PeterDavid.net

While I agree, oh I agree, I also feel obligated to point out that before Bush's August 2001 ban on research on stem cells created from that point, there was no federal funding for stem cell research - this is something that the Bush administration did. Just, with serious strings attached, and instead of some 60+ cell lines, something more like 10. If you're looking on a good day.

Beyond that, all I can really add is hoping you're being overly pessimistic while simultaneously thinking you're probably right.
-Kelly

I think you're both wrong. I think those people who stood in line for five hours to vote in Florida are indivative of the success in registering and getting out the vote by the Democrats. I think Kerry will take the popular vote and the electoral vote, thus becoming president without lawsuits.

Go here for the very latest ifo based on the very latest polls: http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Ah, we're screwed any way.

If Kerry wins, he's been stuck with such a mess, that it'll take a decade or more to fix. ANNNND...he'll be so hamstrung that anything more than surface changes will be impossible. And he'll get blamed for the mess that Bush created.

Hey, don't give up hope... never underestimate the power of righteous indignation... and people who screen their calls.

I won't predict who will win, but I'm reasonably confident that it won't be a landslide; certainly not a Bush landslide.

In addition to the site that Karen referenced, try: http://synapse.princeton.edu/~sam/pollcalc.html

only one phrase can sum up how I feel about the election at this point.

"Im scared sarge. We're all scared son."

I obviously hope PAD is correct, but I have never seen an election like this.
Ever.
Not just because of the closeness of it, but because there is so much at stake.
Stuff that has hardly been talked about.
George Will said it the other day: It's amazing that NEITHER side has talked much about the Supreme Court. We'll talk about "whether Bush was bugged" during the first debate or how silly Kerry looked in hunting camouflage, but the fact that we have gone the longest period of time in decades without a new Supreme Court appointment, combined with the ages of the current Justices, well you think that would have entered the discussion, at least a few times in the debates.
Instead it has been the Economy, Iraq, and the Story of the Day, be that flu vaccines, stem cells, etc.
Bloody amazing.

It is amazing that Bush can make 9/11 the centerpiece of his campaign without the vast majority of Americans saying, "Hey, wait...that happened on your watch, didn't it? And the guy who did it is still out there, but we're supposed to feel safer with you in charge?

So in '93 when two CIA agents are killed in virgina by terrorists, when '93 thw WTS is bombed and six people died and 1000 injured, when in '95 a US Military complex in Saudi Arabia is blown up killing seven service men and women, when in '96 another military compound is blown up in Saudi Arabia killing 19 and injuring over 500, when the two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania are attacked killing 224 people, and when on October 2000 the US Cole was attacked killing 17 sailors, we as Americans should have felt safe with Clinton in charge? The attack on the Cole is a perfect example. An attack on a US war ship is an act of war and the Clinton Administration sent the FBI to investigate! You felt safer in the 90s? You know what? If they would have done something back then September the 1lth probably would NEVER HAVE HAPPEND!

Because for the first nine months, Bush's presidency was a joke.

That is such bull that it isn't even funny!

First, a look at Bush's first 100 days(not exactly gays in the military or a tax increase -like Clinton's first 100 days, but you know..):
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/shields&gigot/april01/sg_4-27.html

Bush's first nine months:

January 2001:
-President Bush proclaims a National Day of Prayer
-Executive order by President Bush establishes the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.

