Is the United States becoming hostile to science?

[alonzomourning23]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A bitter debate about how to teach evolution in U.S. high schools is prompting a crisis of confidence among scientists, and some senior academics warn that science itself is under assault.

In the past month, the interim president of Cornell University and the dean of the Stanford University School of Medicine have both spoken on this theme, warning in dramatic terms of the long-term consequences.

"Among the most significant forces is the rising tide of anti-science sentiment that seems to have its nucleus in Washington but which extends throughout the nation," said Stanford's Philip Pizzo in a letter posted on the school Web site on October 3.

Cornell acting President Hunter Rawlings, in his "state of the university" address last week, spoke about the challenge to science represented by "intelligent design" which holds that the theory of evolution accepted by the vast majority of scientists is fatally flawed.

Rawlings said the dispute was widening political, social, religious and philosophical rifts in U.S. society. "When ideological division replaces informed exchange, dogma is the result and education suffers," he said.

Adherents of intelligent design argue that certain forms in nature are too complex to have evolved through natural selection and must have been created by a "designer," who could but does not have to be identified as God.

AT ODDS WITH BUSH

In the past five years, the scientific community has often seemed at odds with the Bush administration over issues as diverse as global warming, stem cell research and environmental protection. Prominent scientists have also charged the administration with politicizing science by seeking to shape data to its own needs while ignoring other research.

Evangelical and fundamentalist Christians have built a powerful position within the Republican Party and no Republican, including Bush, can afford to ignore their views.

This was dramatically illustrated in the case of Terri Schiavo earlier this year, in which Republicans in Congress passed a law to keep a woman in a persistent vegetative state alive against her husband's wishes, and Bush himself spoke out in favor of "the culture of life." The issue of whether intelligent design should be taught, or at least mentioned, in high school biology classes is being played out in a Pennsylvania court room and in numerous school districts across the country.



The school board of Dover, Pennsylvania, is being sued by parents backed by the American Civil Liberties Union after it ordered schools to read students a short statement in biology classes informing them that the theory of evolution is not established fact and that gaps exist in it.

The statement mentioned intelligent design as an alternative theory and recommended students to read a book that explained the theory further.

Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller believes the rhetoric of the anti-evolution movement has had the effect of driving a wedge between a large proportion of the population who follow fundamentalist Christianity and science.

"It is alienating young people from science. It basically tells them that the scientific community is not to be trusted and you would have to abandon your principles of faith to become a scientist, which is not at all true," he said.

On the other side, conservative scholar Michael Novak of the American Enterprise Institute, believes the only way to heal the rift between science and religion is to allow the teaching of intelligent design.

"To have antagonism between science and religion is crazy," he said at a forum on the issue last week.

Proponents of intelligent design deny they are anti-science and say they themselves follow the scientific method.

AMERICANS DON'T ACCEPT EVOLUTION

Polls for many years have shown that a majority of Americans are at odds with key scientific theory. For example, as CBS poll this month found that 51 percent of respondents believed humans were created in their present form by God. A further 30 percent said their creation was guided by God. Only 15 percent thought humans evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years.

Other polls show that only around a third of American adults accept the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, even though the concept is virtually uncontested by scientists worldwide.

"When we ask people what they know about science, just under 20 percent turn out to be scientifically literate," said Jon Miller, director of the center for biomedical communication at Northwestern University.
He said science and especially mathematics were poorly taught in most U.S. schools, leading both to a shortage of good scientists and general scientific ignorance.


U.S. school students perform relatively poorly in international tests of mathematics and science. For example, in 2003 U.S. students placed 24th in an international test that measured the mathematical literacy of 15-year-olds, below many European and Asian countries.

Scientists bemoan the lack of qualified U.S. candidates for postgraduate and doctoral studies at American universities and currently fill around a third of available science and engineering slots with foreign students.

Northwestern's Miller said the insistence of a large proportion of Americans that humans were created by God as whole beings had policy implications for the future.
"The 21st century will be the century of biology and we are going to be confronted with hundreds of important public policy issues that require some understanding that all life is interconnected," he said.

http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=uri:2005-10-28T135338Z_01_SCH843728_RTRIDST_0_LIFESTYLE-SCIENCE-USA-COL.XML&pageNumber=0&summit=

 

[MrBadExample]

I'd say there has been a hostile attitude by some towards science since at least the Reagan administration with its dismissal of environmental concerns, disregard for the feasibility of a Star Wars plan, the rise of the anti-intellectual Moral Majority, etc.

