Maybe. Whoever is elected on November 4th, 2008, it will be a great step forward for America, and a step out of the scientific dark ages of the Bush years. McCain and Obama have both repudiated the Bush administration’s stance on stem cells – a purely ideological position that still threatens to cripple America’s fledgling biotech research and render us a scientific backwater – and fund science more aggressively. If the Bush years prevented America from getting in at the ground floor on many scientific breakthroughs and industries, hopefully the door will remain open at the mezzanine.
After the Bush administration improperly politicized the hiring process for Justice Department attorneys, asking such questions as, “what makes you want to serve President Bush?,” Attorney General Mukasey will not pursue charges against the primary offenders, citing strong internal remedial measures… such as, we can only assume, congratulations. Thus ends the main employment venue for graduates of Trinity Law School.
Filed under: Author - ACG,Politics,Religion,Science | Tags: BPSDB, Conservapedia, Religious politics, Site News
I recently made the mistake of trying to engage Andy Schlafly in civil conversation. As I boasted earlier, I’m undefeated in debating against Schlafly: the problem is, I’d forgotten just how unpleasant an experience debating with the man actually is. And this time, we were just debating… about a debate.
You see, Andy made a boast on his user page, on Conservapedia, the “trusworthy encyclopedia.” His exact words follow – “I’d be happy to debate any evolutionist and/or atheist and/or liberal, including PZ Myers. But beware: liberals often are not willing to debate conservatives, because often the liberals lose.”
Right. Liberals often lose. Except in academia. And in the (pre-Roberts) Supreme Court. And anywh… well, you get the point. Andy only “wins” debates on Conservapedia by deleting the account of anyone who challenges him. Determined to show Conservapedia for what it is – a vainglorious attempt by Schlafly to make creationists look smart by erasing all memory of those smarter than them – I doggedly pursued the chance to debate Andy. This was a mistake. Andy is a bad, bad man. He brings out the worst in people, and setting foot in his territory, even with purest intentions, was a fool’s quest. I emerge victorious from my debate with Schlafly – a debate about debating, to prove that Andy’s the one who chickens out – only after having been forced to stoop to his level by the sheer force of his idiocy. Mission accomplished, but I consider it a Pyrrhic victory. As John tried to remind me in the comments to my first post on this subject, talking to this man is like slamming your head against a brick wall. Victory, but at what cost?
Ow. My head.
Below the line, please find the juicy parts of our back-and-forth on his user_talk page, but I’ll close the above the line section with a reminder to normal people (lib’ruls, conservatives, all who don’t fall into the union of “jerks” and “creationists”). We’re better than people like Andy. I know it, you know it, and the American people know it. Since that fact is known – quae cum ita sint – the price of the proof is worth more than the reward.
[bpsdb]
