(only half me...)

You're dangerous 'cause you're honest
You're dangerous, you don't know what you want...
You're an accident waiting to happen
You're a piece of glass left there on the beach
...
Tact is just not saying true stuff. I'll pass.

(no subject)

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.