 

[kakomu]

When intelligence became synonymous with "Elite", that's when the war on science started.

 

[evanft]

Science is a liberal myth perpetuated by the MSM.

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='evanft']Science is a liberal myth perpetuated by the MSM.[/QUOTE]


Coco after realizing her ancestors gave rise to the average american:

 

[Drocket]

The war on science (perhaps that should be capitalized - the War on Science) is something that's been building for quite a while now. The reason behind it is pretty simple: the world is changing rapidly, and (most) people are afraid of change. People like new inventions that make their lives easier, but we're witnessing advancements that completely change the way in which people live their lives, which is a whole different animal entirely.

The current backlash against advancement really isn't all that different from what went on during the industrial revolution. There was a serious backlash against science, technology and education at that point too. Ultimately, its because people are comfortable with their existing lives and, even though the new world promises great advances, its also quite frightening. As old organizations realize that they're obsolete and on the verge of extinction, they panic.

One thing I've heard suggested is that this is the end of religion: that's absolutely ridiculous. Religion will get through this just fine. It'll just have to change some of its precepts, such as its done before (dinosaurs are a great example of this. Organized religion spent a lot of time and effort trying to suppress research on dinosaur bones because they threatened the existing interpretation of the Bible. A whole lot of screaming about the end of the world later - religion adapted. Dinosaurs existed before man was created. No problemo.)

Its also not entirely correct to make this entirely a debate between conservatism and liberalism. To some degree, it is - conservatism, by its very nature, is more fearful of change. At the same time, though, we're all human, and we're all more comfortable with what we know. A vague and uncertain future is scary.

Anyway, what's going on now is really little more than the wail of a way of life that knows its doomed. Its impossible to predict what will happen in the future, or even whether what's to come will be better or worse. All that we can say for sure is that its inevitable - which is often what makes people cling even harder to what's come and gone.

 

[mykevermin]

I truly believe that many of the people fighting against science, and empiricism in particular, would LOVE to go back to pre-enlightenment thinking.

If they learned about the enlightenment in home school, that is.

 

[Mike23]

Isn't education supposed to show a student different possibilities creating a certain scenario where there is no accepted fact?

Under that context, I have no problem with all theories being taught in a classroom setting and being debated. As far as I know, there is no consensus on anything and thus everything should be taught. Let people make their own decisions, do not force things down their throat.

 

[kakomu]

[quote name='Mike23']Isn't education supposed to show a student different possibilities creating a certain scenario where there is no accepted fact?

Under that context, I have no problem with all theories being taught in a classroom setting and being debated. As far as I know, there is no consensus on anything and thus everything should be taught. Let people make their own decisions, do not force things down their throat.[/QUOTE]

Yea, we should also repeal child labor laws and forget about education as a requirement in this country.

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='Mike23']Isn't education supposed to show a student different possibilities creating a certain scenario where there is no accepted fact?

Under that context, I have no problem with all theories being taught in a classroom setting and being debated. As far as I know, there is no consensus on anything and thus everything should be taught. Let people make their own decisions, do not force things down their throat.[/QUOTE]

This is a science class room. In a science class room you teach what is the consensus, or as close as you can get to it, among scientists. That is evolution in this case. Intelligent design is advocated by the religious right and a few, marginal scientists, there number insignificant compared to the amount advocating evolution. Intelligent design has two strengths, one is to attack evolution (comes off as a strength, but to scientists it's a weakness since proponents often simply don't know of certain scientific evidence favoring evolution), and the other is the age old "we don't know everything, so it must be god's work" argument.

But, also, you cannot teach religion in public schools. Since god is essentially the creator behind intelligent design, and when you add that it would not be a conclusion arrived to simply on science, it becomes, in all likelihood, unconstitutional.

Another issue is you are favoring one religion. Since we cannot teach every creation argument, we can't just teach one argued from a christian perspective.

 

[mykevermin]

Intelligent design is *not* a scientific theory, nor is it proposed like one. It cannot be tested like one. What intelligent design theory is is this: recognizing the limitations of empirical science for explaining certain phenomena, and using those limitations to create an aribtrary stopping point for science. It is taking "this is what science cannot explain" as a subject and claiming "a-ha! If it can't be explained by science, it is proof of a metaphysical presence!"