February 2001
-President Bush proclaims National Consumer Protection Week
-President Bush releases agenda for tax relief
-President Bush and President Vicente Fox of Mexico hold joint press conference
-President Bush speaks at dedication of Oklahoma City National Memorial
-President Bush and Prime Minister Blair hold joint press conference
-President Bush address' Joint Session of Congress

March 2001
-President Bush speaks at christening ceremony for the USS Ronald Reagan
-President Bush speaks at Chicago Mercantile Exchange
-President Bush and meets with President Kim Dae-Jung of South Korea
-President Bush meets with National Energy Policy Development Group
-President and Mrs. Bush Speak to women business leaders
-President Bush welcomes Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel
-President Bush speaks at La Sociedad Cubana
-President Bush welcomes Catholic Leaders to White House
-President Bush proclaims Education and Sharing Day, USA
-President Bush speaks to Greek Community Leaders
-President Bush speaks to high tech leaders
-President Bush speaks to African American leaders
-President Bush proclaims National Child Abuse Prevention Month.
-President Bush speaks to members of the Baseball Hall of Fame
-President Bush signs resolution repealing ergonomics regulation that repeals burdensome and broad regulation dealing with ergonomics.

April 2001
-A Chinese fighter jet downs a US spy plan causing an international incident. China held the crew for 11 days, until the Bush Administration negotiated their release without admitting responsibility.
-President Bush proclaims National Former Prisoner of War Recognition Day.
-President Bush congratulates Winners of Horatio Alger Award
-President Bush proclaims Jewish Heritage Week
-President Bush proclaims National Crime Victims' Rights Week.
-U.S. forces participate in apprehension of indicted war criminal
-The Mississippi River experienced severe flooding of historic significance - the river rose to its highest level since 1965 affecting residents in 4 states and causing billions in damages.
President Bush declares several Mississippi counties disaster areas
-President Bush speaks at Holocaust Museum
-President's speaks at the Summit of the Americas - Quebec City, Canada
-President Bush recognizes national teachers of the year
-President Bush proclaims National Day of Prayer

May 2001
-President Bush proclaims Law Day
-President Bush announces formation of Social Security Commission
-President Bush speaks at National Day of Prayer reception
-President Bush proclaims Small Business Week
-President Bush welcomes Amir of Bahrain to the White House
-President Bush declares disaster exists in Illinois
-President Bush speaks with math champs
-President Bush speaks at 20th annual Peace Officers Memorial Service
-President Bush declares disaster exists in Minnesota, Maine and Nebraska
-President Bush signs Medal of Valor Bill
-President Bush speaks to national leadership of the Hispanic faith-based organizations
-President Bush meets with the Dalai Lama
-President Bush speaks at U.S. Naval Academy Commencement
-President Bush proclaims Prayer for Peace
-President Bush delivers Memorial Day address at Arlington National Cemetery
-President Bush announces National Parks Legacy Project.
-President Bush Signs World War II Memorial Bill.
-President Bush sign Executive Order: Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

June 2001
-President declares disaster exists in West Virginia
-President Bush proclaims National Child's Day
-President Bush Signs wildfire bill into law
-June 4, 2001 President Bush speaks at Royal Palm Visitors Center in Everglades National Park
-President Bush speaks to Habitat for Humanity Supporters
-President Bush speaks at Dedication of National D-Day Memorial
-President Bush signs tax cut bill reducing Federal Income Tax Rates and sends a refund to millions of Americans
-President Bush speaks at the Fourth National Summit on Fatherhood
-President Bush speaks at tax reduction celebration event in Iowa
-President Bush holds press conference with President Jose Maria Aznar
-President Bush speaks at the opening of NATO meeting in Brussels
-President Bush holds press conference with President of the Republic of Poland, Aleksander Kwasniewski - Warsaw, Poland
U.S. and Poland sign Open Skies Agreement
-President Bush holds press conference with Russian Federation President Putin
-President Bush speaks at Summit on the 21st Century Work Force
-President Bush declares disaster exists in Mississippi
-President Bush declares disaster exists in Pennsylvania
-U.S. and Poland sign comprehensive trade package
-President discusses faith-based initiative at Conference of Mayors
-President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon meet in Oval Office
-President Bush meets with President of South Africa
-President Bush meets with Prime Minister Koizumi of Japan - Camp David, Maryland

