Back to Poltics and Social Stuff

Creationism: tax dollars used to fund creationism!

Over the weekend, the New Orleans Times-Picayune revealed that a federal spending bill contains a substantial sum of money budgeted for the Louisiana Family Forum, apparently for the purpose of combating the teaching of evolution and global warming in public schools. The earmark, inserted by Republican Sen. David Vitter, provides $100,000 to the group for the purpose of “develop[ing] a plan to promote better science education,” but as the newspaper points out, LFF has been a leading advocate of creationism in the state:

The group’s stated mission is to “persuasively present biblical principles in the centers of influence on issues affecting the family through research, communication and networking.” Until recently, its Web site contained a “battle plan to combat evolution,” which called the theory a “dangerous” concept that “has no place in the classroom.” The document was removed after a reporter’s inquiry. …

In 2002, the Louisiana Family Forum unsuccessfully sought to persuade the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education to insert a five-paragraph disclaimer in all of its science texts challenging the natural science view that life came about by accident and has evolved through the process of natural selection.

The group notched a victory last year when the Ouachita School Board adopted a policy that, without mentioning the Bible or creationism, gave teachers leeway to introduce other views besides those contained in traditional science texts.

LFF, a “family policy council” affiliated with Focus on the Family, was founded in 1999 by Tony Perkins, before he became president of the Family Research Council and gained national prominence.

Vitter defended the earmark as an “important program” that “helps supplement and support educators and school systems that would like to offer all of the explanations in the study of controversial science topics such as global warming and the life sciences.”[...]

Perhaps the Senator should agree to use only the scientific breakthroughs that creationism “science” has given us? Oh, there aren’t any.

Fred Thompson The Smirking Chimp lets him have it; but I have to admit that I am afraid of him for more or less the same reason that they are:

[...]Anyone who’s ever had a problem with houseflies knows that that’s the best time to hit them with a swatter, which might explain Thompson’s astonishing early success. One poll has him already in a dead heat with rage-virus victim Rudy Giuliani — despite the fact that twenty-eight percent of Republicans have never even heard of him. While voters often leave Giuliani events wondering if they should hand this seemingly crank-mad Catholic the nuclear football, Thompson crowds walk out with the dazed smiles of recovery-room zipperheads, looking like they’ve just had their brains removed and couldn’t be happier about it.

In his stump speech, the hulking Southerner paces the stage wearing a fatherly expression, giving a Gregory Peck-like pensive rub of the chin from time to time and hypnotically tossing out soothing ruralisms like “ain’t” and “wadn’t” that descend upon his audiences of besieged Decent Folk like gentle snowflakes. The pulse rate in the crowd goes down, not up. The gritted teeth and wizened anger lines around the eyes of these taut, white Silent Majority faces loosen and relax. Whereas minutes before they were collectively certain of imminent attack by an evil confederacy of Al Qaeda and Mexicans and queers (“What should society’s position be on deviants?” one Iowan wonders at a Thompson event) all inspired to violence by their envy of the Decent Folk’s shimmering new trucks and almost-new big-screen TVs and prized displays of Christian collectible figurines, they now feel if not safe, then soothed, in the right tent, at least. And their hearts flutter as this humble actor who gave up a big career on TV for them — for them! — tells them a story they like, a story about a world where America is still the good guy and no changes need to be made for things to turn out just fine in the end.

I watched this phenomenon in action over and over again. In a dead-still convention hall in Sioux City, Thompson meanders his way through a stump speech that appears to be about absolutely nothing at all — he makes tamely self-deprecating jokes about his bald head (“You young fellas with good-lookin’ heads of hair, enjoy it while you can”), ogles a standard-issue stuffed-animal-bearing Adorable Toddler (“You’re a good Republican. Now let’s show ‘em your elephant”) and talks away questions about specific policy issues with inspired flurries of utterly nonsensical hick’ry saws (his take on how to deal with the energy crisis: “We got to learn to skip ‘n chew gum’t the same time”).

When asked about Iraq, Thompson goes into a scene straight out of Hollywood, talking about visiting wounded soldiers at Walter Reed hospital who just couldn’t wait for their leg stumps to grow back so they could give Jerry some more hell at the front. “It’s the ones who are most wounded who most want to rejoin their comrades,” he says.

Two minutes after that last bit, I am outside talking to an older woman named Rita Fairfield, who pronounces herself completely convinced. She likes Thompson’s take on national security, among other things, especially the part about staying the course. I ask her why she thinks the surge is working. “From what I heard from the soldiers who are coming back, they’re willing to give up life and limb,” she says. “The ones that are coming back maimed seem to be the ones most ready to go back to battle.”

Huh, I think. Where did I just hear that?

It’s only after you run into this lobotomy act ten or eleven times that you start to see the dark essence of Fred Thompson. He is hard to dislike on a personal level: Unlike the overconfident district attorney he plays on Law and Order, the real-life Thompson comes off as a halting, humble, accidental celebrity who’s really just dern glad to be here. And his personality seems consistent with his Goldwater-era ideology: A believer in limited government, he seeks to achieve his ends by getting his frankly limited self elected to the White House. [...]

In short, the morons love him. That scares me.

Local: Peoria Pundit is all over Aaron Schock! Evidently, Mr. Schock was asked to move his office out of the Republican headquarters. The issue was whether Mr. Schock used his state congressional office to help him campaign for the soon to be vacant U. S. Congressional office (IL-18).

I’ve written before about how Republican Party loyalists are a bit annoyed at Aaron Schock. Less than a year after they spent millions getting him re-elected to the Illinois House of Representatives, he decided to abandon that seat to run for the one being vacated by U.S. Rep Ray LaHood.

This means that the GOP is more likely than not to loose the seat to the Democrats. Until Schock defeated Ricca Slone, the 92nd was considered a safe Democratic seat. But Schock — who has a knack for picking opponents who have weaknesses in their base — won back in 2004.

And now Schock is making tongues wag yet again. This time, some of his fellow GOPers are upset at the special favors he’s getting from the party organization, and for possible violations of campaign finance rules.

Go to Bill’s Blog Peoria Pundit to read the rest.

Some are excited about former Bradley Basketball coach Dick Versace running for the IL-18 seat, but frankly I am deeply depressed. This is going to be a huge disaster for us; ok, not a huge disaster as this seat has been Republican for the last 100 years or so (literally), but I think we are throwing away a bona-fide shot.