In the end, intelligent design creates an arbitrary stoppins point for scientific reductionism: "this is as far as we've gone, and we ain't goin' any farther." That, my friend, is not science.

I don't have a problem, in the abscence of intelligent design, teaching students to be intellectually skeptical. I do respect people for trying to criticize or refute evolutionary theory (not necessarily what they combat it with, however). The irony, of course, is that the people trying to create skepticism towards empirically verifiable theory, based on the premise of their complete and total capitulation towards their religion, which is inherently unverifiable.

 

[Mike23]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']This is a science class room. In a science class room you teach what is the consensus, or as close as you can get to it, among scientists. That is evolution in this case. Intelligent design is advocated by the religious right and a few, marginal scientists, there number insignificant compared to the amount advocating evolution. Intelligent design has two strengths, one is to attack evolution (comes off as a strength, but to scientists it's a weakness since proponents often simply don't know of certain scientific evidence favoring evolution), and the other is the age old "we don't know everything, so it must be god's work" argument.

But, also, you cannot teach religion in public schools. Since god is essentially the creator behind intelligent design, and when you add that it would not be a conclusion arrived to simply on science, it becomes, in all likelihood, unconstitutional.

Another issue is you are favoring one religion. Since we cannot teach every creation argument, we can't just teach one argued from a christian perspective.[/QUOTE]

I failed to recognize the public school thing. But, in my high school (Catholic), we were taught the Hindu/Native/Christian/Buddhist/Islamic ways of creation with little bias (despite being in a religion class). We were never taught one was superior to the other; rather, we were taught that different people believe different things and it's acceptable to believe any.

To each his own, I guess.

 

[Drocket]

Teaching religion in a religion class is fine. A science class, though, is NOT a place for religion teachings. Saying "We haven't explained X (yet) so it must be God" has no place in a science classroom.

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='Mike23']I failed to recognize the public school thing. But, in my high school (Catholic), we were taught the Hindu/Native/Christian/Buddhist/Islamic ways of creation with little bias (despite being in a religion class). We were never taught one was superior to the other; rather, we were taught that different people believe different things and it's acceptable to believe any.

To each his own, I guess.[/QUOTE]

The type of school is central, since the legal issues only center on public schools.

I went to a catholic school and we were only taught religion in religion class. Creationism was a joke to all my biology teachers, and it was never once mentioned in religion. There was a world religions class on offer once, which I signed up for, but only like 2 or 3 other students did and it was cancelled. They might have taught other religions creation stories in that, but I doubt it (considering they never even bothered with the christian one). I believe that buddhism, islam and possibly 1 or 2 more was discussed in christian religion class one year (for about 4 or 5 classes total), and we did discuss the japanese creation story in world history once (as a lead in to japanese history and how they viewed themselves in the past), but that's about it.

As much as I hated my school, from what I've learned after it was a hell of a lot better than christian schools throughout the rest of the country.

But, to teach a scientifically baseless hypothesis in science class would be irresponsible and do a disservice to science. The only reason to teach it is to cater to the religious right, there's nothing in science that validates it. To say that science favors one theory is only being accurate, it's not a political or religious statement.

 

[zionoverfire]

One of these days AZ will have a title that actually describes the article he posts.

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='zionoverfire']One of these days AZ will have a title that actually describes the article he posts.[/QUOTE]

That's the second time in a row you've made a post, in response to me, that made no sense. The title accurately fits the article, and the title was provided by reuters.

 

[zionoverfire]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']and the title was provided by reuters.[/QUOTE]

Yes, so stop using their BS titles. These things are made for shock value to increase reader interest, clearly you have more respect for the Vs. forum than that?

I suppose somehow all these people suddenly overnight decided they believed in creationism.

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='zionoverfire']Yes, so stop using their BS titles. These things are made for shock value to increase reader interest, clearly you have more respect for the Vs. forum than that?[/QUOTE]

This is a joke, right?

 

[zionoverfire]

[quote name='alonzomourning23'] This is a joke, right?[/QUOTE]

No, it's a point with humor attached to it.

I mean ing really the title is horrible and you know it, but you post it anyhow because you know shock value gets people to discuss topics they've already beaten to death.

