These are not the rantings of a left wing, liberal group. These are the sober facts being reported by well-respected news organizations. I’m just tired. Very, very tired. This administration is never to be held to fault for anything. Speaking out against this administration in any way, shape, or form has been branded anti-American and as giving comfort to the enemy. The enemy this time is Mother Nature and I don’t think she gets any comfort from anything, good or bad, that is said about the Bush Co.

We don’t know if global warming contributed to the catastrophe by warming the waters in the gulf, thus fueling the hurricane. We do know that funds to build up the levees and increase drainage in the city were repeatedly and dismally reduced by this administration. We do know that the response to the crisis has been pathetic (apparently we learned nothing from the post-invasion of Iraq). These are things that should be discussed, and even screamed about. People should be held accountable for some of the lives that are still being lost.

Read on.

From the Chicago Tribune (Published August 31, 2005)
Funding cuts led way to lesser levees

Excerpt: Despite continuous warnings that a catastrophic hurricane could hit New Orleans, the Bush administration and Congress in recent years have repeatedly cut funding for hurricane preparation and flood control. The cuts have delayed construction of levees around the city and stymied an ambitious project to improve drainage in New Orleans’ neighborhoods.

The Times-Picayune (Published August 31, 2005)
Feds’ Disaster Planning Shifts Away From Preparedness

Excerpt: Louisiana’s elected officials were quick to seize on the disaster to press for long-requested federal financial assistance in shoring up Louisiana’s coastline. The coastal wetlands erode at a rate of 24 square miles a year and expose south Louisiana to increasing danger. Until recently, efforts to squeeze coastal protection money out of Washington have met with resistance. The Louisiana congressional delegation urged Congress earlier this year to dedicate a stream of federal money to Louisiana’s coast, only to be opposed by the White House.Ultimately a deal was struck to steer $540 million to the state over four years. The total coast of coastal repair work is estimated to be $14 billion.

The Washington Post
Critics Say Bush Undercut New Orleans Flood Control (Published September 2, 2005)

Excerpt: As recently as July, the White House lobbied unsuccessfully against a plan to spend $1 billion over four years to rebuild coastlines and wetlands, which serve as buffers against hurricanes. More than half of that money goes to Louisiana.

New York Times
Gazing at Breached Levees, Critics See Years of Missed Opportunities (Published September 2, 2005)

San Diego Union Tribune
Bush, lawmakers accused of shortchanging projects (Published September 2, 2005)

The list goes on and on and on.

That’s before we even get to talk about the mismanagement of the crisis…

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Another in a series of “framing the conversation.”

Evolution is real. It is concrete. It stands on millions of fossils that all fall into place perfectly with one another, none of them out of place, nothing contradicting the theory. Referring to it as a theory is like referring to the “theory of gravity” as just a theory. Last time I looked out the window, the neighbors weren’t floating over their porches.

The whole idea of teaching “intelligent design” (ID) in our biology classes is anathema to me, but many people think it’s a good idea. There are probably a couple of reasons for that: a large part of the population is religious, another large part of the population has a distrust of science (or anything they don’t understand–I don’t understand what’s under the hood of my car, and I’m notoriously distrustful of it and mechanics), and because the right-wing pundits have done an excellent job of framing the discussion.

The big thing here is that the people pushing ID are really pushing creationism, which was already outlawed in our schools by the Supreme Court under the whole separation of church and state principle. They claim they’re not, but they are. They claim that the complexity of living things is such that they had to have a Creator, err, creator.

Religion is defined as “belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.” Simply put, the belief that someone or something created us is a religious belief. Having that belief is fine. The vast majority of people believe that. It can and should be taught in theology classes and in Sunday school classes at whatever church people want to attend. But not in science classes.

Science is based on testable evidence. As I said, there are millions of fossils supporting evolution, and not one contradicting it. There is no controversy here (the ID movement loves the phrase “teach the controversy”). So let’s frame the conversation in such a way as to make these points more obvious.

Whenever someone brings up the topic of ID, I propose specifically referring to it as creationism in your response. When they balk at that, and they will, you’ll have changed the conversation from “teach the controvery” to “defend the idea that ID is not creationism.” They have to argue that it isn’t creationism because that is already banned from schools. If they don’t argue it, you can point out their implicit acknowledgement that creationism and ID are the same thing.

This is great. Because now you can spend the entire time arguing over whether or not ID is creationism and you’ll have the high ground in the argument. The debate never has to progress to the point of discussing whether creationism (remember, it’s not ID) should be taught in schools.

It’s also a good idea to attack the idea of what they are trying to do. They are attacking scientific principles and the teaching of science. It’s important to frame it that way as opposed to “they are trying to teach/push religion in schools” since the vast majority of people are religious and many of them support the notion of teaching science in schools. As I said above, it’s okay to teach religion in a theology class in a public school. That’s not what this is about.

A question such as “why are you attacking science?” is good. It isn’t inflammatory, and it is a legitimate question that allows follow-up questions of the scientific principles of creationism, for which there are none.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.