July 2001
-President Bush visits Jefferson Memorial
-President orders federal aid for Montana storm recovery
-President Bush speaks to participants of America's Promise
-President speaks to specialty doctors and patients on Patients' Bill of Rights
-President Bush announces Medicare initiative
-President participates in roundtable interview with foreign press
-President Bush and President Chirac of France speak to the press - Genoa, Italy
-President Bush and President Putin hold press conference - Genoa, Italy
-President Bush meets with the Pope John Paul II - Rome, Italy
-President Bush and Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi hold press conference - Rome, Italy
-President Bush speaks to troops in Kosovo
-President Bush recognizes 11th anniversary of Americans with Disabilities Act

August 2001
-President Bush discusses first six months in office
-President Bush signs Agriculture Supplemental Bill
-President Bush speaks about character development at YMCA Picnic
-Statement by the President about faith-based and community initiatives
-President Bush signs Export Controls Executive Order
-President to Bush visits workers at Harley Davidson factory
-President Bush speaks with students at Crawford Elementary
-President Bush announces Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff
-President Bush gives tour of Crawford Ranch
-President Bush speaks at Little League World Series
-President Bush discusses defense priorities at American Legion
-President and Mrs. Bush unveil new White House Web Site

September 2001
-President Discusses economy at Teamsters barbecue in Detroit, Michigan
-President Bush meets with President Fox of Mexico
-President Bush proclaims National Birmingham Pledge Week
-President Bus proclaims National POW/MIA Recognition Day.

Terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 over 3000 innocent Americans are killed.
Anthrax laced letters cause several deaths, closing post offices and delaying the delivery of mail across the US.

-President proclaims National Day of Prayer and Remembrance
-President Bush salutes heroes in New York at the site of the World Trade Center disaster
-President Bush launches online American relief and response effort
-President Bush signs Authorization for Use of Military Force Bill
-President Bush authorizes additional disaster funding for New York
-President Bush addresses a Joint Session of Congress and the American People after the attack on September 11, 2001- The Bush Doctrine on Terror
President Bush released $5.1 billion dollars to assist in the humanitarian, recovery, and security related to 9/11
-President Bush signs Airline Transportation Bill to assure the safety and stability of the nation's commercial airlines
-President Bush signs executive order freezing the assets of terrorist organizations
-President Bush proclaims Family Day
-President orders federal disaster aid for Florida
-President Bush meets with the King of Jordan

You want to bitch about it, well there it is.

"In the meantime, so much for stem cell research..."

You want to talk about being lame? It is statements like that that are lame. It shows a complete lack of understanding of the issue, in my opinion.

God only knows what the Supreme Court will be like four years from now.

Who knows? Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll overturn Roe v Wade.

I think there's a good chance Bush will win (though in the past 48 hours I've suddenly become more hopeful for Kerry's prospects).

But, a Bush landslide? Come now. I really really REALLY doubt that'll happen. It'll definitely be a horse race photo finish and whatever other metaphors I can make up.

"Who knows? Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll overturn Roe v Wade."

Who knows? Maybe we'll get lucky and he can
1) Ban teaching evolution in schools
2) Invade Syria, Iran, Lebannon and Jordan
3) Use some "bunker buster" nuclear weapons somewhere!
4) Repeal that nasty first amendment. It shouldn't be used to criticise our President in a TIME OF WAR.
5) Make prayer in schools as compulsory as metal detectors. (It's cheaper than supplying actual funds for schools or kids.)
6) Create more McJobs, (easier to do if we don't increase the minimum wage).
7) Make it so that only god-fearing patriotic unquestioning (white) Americans can vote. Or better yet, install himself as President-for-Life.

================================================

Take your woman-hating fear mongering neo-fascism back to the dark ages, please.

Unfortunately Bush will win, I am pretty sure of that. He is more appealing to voters who want a "strong" America and he is more appealing to voters who have strong conservative Christian values. In short, he is better at appealing to the masses.