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='zionoverfire']No, it's a point with humor attached to it.

I mean ing really the title is horrible and you know it, but you post it anyhow because you know shock value gets people to discuss topics they've already beaten to death.[/QUOTE]

A little hypocritical? I mean we've already had this discussion about my titles. My titles are usually the same one used in the article, and often rather dull and underwhelming compared to other peoples here.

 

[zionoverfire]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']A little hypocritical? I mean we've already had this discussion about my titles. My titles are usually the same one used in the article, and often rather dull and underwhelming compared to other peoples here.[/QUOTE]

So perhaps you should make your own less underwhelming titles?

 

[kakomu]

[quote name='zionoverfire']So perhaps you should make your own less underwhelming titles?[/QUOTE]

I suppose you can always stay out of threads that you feel the title isn't quite befitting to the article, instead of bitching about them.

 

[zionoverfire]

[quote name='capitalist_mao']I suppose you can always stay out of threads that you feel the title isn't quite befitting to the article, instead of bitching about them.[/QUOTE]

I see you've learned a whole lot about the Vs. forum in your short time here.

 

[RBM]

I don't think people are becoming more hostile to science. I do feel, however, that people are having a harder time reconciling some basic cornerstones to religious dogma with new scientific discoveries. By cornerstones, I mean the simple "facts of life" which starts the story most religions begin with (and which lead into & end with explanations of an afterlife.)

Regardless of educational background or job type, the average Joe can appreciate the notion that human beings share some core similarities with other living creatures (we're born, we eat/drink/sleep, we die and decompose) but that we are smarter (+morality +soul + conscience) and thus lead significantly different lives than the creepy crawlies. Thus, when a religious figurehead tells him that *this* is where you came from, *this* is what you will face in life, and *this* is what you willl find after death, there has been little cause for contention with scientific teachings...in the past.

However, as we find out more about ourselves and the world around us, it shakes people up at a fundamental level to find out that NO, it's not just "good people" vs. "bad people." Or, even "my sane, healthy, happy family & friends" vs. the "crazy, no-good, messed-up people on the other side of the tracks." When your neighbor goes bananas after losing his job & his wife leaving him, he can see a psychiatrist and gets put on a prescription for an anti-depressant...instead of engaging in deep soul-searching sessions with his local priest. This effects your view of How Life Works.

When you've tried to have a baby unsuccessfully for years, most folks don't consult their priest and consider adoption: they spend the thousands of dollars they've saved up (by putting off child-bearing until their 40's, thus embracing substantially higher risk of low pregnancy rates & higher birth defects) and go for in vitro fertilization. This effects their view of How Life Works.

As the emphasis on navigating life's obstacles has relied less upon faith and more upon newly available technology, I think people are subjected to greater unease regarding the one special part which demands faith-based treatment: their souls. ...and, I think it's this unease which is giving rise to trends like the over-publicized and misguided touting of Intelligent Design and the opposition to stem cell research (and not any hostility to science, per se.)

..but not the low scientific literacy alluded to in the OP article. I think that's just status quo. "Average" literacy of any kind (grammatical, mathematical, historical, or scientific) is just plain low. Yay for our crappy educational system.

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='RBM']
Regardless of educational background or job type, the average Joe can appreciate the notion that human beings share some core similarities with other living creatures (we're born, we eat/drink/sleep, we die and decompose) but that we are smarter (+morality +soul + conscience) [/QUOTE]

The difference between humans and other animals is degrees. Other animals have displayed essentially morality, such as following social norms and compassion (giving food, comfort or physcially helping a sick or hurt friend, even giving funerals). They have also displayed bonds, language, tools building and use etc. Scientifically, it all comes down to degrees. Humans excel in the particular forms of intelligence that allows us to do what we do. Without the proper body parts (such as our hands), and without excelling in certain mental areas, we would be indistinguishable from all other animals.

There is no particular area of abilities that humans possess that no other animals possess, unless it's measured in degrees. You will always find another animal that can do at least a basic form of a human ability. I can't see how this would be true if humans were a totally separate being, with no connection to other animals.

 

[Quackzilla]

Humans are the third smartest animals on the planet, that should count for something.

 

[RBM]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']The difference between humans and other animals is degrees...we would be indistinguishable from all other animals. [/QUOTE]

While some people would agree with you in saying that human beings are simply one type of animal amongst many others, I think most folks like to think that they have a soul...and that this distinguishes them from chickens, shrews, and hermit crabs.

