits when he can't. When it's prudent, he gives a quick jab. For many of his supporters, that isn't good enough. Nevermind that it's August, and the general population isn't really paying attention. Nevermind that every McCain attack is more ridiculous than the last. Never mind that McCain is spending $10 million more than he's bringing in. Nevermind that the last thing America wants to see is an angry, indignant black man yelling at an old white man. Nevermind all that, let's panic instead.
While McCain has been telegraphing every move, Obama has been watching, waiting to strike when he could cause the most damage to his opponent while causing as little collateral damage as possible. McCain's been putting himself out on a limb, throwing punches that don't connect, while opening himself up to counter punches. Obama could play gotcha games, but what would be the point? Instead of gotcha's, we watch McCain dig himself deeper into a hole, thinking that he's safe. He's free to contradict himself, change positions, and lie about it. While he's doing that, all of this is going into the record.
Obama's strategy is simple. It starts with a single idea: People don't know the real John McCain. Let him put himself on the record. Let him define himself. You might think that's dangerous, and in many cases, I would agree. John McCain is a special case. John McCain is not the same as he was when he faced off against Bush in 2000. At least then, he had some core principles. Over the last 8 years, he's kissed the rings and asses of the people he used to despise.
McCain was never a maverick. He was a guy who wasn't an extremist, but made some questionable calls, all while spinning himself as a moderate. He is a guy who, while still not an extremist, is more than willing to spout extremist rhetoric, and still try to spin himself as a moderate. The extremist rhetoric scares the moderates, and the moderate rhetoric angers the extremists.
Obama is smart enough to know that there are people who would never vote for him. The challenge is to get the votes of the people who can vote either way. So, he let McCain tie himself closer to extremist right-wing ideology. He let McCain sing a the praises of BushCo.
Then, on August 28, 2008, Barack Obama fired his first salvo. He didn't cause a fatal wound, but he seriously damaged the right-wing ideology, and by implication, John McCain. This is a reversal of the Rove doctrine on a level that will fly above the heads of most observers. An example:
Modern conservatism is wrong. John McCain is an honorable man. John McCain is a modern conservative. John McCain is an honorable man, but he's wrong.See the difference? He doesn't make McCain out to be something other than an honorable American patriot who loves his country, but is doing the wrong thing for the right reason.
"He just doesn't know."
"He just doesn't get it."
Now that we've seen Obama throw some excellent punches without putting himself at risk, I hope we'll see less of the concern trolling recently put out by weak kneed, weak willed progressives. I hope they can now begin to understand that strategy is better than strategery. I hope we all spend a little less time watching "Big Brother," and more time learning how to play chess.
I know I will.
8.03.2008
Why Do the Faithful Need Proof?
It's been awhile, and I still haven't written any sort of intro, but I'll get to it one day. I was going to write a blog about politics, but today I've decided to switch it up. Don't worry though, I'll be getting back to that soon enough.
I was dicking around on youtube a few minutes ago, and I came across this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM17EQiZZd4
If you don't want to waste precious time watching the video, allow me to summarize:
Recently, Ben Stein (Bueller! Bueller!) decided to abandon his intellect and become a creationist, or rather, a believer of Intelligent Design (ID). He came out with a documentary called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." I haven't watched the documentary, as I've wasted enough of my life watching pointless crap already. You may wonder how I can be objective, having never seen the movie, to which I respond that I have no interest in being objective. Anyway, Stein is pitching his movie to Rush's more annoying half-brother*, Glenn Beck.
For those of you who are unaware, creationism is the belief that the Christian God created the universe in 6 days, 6000 or so years ago. That particular sect are better known as "Young Earthers." They believe that dinosaurs and homo sapiens were contemporaries, and go so far to say that there were even dinosaurs on Noah's Ark. No, I'm not kidding. Young Earthers are usually associated with Evangelical Christians of the Red State variety. Those are the people who believe that the King James Bible is the literal Truth, with no contractictions and no errors.
The Young Earthers aren't the only sect of creationists. There are also Old Earthers, who will concede that the Earth is far older than 6000 years, given the irrefutable evidence, but still contend that it is a creation of God.