Yesterday I watched a news programme about the swing states that are so important. A reporter was stopping people and asking them to point out on a world map where Afghanistan, Iraq and Britain are. The results were embarassing to say the least.

"Bush's first nine months:..."

(laundry list of Bush's useless photo ops snipped for brevity)

...were actually spent ON VACATION about 40% of the time.

Sorry, but making speaches to all his fundamentalist right-wing buddies just doesn't really count as actual work. That's more like a lot of SCHMOOZING and EVASION of actual governing.

"The attack on the Cole is a perfect example. An attack on a US war ship is an act of war and the Clinton Administration sent the FBI to investigate! You felt safer in the 90s?"

Yeah, I did. Because that incident didn't happen on American soil. And it's truly WISHFUL THINKING that 9/11 would have been prevented if America had taken a more proactive stance towards this situation. More likely, we'd have ended up with the mess we currently have now in Iraq much sooner.

Well, for once I have to wish you were correct even while, predictably, thinking that you aren't. I'm going with Kerry 51%, Bush 49%, Nader getting less than 1%. Al Franken may be out of a job.

Not to beat this dead horse any further but if one is asked "DIDIraq have weapons of mass destruction?" isn't the only correct answer "Yes."? Because it DID, at one time, but (it would seem) got rid of them prior to the invasion? Now if the question is "Did Iraq have WMD when the USA invaded, you would have a much better leg to stand on vis a vis getting sniffy at people who still insist that that they did (though, like the Loch Ness Monster, you will never ever be able to disprove their existance, while it will be forvever possible that proof of existance is just about to happen.)

Anyway, I'm sticking with Kerry to win, although the bitterness and gloom of many of his supporters would tend to indicate otherwise.

PAD's prediction of scandals in the next 4 years sounds terrifyingly like what Republicans said in 1996...and hey, THAT worked out.

I don't know about a landslide. My sister-in-law has always been a firm Republican but this election she is voting for Kerry. Which surprised the heck out of me. So if she can vote for Kerry, I have hopes that other Americans will come to their senses also.

As per the '93 WTC bombing, the last I heard was that the individuals responsible for the act were apprehended during Clinton's years. The Cole attack was handled swiftly as well.

As for the list of accomplishments, hmm, I don't see any REAL SIGNIFICANCE of critical laws being signed save the tax cut and the repeal on ergonomics (hmm, so in Bush's world work conditions may not be safer).

If Roe v. Wade is overturned, I think it would be a sad day. Even if you're against abortion, its still up to a woman to decide whether they want children or not. Its a very gray area and not something that can be put into a black or white situation.

I just think that years from now we'll find out that our tax cuts were the ebbs of social Security, that we spent the money saved for our retirement and the only thing Dunbya can do is shrug. Granted, he'll still be making money off his lumber business or getting funds from the Carlisle Group.

Oh, and as for the election, I think Kerry will get both the Popular and the Electoral, but not by much. Well, at least he'll get the Electoral, and we all know that's what you need to become President. Heck, probably 95% of Bush supporters probably foreget that's how Dubya got elected.

One thing we can all agree on--many pollsters will have some 'splaining to do. Some science...astrology would probably give more accurate results. Wanna bet that after the fact they will release their "last second results" that miraculously show a shift toward the eventual winner?

Second no-brainer prediction--after winning by, at most, 3 or 4 percentage points (and quite likely far less) the winner will claim a mandate and pundits will treat the loser as though they were tarred, feathered and ridden out of town on a rail. Sort of like how the Superbowl loser becomes synonymous with the word "loser" when, after all, they beat every team but one.

Just got back from voting. I showed up at 6:50am est at a small voting center in northeastern PA. There was already a line and when I walked out afterwards, the line was out the door and down the block.... time 7:10am. I hope that this bodes well for turn-out and participation.

