John McCain

Evolution must only be taught as scientific fact. Creationism may not be taught as science under any circumstances.

May a public school science teacher's right to teach evolution be restricted?
No. The United States Supreme Court has determined that it is unconstitutional to restrict an educator's right to teach evolution.

May a science teacher who teaches evolution also teach creationism? No. Educators may not teach, as fact, the theory that humankind was created by a divine being. In science classes, educators must present only scientific explanations for life on earth and scientific critiques of evolution. Furthermore, schools may not refuse to teach evolution in an effort to avoid offending religious individuals. The United States Supreme Court has held that it is unconstitutional to require educators who teach evolution also to teach creationism.

In addition, disclaimers regarding the theory of evolution as the only explanation for the development of humankind have been found to be unconstitutional. In Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, 185 F. 3d 337 (5th Cir 1999), cert. denied, 530 U. S. 1251 (2000), the court struck down a school board rule requiring teachers to read a disclaimer that said that the teaching of evolution is "not intended to influence or dissuade the Biblical version of Creation or any other concept."

May creationism ever be discussed in the public schools? Yes. Creationism may be included in classes on comparative religion as an example of how some religious groups believe human life began. However, creationism may never be taught as scientific fact.

Do scientific integrity and equity require that we teach a competing theory of human origins? Some have argued that equity, intellectual honesty and scientific integrity require the teaching of creationism as a differing and alternative point of view. However, creationism may not be taught as a response to the theory of evolution. Indeed, creationism (or "creation science") does not meet the tenets of science as scientists use the term. Moreover, it is not a matter of equity to teach a religious point of view in a public school classroom with taxpayer dollars.

Additionally, there is a growing movement promoting the teaching of "intelligent design theory" which asserts that the only reasonable explanation for the very complexity of the world and development of humans is the existence of God. This "theory," often couched in scientific terminology, is just another species of creationism, and thus also must not be taught in the classroom as scientific fact.

http://www.adl.org/religion_ps_2004/evolution.asp

Bye Bye Barry

 

Joel S. Hirschhorn

 

The final results are in on this historic November day.  Despite the hundreds of millions of dollars he raised, Barack Obama has lost the 2008 presidential election.  American voters have boldly spoken truth to arrogance.  Turned out that all those pre-election opinion polls that showed Obama’s inability to get over 50 percent support were prescient.  Much of the public was never comfortable with Obama, though he clearly was so comfortable acting like he already was president.

 

Hillary and Bill Clinton are probably drinking champagne and having the sweetest time since Bill won his first presidential election.  Hillary must now bite her lip repeatedly and resist saying publicly that “I told you so!”  Hillary in 2012 will reveal that she learned her lessons well.

 

All that Obama audacity of arrogance from the smiling, glib politician finally died the death it so richly deserved.  Too many pundits will blame his loss on his blackness and racist voters.  But the larger truth is that sufficient voters saw through the many lies and deceptions.  Obama always had a hard time giving a simple, short straight answer to tough questions.  He was always mentally calculating exactly how to game his answers so that he would achieve all the benefits he had his eyes on.  He was simply too damn presumptuous and too smart for his own good.  In the end, Americans do not want the smartest person in the presidency or endless nuancing.  They want someone they can easily understand and trust, despite their skepticism.  There were many reasons not to trust the calculating Obama to do anything he promised to do or, for some people, to fear he might.

 

And now the bloviating pundits will also blame third party presidential candidates for siphoning votes from Obama, as if Americans have no right to exercise their political freedom and vote for someone they honestly think has the best policy positions and would most help restore American democracy.

 

Jon Stewart and other late-night comics will feast on these election results, as they should.  I can’t wait to hear jokes about Obama’s wife becoming a more vocal and militant critic of the good old USA, now that she has proof positive that so many Americans are stupid white racists.

 

Of course, now the nation must suffer through the ineptness, confusion and dementia-like dullness of the living-in-the-past John McCain, tough-talking but brain dead.  Will the McCain presidency look like an extension of the incredible terrible George W. Bush White House?  Of course.

 

Still living off a once-true characterization as a maverick, McCain must now surround himself with people who actually are smart and knowledgeable about myriad issues.  Should be no problem finding enough lobbyists.  Pundits will start speculating that McCain will be lucky just to stay alive for four years, but thankfully his vice-president seems more capable.  One thing for sure: the power plutocracy that really runs the country will have little trouble pulling the strings behind the scenes and keep the puppet McCain dancing to tunes written by corporate interests.

 

Ralph Nader summed up this way: “A large fraction of Americans know that we need a Jeffersonian political revolution to fix our corrupt system.  They were not fooled by the Obama rhetoric about change, not from someone that has been a product of and servant for the two-party plutocracy.  Yes, all the votes for me and the other third-party presidential candidates spelled the difference between Obama winning and losing.  Our voters correctly protested against the corrupt two-party system.  They did not elect McCain.  Only those who voted for McCain elected him, and that is something they must live with as they watch a McCain administration continue dismantling American democracy and budget-busting global warmongering.”

 

Cynthia McKinney wisely noted that “It is time to stop saying God bless America, and begin repeating God save America.  The good news is that we will build even greater public support for a true political revolution during the McCain presidency.  All too often things must get much worse before they can get better.  They will get worse.”

 

As to Obama, half-jokingly he said: “I may come back as a third-party candidate.”  Or did that reflect a calculation that Democrats had learned their lesson?  As to all the screaming from the left that the Republicans stole this election also, Obama immediately said “John won it fair and square.”  Thanks Barry, exactly what I expected from a phony change agent.

 

[Contact Joel S. Hirschhorn through www.delusionaldemocracy.com.]

 I guess I'll start with John.

John McCain is a neocon. Neocon diplomacy is basically finding new ways to get the message out that the US is superior, which always goes over so well with the rest of the world…

The League of Democracies is one of his lovely ideas. Kicking out Russia from the G8 until it behaves responsibly is another. Using arrogance and hypocrisy to explain the unnecessary push for US ideological dominance is not an effective way to negotiate anything.

 The only reflection his experience has to offer about the failure in Iraq is that we didn’t send enough troops. What about why we went in? 

McCain has been 'the champion for the hard-line, neoconservative thinkers" for some time now, so I cant forsee that understanding occuring anytime soon.

  http://tinyurl.com/6lkk2l

John McCain and Obama are very similar in their "America has to rebuild our image and reconnect with our allies" talk but I don’t believe McCain can do that. Not only is he a jerk, but he hasn’t acknowledged the failure in (amongst other problems) the ideology that got us into Iraq and Obama has. There is some kind of recognition of our mistakes in the Bush neocon foreign policy with Obama which is another way of saying  " I don’t intend to continue with the same approach" on the other hand, John McCain is saying that he will but  he will be a better neocon than Bush.  He will be successful where Bush failed. With that in mind, I cant imagine how he could possibly “revitalize the country's purpose and standing in the world” witih more of what has ruined it. How will he be a better communicator of "the cause" questionable in intentions that it is, than Bush?

 http://tinyurl.com/3b66cb 

Neocon foreign policy is never-ending war, never-ending nation building and everyone knows that now.

I think it’s irresponsible, arrogant and idealistic to believe that it could possibly be good for any country in the world.

To have someone in charge that wants to continue down the same destructive path we’ve been taking the Middle East and ourselves for the last 8 years is insane. I don’t know how else to describe it.

 It will validate extremism and increase terrorism, and our country’s economic condition will continue to worsen, and the list goes on…

It’s not a necessary foreign policy; it’s not even remotely good.  

 

Why should I vote for him?