The third sect is far more dangerous. The ID'ers are wolves in sheep's clothing. The ID'ers want to use science to prove the existence of God. I cannot respect the ID community. Not only are they intellectually dishonest, but they're faithless. Yes, faithless.
Listen, I'm an agnostic, but these days many would call me an atheist. I don't believe in a supernatural deity. No burning bushes, resurrections, angels, whatever. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that a being described by the Abrahamic religions does not exist. At the same time, I realize that I'm just a man with finite capabilities and understanding. I recognize the fact that I could and might be 100% wrong. I do not believe that I am wrong, and I am willing to bet my eternal soul on it.
That being said, I am faithless. If I can't see it, or if there is no logic to support something that I can't see, then it's not real. I need proof, evidence, or a convincing argument. Reason is my religion, evidence and proof are the wine and the wafers, and logic is the prayer. Because I am faithless, I can recognize faithlessness in others. But for now, let's get back to the video.
About halfway into the video, Beck shows a clip of Stein talking to Richard Dawkins, high priest of militant Atheism. During the clip, Dawkins tells Beck that if we as humans do have an intelligent designer, it could possibly be an extra-terrestrial intelligence. When the clip is done, Beck and Stein have a good laugh. Beck is incredulous. "...or a space alien! Who created the space alien?"
There are two problems with Glenn Beck's incredulity. Firstly and simply, if God exists as the Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe, then by the necessity of basic logic, God is a space alien. Do I really have to explain it? Okay. If God created the Earth, then logically, God cannot be from Earth, making him/she/it an alien by default. Got it? Good.
Secondly, Beck wants to know who created the "space aliens." That's a fair question. An even fairer question is "Who created God?" Now, the devout will tell you that God has always existed. That's an article of faith. I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, nor do I care to try. If you believe that God exists, then that should be good enough for you. My belief is good enough for me.
Unfortunately, what I've been seeing lately is a big push by the believers. They're pushing into government and education. The Intelligent Design movement has been trying to sneak into public school curriculum as regular science. They say that it's not religion, as they don't say who the intelligent designer is. At the same time, ask anyone of those ID'ers who they think the designer is, and the ones who don't dodge will say "God." It's stealth creationism, and these people want to teach it along side evolution.
According to the ID crowd, Intelligent Design is a scientific theory, and should be taught in public schools as an alternative to Evolution. By changing "God" to "Intelligent Agent," they hope to bypass the establishment clause in the Constitution. Fortunately, the courts have ruled against them, at least for the time being.
They're still out there, launching an assault against science and reason. What's more, they're making youtube videos that purport to prove the existence of God. I've watched many of these videos, and they make me wonder:
If you claim to be a person of faith, then why do you need to prove the existence of your god? Doesn't that miss the point of faith?
As I wrote earlier, as a faithless person, I need evidence. A lot of it. Not anecdotal crap about how you prayed for money and the next day you got a promotion. Not a piece of toast with a burn pattern that kind of looks like Jesus if you look at it the right way. Shit, Elvis got one of those. Show me half of the homosexual population instantaneously turn into pillars of salt. Show me half of feminists growing Moses beards overnight. Even better, let's see God do something positive and cure little children of cancer, AIDS, diabetes, and/or autism.
But if you're faithful, then why do you need evidence? Why do you need to fake footprints to prove that dinosaurs walked with man? Why do you need to bore me with a fallacious philosophical treatise about chocolate bars and infinity? Why is Kirk Cameron your best known spokesman? And why can't you teach your children about your god at your home and your church?
I was dicking around on youtube a few minutes ago, and I came across this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM17EQiZZd4
If you don't want to waste precious time watching the video, allow me to summarize:
Recently, Ben Stein (Bueller! Bueller!) decided to abandon his intellect and become a creationist, or rather, a believer of Intelligent Design (ID). He came out with a documentary called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." I haven't watched the documentary, as I've wasted enough of my life watching pointless crap already. You may wonder how I can be objective, having never seen the movie, to which I respond that I have no interest in being objective. Anyway, Stein is pitching his movie to Rush's more annoying half-brother*, Glenn Beck.
