Dick, John, and Spot
Oct. 6th, 2004 09:39 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
vovatAt the library yesterday, I happened to come across an issue of Wired with a cover story involving intelligent design, the newest form of oxymoronic "creation science." What I really have to wonder about, in regards to creationism, is these people see evolution as such a threat, to the extent that they would deliberately lie and misrepresent in order to promote their alternative. Is the origin of species really that important to Christianity? The creation of the world takes up only a small portion of the Bible, is written in a sketchy manner, and seems to be largely unrelated to Jesus' teachings or self-sacrifice. I can see how the notion that man is an animal undercuts the human-centered view of the Bible, but is it THAT important?
On an unrelated note, the next Simpsons Halloween special is scheduled to air an entire week after Halloween. I thought the fact that it aired a few days after Halloween last year was bad enough. I mean, we all know FOX sucks, but can't they at least make an OCCASIONAL scheduling decision that actually makes sense?
Finally, I watched the vice presidential debates last night. I think it was appropriate that, when the two candidates were introduced, Cheney was basically scowling, while Edwards smiled affably at the camera. Edwards was definitely more personable, and I preferred what he said (which isn't too surprising, as the two of them basically held the same positions as their running mates). Cheney didn't come off as much of an idiot as Bush did in the earlier debates, though. I thought both candidates frequently went off the topic and didn't address the actual question, or they addressed the question only AFTER talking about something else for more than half their allotted time. Also, I noticed a certain sequence of events playing out at least twice:
1. Cheney says something negative about Kerry's or Edwards' record.
2. Edwards flips it on him, by pointing out something equally or more negative about Cheney's record.
3. Cheney doesn't address Edwards' charges, instead simply saying, "I think Mr. Edwards' record speaks for itself."
There was at least one time where Edwards neglected to answer a charge from Cheney, when I think he should have. It was when the two men were discussing taxes, and Cheney said that Kerry and Edwards would support tax increases that would hurt small businesses. I had previously heard this same idea expressed in a pro-Bush radio ad. I'm inclined to think the charge isn't accurate, but I don't recall Edwards saying anything about it. Hopefully Kerry will, if the issue comes up again in the presidential debate on economics. I'm all for higher taxes on millionaires and huge corporations, but I can see how a charge of being against small business could hurt the Kerry campaign.
As with Kerry, I think Edwards took a more moderate stance on issues than I might have liked, but at least he was on the right track. For instance, it bugged me that Edwards said that he and Kerry supported the outdated notion that marriage could only be between a man and a woman. Kerry and Edwards are also always talking about the middle class, and, while the middle class is important and tends to get screwed over nowadays, they seem to be neglecting the LOWER class. I think the ultimate goal should be abolishing the class structure entirely, but I can see why a candidate today can't get up and say that. I guess it's sort of the same way with the gay marriage thing, in that so many people oppose it today that a candidate can't necessarily come out totally in favor of it. Still, I do wish we had a candidate who at least thought that gay marriages COULD be possible at some point. I suppose this is one of those cases where the "lesser of two evils" idea kicks in.
On an unrelated note, the next Simpsons Halloween special is scheduled to air an entire week after Halloween. I thought the fact that it aired a few days after Halloween last year was bad enough. I mean, we all know FOX sucks, but can't they at least make an OCCASIONAL scheduling decision that actually makes sense?
Finally, I watched the vice presidential debates last night. I think it was appropriate that, when the two candidates were introduced, Cheney was basically scowling, while Edwards smiled affably at the camera. Edwards was definitely more personable, and I preferred what he said (which isn't too surprising, as the two of them basically held the same positions as their running mates). Cheney didn't come off as much of an idiot as Bush did in the earlier debates, though. I thought both candidates frequently went off the topic and didn't address the actual question, or they addressed the question only AFTER talking about something else for more than half their allotted time. Also, I noticed a certain sequence of events playing out at least twice:
1. Cheney says something negative about Kerry's or Edwards' record.
2. Edwards flips it on him, by pointing out something equally or more negative about Cheney's record.
3. Cheney doesn't address Edwards' charges, instead simply saying, "I think Mr. Edwards' record speaks for itself."
There was at least one time where Edwards neglected to answer a charge from Cheney, when I think he should have. It was when the two men were discussing taxes, and Cheney said that Kerry and Edwards would support tax increases that would hurt small businesses. I had previously heard this same idea expressed in a pro-Bush radio ad. I'm inclined to think the charge isn't accurate, but I don't recall Edwards saying anything about it. Hopefully Kerry will, if the issue comes up again in the presidential debate on economics. I'm all for higher taxes on millionaires and huge corporations, but I can see how a charge of being against small business could hurt the Kerry campaign.
As with Kerry, I think Edwards took a more moderate stance on issues than I might have liked, but at least he was on the right track. For instance, it bugged me that Edwards said that he and Kerry supported the outdated notion that marriage could only be between a man and a woman. Kerry and Edwards are also always talking about the middle class, and, while the middle class is important and tends to get screwed over nowadays, they seem to be neglecting the LOWER class. I think the ultimate goal should be abolishing the class structure entirely, but I can see why a candidate today can't get up and say that. I guess it's sort of the same way with the gay marriage thing, in that so many people oppose it today that a candidate can't necessarily come out totally in favor of it. Still, I do wish we had a candidate who at least thought that gay marriages COULD be possible at some point. I suppose this is one of those cases where the "lesser of two evils" idea kicks in.