Don't forget to thank the volunteers at the voting centers for their time. :)

Fred

I'm predicting a 269-269 electoral vote tie.
Which will mean the New US House picks the President, and they will pick Bush.
And the New US Senate will pick the VP, and they will pick Edwards.
And we'll have the first split-executive since Adams-Jefferson.

"One thing we can all agree on--many pollsters will have some 'splaining to do. Some science...astrology would probably give more accurate results."

Yep, on this I would agree. Although to be honest, I consider most advance poll-taking about as accurate as predicting the weather.

Hmmm, it's raining in Michigan this morning...should be a good turnout at the polls today. :)

KET

Everyone make sure you get out and vote! I'm not even american, yet i understand how important this is to everyone. VOTE VOTE VOTE!

Thank you!

Funzo!

Bush didn't get a landslide four years ago when not as many people cared to vote; he's certainly not getting one now. If he wins, my guess is it'll be in the same manner as in 2000 (i.e., not really winning as much as being appointed).

"I'm predicting a 269-269 electoral vote tie.
Which will mean the New US House picks the President, and they will pick Bush.
And the New US Senate will pick the VP, and they will pick Edwards.
And we'll have the first split-executive since Adams-Jefferson."

I've seen the future and your right about the vote, however we live in a world gone mad and for some reason the house picks Nader.

Take your woman-hating fear mongering neo-fascism back to the dark ages, please.
Wow, gotta love how when presented with facts some start resorting to name calling and lies, typical.

"eric!" said:

Take your woman-hating fear mongering neo-fascism back to the dark ages, please.

Wow, gotta love how when presented with facts some start resorting to name calling and lies, typical.

Yeah, and you do it so well.

John wrote:

2) Invade Syria, Iran, Lebannon and Jordan

Hey, what do you have against Jordan?

As per the '93 WTC bombing, the last I heard was that the individuals responsible for the act were apprehended during Clinton's years.

Within days, i believe.

Of course, they brilliantly went back to try to get back the deposit on their van...

Mike Weber:
"eric!" said:

Take your woman-hating fear mongering neo-fascism back to the dark ages, please.

Wow, gotta love how when presented with facts some start resorting to name calling and lies, typical.

Yeah, and you do it so well.
Twisting words, how original, not surprised though.

Ah, politics. I love the hate.

Or at least I'm going to have to learn to love the hate, because there'll be a lot of it. No matter who wins, half the country will hate him.

And...God help me, but I have this terrible premonition...whoever gets elected will be assassinated before his term is out by some nut from the other side of the aisle.

If this shocks you, let me remind you that assassination is a typical and common political process in a banana republic. And what is America in these days of political manipulation and screaming but a banana republic?

"Wow, gotta love how when presented with facts some start resorting to name calling and lies, typical"

Name calling? I didn't call him any names.
Lies?
Right...
Clearly you forget that most conservative republicans are opposed to Roe vs Wade, are fiercely pro-war, are pro the bomb, wouldn't mind nuking all the Arabs, and try to force educators to accept "intelligent design" in a science class, and think it's unpatriotic to question the president... etc.

If you don't realise that's what the pro-Bush crowd favour, you haven't been online very long.

I'm just holding up a mirror so you can see those wonderful viewpoints in one spot, ugly and all as it is.

Just one thing I've never been able to figure out:

Bush never saw combat. Kerry shot another armed human being to death at a distance short enough to fit into the average bathroom.

So why is Bush seen as macho and Kerry seen as a wimp?

Ah, well. I'm still voting for Michael Badnarik.

even tho Im from Canada, I sure hope your wrong about who wins, Peter. Bush just freaks me out...

Some one mentioned assassination, but we were due for that with Bush in 2000. Every 20 years we shoot a president... or it sure seems to work out that way, haven't all the shot presidents been elected in election years ending in 0....

Had an interesting news item about the U.S. elections here a few days ago. Something about polls becoming increasingly unreliable because more and more people are going from a traditional phone to mobile ones. Problem being, the polling firms don't have the numbers of many of those mobiles and thus can't reach that growing segment of the population.