For those of you who are unaware, creationism is the belief that the Christian God created the universe in 6 days, 6000 or so years ago. That particular sect are better known as "Young Earthers." They believe that dinosaurs and homo sapiens were contemporaries, and go so far to say that there were even dinosaurs on Noah's Ark. No, I'm not kidding. Young Earthers are usually associated with Evangelical Christians of the Red State variety. Those are the people who believe that the King James Bible is the literal Truth, with no contractictions and no errors.
The Young Earthers aren't the only sect of creationists. There are also Old Earthers, who will concede that the Earth is far older than 6000 years, given the irrefutable evidence, but still contend that it is a creation of God.
The third sect is far more dangerous. The ID'ers are wolves in sheep's clothing. The ID'ers want to use science to prove the existence of God. I cannot respect the ID community. Not only are they intellectually dishonest, but they're faithless. Yes, faithless.
Listen, I'm an agnostic, but these days many would call me an atheist. I don't believe in a supernatural deity. No burning bushes, resurrections, angels, whatever. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that a being described by the Abrahamic religions does not exist. At the same time, I realize that I'm just a man with finite capabilities and understanding. I recognize the fact that I could and might be 100% wrong. I do not believe that I am wrong, and I am willing to bet my eternal soul on it.
That being said, I am faithless. If I can't see it, or if there is no logic to support something that I can't see, then it's not real. I need proof, evidence, or a convincing argument. Reason is my religion, evidence and proof are the wine and the wafers, and logic is the prayer. Because I am faithless, I can recognize faithlessness in others. But for now, let's get back to the video.
About halfway into the video, Beck shows a clip of Stein talking to Richard Dawkins, high priest of militant Atheism. During the clip, Dawkins tells Beck that if we as humans do have an intelligent designer, it could possibly be an extra-terrestrial intelligence. When the clip is done, Beck and Stein have a good laugh. Beck is incredulous. "...or a space alien! Who created the space alien?"
There are two problems with Glenn Beck's incredulity. Firstly and simply, if God exists as the Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe, then by the necessity of basic logic, God is a space alien. Do I really have to explain it? Okay. If God created the Earth, then logically, God cannot be from Earth, making him/she/it an alien by default. Got it? Good.
Secondly, Beck wants to know who created the "space aliens." That's a fair question. An even fairer question is "Who created God?" Now, the devout will tell you that God has always existed. That's an article of faith. I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, nor do I care to try. If you believe that God exists, then that should be good enough for you. My belief is good enough for me.
Unfortunately, what I've been seeing lately is a big push by the believers. They're pushing into government and education. The Intelligent Design movement has been trying to sneak into public school curriculum as regular science. They say that it's not religion, as they don't say who the intelligent designer is. At the same time, ask anyone of those ID'ers who they think the designer is, and the ones who don't dodge will say "God." It's stealth creationism, and these people want to teach it along side evolution.
According to the ID crowd, Intelligent Design is a scientific theory, and should be taught in public schools as an alternative to Evolution. By changing "God" to "Intelligent Agent," they hope to bypass the establishment clause in the Constitution. Fortunately, the courts have ruled against them, at least for the time being.
They're still out there, launching an assault against science and reason. What's more, they're making youtube videos that purport to prove the existence of God. I've watched many of these videos, and they make me wonder:
If you claim to be a person of faith, then why do you need to prove the existence of your god? Doesn't that miss the point of faith?
As I wrote earlier, as a faithless person, I need evidence. A lot of it. Not anecdotal crap about how you prayed for money and the next day you got a promotion. Not a piece of toast with a burn pattern that kind of looks like Jesus if you look at it the right way. Shit, Elvis got one of those. Show me half of the homosexual population instantaneously turn into pillars of salt. Show me half of feminists growing Moses beards overnight. Even better, let's see God do something positive and cure little children of cancer, AIDS, diabetes, and/or autism.
But if you're faithful, then why do you need evidence? Why do you need to fake footprints to prove that dinosaurs walked with man? Why do you need to bore me with a fallacious philosophical treatise about chocolate bars and infinity? Why is Kirk Cameron your best known spokesman? And why can't you teach your children about your god at your home and your church?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)