(no subject)

[learnedax]

So I've seen quite a number of impassioned mentions of Bush 'endorsing' intelligent design, both on my friends list and in articles like this, this, and even this. Now, I am no fan of Bush or his administration, but I almost side with them here - in as much as he didn't actually endorse it. If you look at the transcript, you will see that the pointed question-and-answer goes like this:

Q: So the answer accepts the validity of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution?

A: I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought, and I'm not suggesting -- you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.

So a reporter backs him into a corner, and not only does he try to say as little about the issue as possible, pulling the old change-the-question gambit, he almost slips up and comes out against ID. So, yeah, he is a typical politician, so he's trying not to raise the right's hackles, but he tried his best to avoid supporting it either. And yet, the reporter who put him on the spot gets to run the headline that he supports ID, and every liberal in the world repeats with morbid glee that he's an insane, despicable enemy of science. The system contrives to invent repugnance even when its worst offender backs off, and the ultimate result is the same. It's no surprise that our political machines will churn on regardless, but it's sad that we are so throughly drawn into repeating what our opponents want to be true.

Comments

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

Any particular reason you didn't quote the question and his first answer?

Question: I wanted to ask you about the -- what seems to be a growing debate over evolution versus intelligent design. What are your personal views on that, and do you think both should be taught in public schools?

THE PRESIDENT: I think -- as I said, harking back to my days as my governor -- both you and Herman are doing a fine job of dragging me back to the past. (Laughter.) Then, I said that, first of all, that decision should be made to local school districts, but I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught.

I think the attributions in the article stand as written, especially when you note they are Texas based reporters interviewing a former Governor of Texas who worked toward the introduction of ID in schools in the State when he was Governor.

[learnedax.livejournal.com]

I didn't quote the whoel thing because I linked to the transcript. His answer to the first question is muddled, but if you note carefully is not a statement of what he now endorses as president, only what he is known to have said as governor. That's not a mistake, he's trying to dodge the question. The follow-up questions try to pry out of him a more direct specific answer, and the most specific they get is the exchange I did quote. If he wanted to say ID should be on equal footing with evolution, he wouldn't have done such a careful job of not saying it.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

You are such a great guy - how can you be so naive? Here is a man who has a strong track record of buying the entire evangelical agenda, and who in the past has worked toward teaching of ID specifically - and he gets asked "are you still in favor of it".

Aren't there multitudinous reasons why he might not give a straight and factual answer?

If all you want to offer is a plain reading of the text, you might be right. But that does ignore his position, his situation, his personal agenda, and so forth.

I don't see that "too much" was made of what he said. Really.

[learnedax.livejournal.com]

Yes, he has in the past supported it, for whatever reasons, and I think that's dumb. And yes, there are many possible reasons, even ones we don't know, why he might try to slip out of committing to an answer... but my point is that he did.

A big deal is being made of this, even though it was already known that he historically supported ID, because people think it's a big deal for The President to endorse it. And it looks to me like he thought it was a big deal too, and that's why he didn't do it.

But, of course, you are correct. There are many additional factors that I am not analyzing. And he did come close to endorsing ID, with the weak 'both sides' answer, so maybe he was trying to very carefully say it without saying it, which puts him back in the IDiot category. But we can't really know, I think.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

We can't know to a sure and certain surety. But if 99% odds work for you (and they do for me), then we know.

And your original point was that he hadn't said what the press was attributing to him. And I think he did. I suspect you are starting to think so as well....

[learnedax.livejournal.com]

What he said is not what they attribute to him, it is an inference therefrom. I see how one can argue that it is a reasonable inference, but I remain skeptical that this interpretation is so clear as to justify considering it as fact.

Nonetheless, perhaps I was too vehement...

[umbran.livejournal.com]

As goldsquare points out, you're leaving out a very important point.

In that interview, Bush admitted that as governor of Texas he felt that "both sides should be properly taught". So in the past, he admits to being for teaching it in public schools.

He was also an advocate for it being decided on a State level. When he goes and changes the question on the interviewer, he seems to be serving two purposes:

1)Not stomping on State's rights - It isn't that he's coming close to be aginst ID. He's avoiding stating a desire for a federal mandate of curriculum specifics. Education is legally and traditionally a State power, and the feds have limited rights to influence it.

2)Avoiding giving a straight-up answer. Politicians have become used to dodging questions. He now may have some claim on plausible deniability, "I didn't say that".

The first I can accept, and even respect. The second, I have gotten far too tired of accepting. His past position is known and admitted. When asked his current position, he refuses to refute the prior one. He tries to dodge by changing the question, but with "people ought to be exposed to different ideas" the strong implication is that he's still for it.

If he'd simply said, "Curriculum is a State issue, and as a Federal administrator, it isn't my concern," I'd have been happy with Bush for once. But no, he wasn't satisfied with having no comment. If he goes out of his way to put the implication there, I will hold it against him, just as supporters of ID will hold it for him.