One thing we can all agree on--many pollsters will have some 'splaining to do.

You mean, like CBS/NYT saying Bush was ahead in the final poll, and Fox News saying Kerry was ahead in the final poll? :)

Between the possible change in eletoral voting here in Colorado, to the regular BS in Florida, to Republican challengers at the polls in Ohio... this is not over after the polls are closed and the ballots counted today.

Until it can adequately be explained how matter self created from nothing, why can't intelligent design be presented in schools as one theory?

If you don't realise that's what the pro-Bush crowd favour, you haven't been online very long.
....and clearly you've been on-line waaay to long. Repeat after me: "Just because it's on the internet doesn't make it true."

as for stem cells, unfortunately:

"The stem cell lines available for federally-funded research in the US have characteristics which mean they may never be used for medical treatments in humans, a new study suggests.

Fred Gage at the Salk Institute in La Jolla, California and Ajit Varki at the University of California, San Diego, US, have shown that human embryonic stem cells (hESC) cultivated on a scaffolding of mouse “feeder” cells take on the properties of the rodent cells. Consequently, if implanted in a human they would provoke an immune response that would kill the hESCs, they say.

The finding reinforces calls by US stem cell researchers for their government to free up federal money to research fresh lines of human ESCs, grown on non-biological scaffolds.

Stem cell research in the US is currently limited to 22 lines, following a policy introduced by President George W Bush in 2001. These lines were derived before August 2001 and all of the cells were grown on a scaffolding of mouse cells."

this is from new scientist yesterday. link: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996604

as such, even the lines we have now are useless for helping people.

John,
"Clearly you for get that most conservative republicans are opposed to Roe vs. Wade,"
This is true, though younger people and soccer moms have made it less so. And it's always a kick to see liberals/Democrats, who claim they want constructive debate and hate name-calling, being portrayed as unpatriotic, etc. have absolutely no problem painting anyone who doesn't agree with the "right to choose" (choose what? a new dress? a doctor?) as being woman-haters. If it were as cut and dried as you suggest, candidates would have no problem calling themselves "pro-abortion" - the same as they would portay themselves as "pro-environment", "Pro-unions", etc. Even NARAL has changed its name to emphasize "choice" instead of "abortion". Why would they do that, being such strong supporters of what they consider to be a fundamental right and all?

"are fiercely pro-war"
They are for this war. You may disagree, but many feel the cause is just.

"wouldn't mind nuking all the Arabs"
Now this I find really offensive. Anyone in their right mind would "mind" nuking anyone. I have quite a few Arab friends, including one I love dearly. She's one of the best people I've met. Any rational person realizes that most people want the same things - love, safety of their kids, etc.

"think it's unpatriotic to question the President"
Again, you're wrong. What we find unpatriotic is questioning him and his policies in a dishonorable manner.
Meryl Streep is against Bush because she feels he caters to and would continue to cater to evangelicals? That is a policy point and valid dissent.
Claiming that the war is "for oil", that we went to Afghanistan not to respond to 9/11 but to build a pipeline, that Bush has a "secret plan" to bring back the draft to scare young people, that he has a "secret plan" to privatize Social security immediately after the election to scare seniors, that we had Bin Laden on ice for an October Surprise and/or we would find WMDs "just in time for the election" are all dishonorable arguments with little to no basis in fact.

"If you don't realise that's what the pro-Bush crowd favour,you haven't been online very long"

Oh, yes. Because everything on the internet is true! Only calm, reasoned people use it!
You know what, John. There is this rectangular object in your wall with a handle or knob on it. It's called a door. If you actually mange to go through that there is this thing we call "outside" or "the world". If you can pull yourself away from the internet for a while, you might actually see that there are people of all races and creeds and they all have different views! And guess what, here's the best part, you won't be able to tell someone's political views by what they look like or if they go to church or anything else! It's caled diversity of opinion, and it's a beautiful thing!