And I would say that it is their need for the spiritual tending of their souls and the need to make sense of life as we know it (as explained by Divine guidance/planning) which drives their dependence upon religious institutions. To recap my earlier spiel, as more and more problems become solvable through new technology, dependence upon comfort through religion is reduced...and, so, I think a tendency to compensate for this shift comes in the form of heightened support for their religious representatives (since they are still needed for their salvation capabilities.)

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='RBM']While some people would agree with you in saying that human beings are simply one type of animal amongst many others, I think most folks like to think that they have a soul...and that this distinguishes them from chickens, shrews, and hermit crabs.[/quote]

That's true. But, a lot of people seem to think their pets have a soul, or something close. It would be interesting to see how many people think of a soul as part of all living things (or all living things with at least minimal intelligence), or a uniquely human traid. Personally, while I don't think anything has a soul, my answer would be the same regardless of whether I'm talking about humans or other animals.

And I would say that it is their need for the spiritual tending of their souls and the need to make sense of life as we know it (as explained by Divine guidance/planning) which drives their dependence upon religious institutions. To recap my earlier spiel, as more and more problems become solvable through new technology, dependence upon comfort through religion is reduced...and, so, I think a tendency to compensate for this shift comes in the form of heightened support for their religious representatives (since they are still needed for their salvation capabilities.)

I really don't have much of an opinion on that, other than I don't understand how increasing the amount of dependency on science would increase religiousness. I can see favoring religion over science out of fear, but not the way you put it.

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']That's true. But, a lot of people seem to think their pets have a soul, or something close. It would be interesting to see how many people think of a soul as part of all living things (or all living things with at least minimal intelligence), or a uniquely human traid. Personally, while I don't think anything has a soul, my answer would be the same regardless of whether I'm talking about humans or other animals.[/QUOTE]

People have a tendency to anthropomorphize cute and furry animals (think of how everyone loves Pandas, rabbits, cats, even lions) and villify ugly and crafty predators (crows, snakes, vultures, jackals)

At my parents community, there is a PETA that's main mission in life is to save the local pond's geese, even if it means that the geese are so overpopulated that they are snapping at little kids and deficating everywhere. I always think that this is so stupid - the PETA should be going after the agribusiness plants that make millions upon millions of chickens, cows, and pigs suffer in tortureous conditions in the pursuit of that extra dollar, that extra saved human hour of work. Again - chalk this up to anthropomorphization, or the ostrich phenomenon (out of sight, out of mind).

One of the reasons that I believe christians are so scared of the scientific evidence for evolution, is that it proves that evolutionarily speaking humans are just one part of an ecosystem, and not some divine crown jewel that was placed on earth by a super-intelligent divinity as the teacher's pet. Given the christian's naivete in this matter, I believe that the American Indian and African tribes have a much more sophisticated understanding of animals then any christian ever will.

I don't know who watched SNL last night, but this was pretty funny:

"66% of Americans think that Bush is doing a poor job at leading the Iraq war. The other 34% think that thousands of years ago our ancestors rode their dinosaurs to church" :lol:

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='camoor']

At my parents community, there is a PETA that's main mission in life is to save the local pond's geese, even if it means that the geese are so overpopulated that they are snapping at little kids and deficating everywhere. I always think that this is so stupid - the PETA should be going after the agribusiness plants that make millions upon millions of chickens, cows, and pigs suffer in tortureous conditions in the pursuit of that extra dollar, that extra saved human hour of work. Again - chalk this up to anthropomorphization, or the ostrich phenomenon (out of sight, out of mind).

[/QUOTE]

PETA does a lot with farm animals. There particular focus, lately, has been chickens but they also deal with other animals such as pigs and cows. This can be seen if you check their website. If people are trying to kill geese then that's an issue your local PETA has taken up. Around here they sometimes kill the eggs (by shaking them), but never harm the actual geese.

 

[RBM]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']I don't understand how increasing the amount of dependency on science would increase religiousness. I can see favoring religion over science out of fear, but not the way you put it.[/QUOTE]

Well, to adopt your choice in words, I would suggest that the perceived "attack on science" alluded to in the quoted article might stem from the fear that embracing the benefits of medical technology constitutes a large break from religious dogma. While people are glad to be cured of illnesses and have gross, physical damage repaired, they still don't want to be condemned to everlasting Torment. I think that they want to have both, and since existing medical technologies seem good (they are certainly better than that which was available 100 years ago, say) they are happy to walk "the path of piety" at the expense of scientific discovery.