Let me be clear - I have absolutely nothing against teaching ID in school, in the proper context of a philosophy or social sciences class, along with any number of other beliefs. But, ID is not science, and the only place it has in a science curriculum is as an example of how not to do science. Mine is not the reaction of a liberal, it is the reaction of someone trained in science education.

[learnedax.livejournal.com]

1) He already stated above that he said (as governor) that it should be decided on a local level. The cut-off clause "I'm not suggesting -" is not the beginning of something overriding states' rights.

2) Politicians dodge questions they don't want to answer. They will try to avoid a statement more sweeping than their topic (or rather, most politicians who aren't Bush will, since he has shown little regard for this in the past), but if you hand them a topic they actually want to speak on, they will be more than happy to answer your actual question, rather than invent their own. It's not a brain stem reflex, as you paint it to be.

In short, yes, he's trying to say No Comment. He can't say No Comment, or even as you propose 'it isn't my concern', because flatly refusing to discuss an issue has its own implications, and they probably would have pursued an answer anyway. It's not your job, but you must have an opinion, right? Oh, you don't want to reveal your opinion? Well, we have quotes of you being for it from when you were governor; have you changed your mind?

And then he's stuck again. So, basically, the news here is that he is an insufficiently eloquent speaker to avoid coming down on one side or the other.

Anyway, the damage is done now...

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

I refuse to read your post! By failing to leave out every possible interpretation, you have made your observations meaningless. I demand equal representation for other interpretations!

(Yes, this is sarcasm. Like this part isn't.)

[katkt.livejournal.com]

I don't understand what the news is here. Bush openly advocated for the teaching of Creationism in his 2000 campaign (in keeping the with Texas GOPs official platform).

Has he given any reason for us to think he's changed his mind? Or has he just decided it is no longer polically expedient to not really address the issue?

Distractions, distractions...

[sagawizard.livejournal.com]

I breathe deep, heavy, sad sighs whenever the media and the public grab hold of an issue like ID in schools, or Terry Shivo, or ten commandments on courthouse lawns...they are SMOKESCREENS, and the genius of the Bush planners and handlers (not GW himself, of course) is their ability to raise and propagate these issues in the public consciousness, where they scream so loudly that everyone ignores, such as...

- the fact that over 82 million Americans (including many people I know, including my sister-in-law) have no health insurance

- the fact that so many jobs in America don't pay a living wage

- the fact that higher education and stable housing have become all-but-unaffordable

- the fact that public services, including those same schools in whose curriculum GW takes such an interest in, are drastically underfunded

- the fact that, as Commander Collins aboard the shuttle pointed out today (as if we didn't know already), the planet's biosphere is in serious danger of collapse

Watching TV, reading newspapers, or browsing blogs, you would never think these issues even existed...you would think the biggest problems our country is facing is panic over some pretty white rich girl getting kidnapped in Aruba MONTHS ago.

Don't buy into it. Let's open up a dialogue about the REAL issues facing America. Heaven knows the Democrats aren't doing that...let's set an example in the online community.

- SW

Re: Distractions, distractions...

[learnedax.livejournal.com]

A dialogue? I'll play devil's advocate...

I don't think they're a smokescreen, I think they accurately reflect the petty and shortsighted interests of the public. Nonetheless, let's look at the real issues.

over 82 million Americans (including many people I know, including my sister-in-law) have no health insurance
so many jobs in America don't pay a living wage
higher education and stable housing have become all-but-unaffordable
public services, including those same schools in whose curriculum GW takes such an interest in, are drastically underfunded*

These are all the same problem, really - poor distribution of money, both in the budget and in individuals, which feed off each other. We could pay for universal health insurance (though it has no simple solution) and schools if the government had more money, or spent it less dumbly. With the possible exception of military spending, most Americans aren't willing to have other services cut back, or taxes raised, to achieve these ends. Of course, if taxes were lower and concerns about the US economy not keeping it depressed, the housing market might well go down, the wage go up, and everyone be happier. So what we really need is a balanced budget, so we can work towards spending more and taxing less (once we pay off the national debt, interest on which is something like 18% of our budget). Of course, that's rough in the short term (give it a try (http://www.nathannewman.org/nbs/)), which may be why neither major party, nor the vast majority of citizens, really wants to deal with it.

mmander Collins aboard the shuttle pointed out today (as if we didn't know already), the planet's biosphere is in serious danger of collapse

Oh? Do you have any hard numbers on this, because I've seen studies both ways, and it looks inconclusive, if not very positive.

Let's open up a dialogue about the REAL issues facing America...let's set an example in the online community.

The political blogosphere is 97% liberal**, so I suspect it will be pretty vapid from a debate standpoint. Then again, that's what we have now anyway.

*Of course, it's inevitable to make a grammatical error in a sentence about education.
**Genuine made-up statistic