[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsMGvvUyNDE[/youtube]

That was interesting and very uncomfortable. Flip all them questions around and ask a democrat and you'd get the same result.

Pence made himself look worse than he should have had to. He went into theology and all kinds of things. Ask any Democrat or any public figure for that matter the question he asked about God and the Seven Days.

See the result you get. Matthews was being a dick first and foremost. Pence isn't so bright but the questions he was being asked no politician could answer. He was basically asking him to make himself available to ridicule no matter how he answered. That is dickish and unprofessional.

WilliamC wrote:That was interesting and very uncomfortable. Flip all them questions around and ask a democrat and you'd get the same result.

Pence made himself look worse than he should have had to. He went into theology and all kinds of things. Ask any Democrat or any public figure for that matter the question he asked about God and the Seven Days.

See the result you get. Matthews was being a dick first and foremost. Pence isn't so bright but the questions he was being asked no politician could answer. He was basically asking him to make himself available to ridicule no matter how he answered. That is dickish and unprofessional.

Heh? How did you get that out of this? He asked him 'do you believe in evolution'. He didn't ask some trick question.

It might have been interesting if either of the gentlemen knew anything about what science is and is not. Pence's remark that it's about exploring facts is such utter nonsense. Matthews isn't much better. Science isn't just about facts, it's about explaining facts. Crap was falling to the ground long before Galileo and Newton figured out how gravity worked.

That wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be, given the comments. He avoided putting his foot in his mouth, considering what he had to answer. He managed to avoid the "Do you believe in the fundamentalist view of Creation in 7 days" without offending fundamentalists or non-fundamentalist Christians.

Changing the subject to climate change in the beginning made me chuckle.

None of them knew what they were talking about. That was silly and unprofessional on Matthews' part.

Matthews is a douche. He is a good example of what's wrong with the whole 24 news channel approach to "journalism". Pence is a douche as well, a good example of what's wrong with the Republican party. Seriously, if he believes in 7 24 hour days for creation, if he's a for real young earth creationist, then he really should simply say, "I don't believe in science" and be done with it.

He doesn't believe it (I assume), but didn't want to alienate voters on something he won't be voting for.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXlxBeAvsB8[/youtube]

All I hear is an awful noise. Is that the joke or something?

Werthless wrote:He doesn't believe it (I assume), but didn't want to alienate voters on something he won't be voting for.

So he's willing to lie and set himself up for ridicule rather than stand up for truth? Sounds like a guy with a lot of integrity.

This is really no different than someone claiming that we can print money and make everyone rich.

TenuredVulture wrote:

Werthless wrote:He doesn't believe it (I assume), but didn't want to alienate voters on something he won't be voting for.

So he's willing to lie and set himself up for ridicule rather than stand up for truth? Sounds like a guy with a lot of integrity.

This is really no different than someone claiming that we can print money and make everyone rich.

Are you judging a politician for evading a question? Really? It's what I come to expect. I was just pointing out that he didn't do a bad job with it, contrary to my expectations.

As far as the Employee Free Choice Act goes....doesn't it basically come down to whether you are pro-labor or pro-business? I mean Republicans can complicate the issue with nonsense about employee privacy and stuff but it seems pretty simple to me. The TV is telling me to pressure Arlen Specter to vote yes on this. If he really considers himself a Dem he really will have no choice but to.

Werthless wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

Werthless wrote:He doesn't believe it (I assume), but didn't want to alienate voters on something he won't be voting for.

So he's willing to lie and set himself up for ridicule rather than stand up for truth? Sounds like a guy with a lot of integrity.

This is really no different than someone claiming that we can print money and make everyone rich.

Are you judging a politician for evading a question? Really? It's what I come to expect. I was just pointing out that he didn't do a bad job with it, contrary to my expectations.

On such a clear cut issue? Yeah. It's pretty gutless. He either says, "I don't believe in science" or he says "I don't believe the earth was created in seven days". I'd give him pass if he went said something that sounded like intelligent design or if he said Darwinian evolution doesn't explain everything.

Look, I'm not voting for people who take astrology or UFOs seriously either. I'm willing to take lefty nuts to task for going on about GMOs. There have to be limits regarding truth and fantasy, and certain delusions should disqualify from public office. Or voting for that matter.

The problem is this--these people are in charge of crafting policy. Science is the only tool we have to do that well--whether we're talking economics, health care policy, flood and fire protection, swine flu and so on. You're unqualified to make policy if you fail to understand the basics of the scientific enterprise.

I just found that exchange sad. Matthews is a bloviating a-hole, and Pence is deeply disingenuous at best.

To an extent all parties have to pander to their base. But ideally there's some progress (dare I say evolution) in the views of that base, and elected officials and other leaders have to make that happen. My guess is that Democratic activists are far more moderate on welfare and crime than their predecessors thirty years ago, and (at least before this current recession) less eager to see government jump in and run things. The Clintons and other high-profile leaders moved their base in that direction. But it's hard to imagine any current Republican doing the same, or even having the courage to try, on issues like climate change, or gay marriage, or torture.