I get the feeling that the general public takes it for granted that medical discoveries are occuring all the time. If someone is diagnosed with some terrible malady, he will most likely harbor the hope that "some cure" exists for it or that "some experimental therapy is being tested" for it. However, he would also most likely support moral/religious condemnation for research in that field, if he or one of his loved ones didn't stand to benefit from it directly. Why risk condemnation for all eternity for the materialistic curiosity of others?

*Nobody is willing to "have faith that their malady and ensuing death is God's Will" when there's a proven way to cure their condition...but thirty years ago, before the therapy was available, it was *precisely* God's Will. And it will ALWAYS be God's Will to condemn any actions, research, and legislation which contradicts a religious body's manual for...guiding...their flocks.

And as people benefit from more and more life-saving techniques, my guess is that they compensate for the decreased dependency on spiritual consolance by going out of their way to support pro-religious/Salvation causes...as long as they don't immediately impinge, once again, on their own lives or those of their loved ones....when that happens, they stand alone, tearfully, and read emotional speeches before their erstwhile bretheren (who will listen sympathetically, and then vote against the cause, since it's not their own families at stake.)

[*with rare exceptions.]

 

[worx]

My opinion - evolution is just as much of a theory as gravity and we all know that one works - I really support the idea that God allows for evolution - b/c in all honesty, no one knows where the matter for the big bang came from so I'd completely buy into the fact that God/Allah created this universe and allowed for the evolution of his creatures.

 

[elprincipe]

[quote name='Quackzilla']Humans are the third smartest animals on the planet, that should count for something.[/QUOTE]

Well, that would be true if you and you alone comprised the entire human race I guess...

 

[evanft]

[quote name='joevan']My opinion - evolution is just as much of a theory as gravity and we all know that one works - I really support the idea that God allows for evolution - b/c in all honesty, no one knows where the matter for the big bang came from so I'd completely buy into the fact that God/Allah created this universe and allowed for the evolution of his creatures.[/QUOTE]

"I don't know where it came from, so God did it!"

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']PETA does a lot with farm animals. There particular focus, lately, has been chickens but they also deal with other animals such as pigs and cows. This can be seen if you check their website. If people are trying to kill geese then that's an issue your local PETA has taken up. Around here they sometimes kill the eggs (by shaking them), but never harm the actual geese.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, thanks for pointing that out. I know it's just the local PETA that are insane about this pond. However the geese have snapped at and in one case bit a small kid, and they aren't scared of the dogs that are brought by because they know the dogs get choke chained before they can get the geese. Plus the crap everywhere is a health hazard, and killing eggs only brings them in from elsewhere in Canada.

Anyway though - enough about the geese and a bunch of housemoms with too much time on their hands :lol:

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='RBM']I get the feeling that the general public takes it for granted that medical discoveries are occuring all the time. If someone is diagnosed with some terrible malady, he will most likely harbor the hope that "some cure" exists for it or that "some experimental therapy is being tested" for it. However, he would also most likely support moral/religious condemnation for research in that field, if he or one of his loved ones didn't stand to benefit from it directly. Why risk condemnation for all eternity for the materialistic curiosity of others?[/QUOTE]

Great post. Reagan only started caring about the AIDS issue when his actor friends started dying from the disease. Sometimes I wonder what Bush W would do if one of his party girl daughters got pregnant (assuming that it already hasn't happened...). The Cheney gay daughter thing always perplexes me - especially since she works for her dad on campaigns - WTF is up with that.

 

[kakomu]

[quote name='camoor']Great post. Reagan only started caring about the AIDS issue when his actor friends started dying from the disease. Sometimes I wonder what Bush W would do if one of his party girl daughters got pregnant (assuming that it already hasn't happened...). [/QUOTE]

Most likely the same he does when daughters make absolute fools of themselves. Nothing at all.

[quote name='camoor']The Cheney gay daughter thing always perplexes me - especially since she works for her dad on campaigns - WTF is up with that.[/QUOTE]

Blood is thicker than lesbians? s