TenuredVulture wrote:It might have been interesting if either of the gentlemen knew anything about what science is and is not. Pence's remark that it's about exploring facts is such utter nonsense. Matthews isn't much better. Science isn't just about facts, it's about explaining facts. Crap was falling to the ground long before Galileo and Newton figured out how gravity worked.

It is about facts, but that is just the starting point. Facts are important, because that grounds science in what actually is, the reality of the real world. This contrasts the scientific approach to philosophers who may talk about the way things should be and ground their logic in metaphysics. It is also not religion, which deals in belief. Science certainly is about the explanation of why facts are as they are, and most particularly about testable hypotheses and theories. At its core, it recognizes that any accepted theory could be disproven by subsequently discovered facts, requiring either a tweaking or total revamping of the theory. In discussing evolution, the facts are the important starting point. Evolution has changed a lot since Darwin. Darwin did not have an understanding of genes and certainly did not have the molecular genetics tools used today to measure genetic changes between species. This has given a far better idea of what descended from what and what is related to what, as compared to the morphological approach used by Linnaeus and Darwin.

allentown wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:It might have been interesting if either of the gentlemen knew anything about what science is and is not. Pence's remark that it's about exploring facts is such utter nonsense. Matthews isn't much better. Science isn't just about facts, it's about explaining facts. Crap was falling to the ground long before Galileo and Newton figured out how gravity worked.

It is about facts, but that is just the starting point. Facts are important, because that grounds science in what actually is, the reality of the real world. This contrasts the scientific approach to philosophers who may talk about the way things should be and ground their logic in metaphysics. It is also not religion, which deals in belief. Science certainly is about the explanation of why facts are as they are, and most particularly about testable hypotheses and theories. At its core, it recognizes that any accepted theory could be disproven by subsequently discovered facts, requiring either a tweaking or total revamping of the theory. In discussing evolution, the facts are the important starting point. Evolution has changed a lot since Darwin. Darwin did not have an understanding of genes and certainly did not have the molecular genetics tools used today to measure genetic changes between species. This has given a far better idea of what descended from what and what is related to what, as compared to the morphological approach used by Linnaeus and Darwin.

But what makes Darwin's theory so powerful is that in general, the new discoveries in genetics tend to confirm Darwin's general theory.

I'm not asking these guys to understand or explain falsifiability or anything that sophisticated. Just recognize that there is no real scientific evidence for the literal creation account in genesis.

TenuredVulture wrote:But what makes Darwin's theory so powerful is that in general, the new discoveries in genetics tend to confirm Darwin's general theory.

I'm not asking these guys to understand or explain falsifiability or anything that sophisticated. Just recognize that there is no real scientific evidence for the literal creation account in genesis.

He recognizes it. But asking him to say "a portion of your supporters are living a lie" is a political trap, and avoiding the question is SOP. I don't see any reason to by annoyed at his avoidance, anymore than any politician dodges a pointed question they don't see any advantage to answer.

Werthless wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:But what makes Darwin's theory so powerful is that in general, the new discoveries in genetics tend to confirm Darwin's general theory.

I'm not asking these guys to understand or explain falsifiability or anything that sophisticated. Just recognize that there is no real scientific evidence for the literal creation account in genesis.

He recognizes it. But asking him to say "a portion of your supporters are living a lie" is a political trap, and avoiding the question is SOP. I don't see any reason to by annoyed at his avoidance, anymore than any politician dodges a pointed question they don't see any advantage to answer.

If flat earthers are such an important part of your base that you can't risk alienating them, then you're not going to win many elections, nor should you.

To me, this was an opportunity for a "Sister Souljah" type moment. Frankly, it's just as easy for me to believe that Pence really doesn't believe in science, and hedged in order to avoid being labeled as such. But listening to the interview, that's a pretty clear conclusion that can be drawn from what he said.

The Obama administration is threatening to rescind billions of dollars in federal stimulus money if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state lawmakers do not restore wage cuts to unionized home healthcare workers approved in February as part of the budget.

Schwarzenegger's office was advised this week by federal health officials that the wage reduction, which will save California $74 million, violates provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Failure to revoke the scheduled wage cut before it takes effect July 1 could cost California $6.8 billion in stimulus money, according to state officials.

The news comes as state lawmakers are already facing a severe cash crisis, with the state at risk of running out of money in July.

Werthless wrote:The Obama administration is threatening to rescind billions of dollars in federal stimulus money if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state lawmakers do not restore wage cuts to unionized home healthcare workers approved in February as part of the budget.

Schwarzenegger's office was advised this week by federal health officials that the wage reduction, which will save California $74 million, violates provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Failure to revoke the scheduled wage cut before it takes effect July 1 could cost California $6.8 billion in stimulus money, according to state officials.

The news comes as state lawmakers are already facing a severe cash crisis, with the state at risk of running out of money in July.

Awful threat by Obama.