"I'm just holding up a mirror so you can see those wonderful viewpoints and all in one spot, ugly and all as it is"

Instead of holding up a mirror for others, why dont you combat your ignorance about others who hold a different viewpoint from your own and interacting with them. You can also combat your own ignorance by buying a used phonics textbook. Maybe then you'll REALIZE how FAVOR is spelled.
We definitely need No Child Left Behind.

The problem with this election is that it's been wholly propelled by controversy.

Oliver Wendell Holmes said. "Controversy equalizes fools and wise men...and the fools know it."

And thus our election comes down to the flip of a coin.

And thus I continue to be very very nice to my friend who works at a jobs placement program in Canada.

I believe "favour" is how it's spelled in the U.K., Canada, etc.

Im pretty sure Kerry will win. Both Republicans and Democrats agree that for an incumbent Bush's numbers are pretty sad. Most undecided voters tend to vote for the new guy and lets not forget that Bush lost the popular vote and was elected by "activist judges" as President.

So since Bush lost the popular vote, he has lost republican votes, he does not have a lead in the polls, I think Kerry will win.

Peter, I understand that you are going by "gut feelings", much like our president. But as we have seen, "gut feelings" can be wrong. Voter turnout in this election looks to be very high. That includes undecideds. Most people who are interested are not going to stay home.

Some one mentioned assassination, but we were due for that with Bush in 2000. Every 20 years we shoot a president... or it sure seems to work out that way, haven't all the shot presidents been elected in election years ending in 0....

Actually, the old "curse" was the every president elected in a year ending in a 0 died in officer, whether by assassination like JFK or Lincoln or by natural causes like FDR or Warren Harding. That ended with Reagan, who survived both getting shot and colon cancer during his term of office.

It's been interesting reading some blogs of people who are obviously Republican or Democrat. They're prediciting the other side is going to win. I think it's a mental defence mechanism - if you're right, then you're prepared for the letdown. If you're wrong, then you can be happy that you were wrong.

I'm in Canada, but that doesn't mean we're not fascinated by all of this (btw, 'favour' is Canadian/UK spelling. We also spell words like 'theatre' re instead of er.) Most Canadian lean towards Kerry instead of Bush.

I don't know, though. Inadvertently, Bush has been very good for Canada. Yes, there have been trade disputes, but the Canadian economy is thriving, we have budget surpluses that we're using to pay down our deficit, we have a trade surplus with the States, and our dollar has surged about 10-15 cents against the US dollar since Bush became president.

And despite the slagging of our health care system, I'll take it over what's available in the US.

So while I think Kerry is a better candidate, can't really complain about what Bush has done for our country...;)

PAD wrote: "Purely a guess, but I wouldn't be surprised if we actually have a Bush landslide."

If you lived in my neck of the woods, you'd find it miraculous that any Republican ever got elected to any office. Chicago has had a Democratic mayor for more than 70 years, and I swear it seems like even the cemeteries have campaign posters in them to remind the dead folks to vote Democratic.

Roger wrote: "Ah, we're screwed any way. If Kerry wins, he's been stuck with such a mess, that it'll take a decade or more to fix. ANNNND... he'll be so hamstrung that anything more than surface changes will be impossible. And he'll get blamed for the mess that Bush created."

Baloney. If Kerry wants the job as president, he'd better be prepared to take the wheat with the chaff. If he spends his term being a blamer rather than a problem-solver, he WILL fail, and ironically, he will have no one to "blame" but himself.

I voted this morning at 9:15 -- I did my part for the process.

As for Jerome, who wonders "If it were as cut and dried as you suggest, candidates would have no problem calling themselves "pro-abortion" - the same as they would portay themselves as "pro-environment", "Pro-unions", etc. Even NARAL has changed its name to emphasize "choice" instead of "abortion". Why would they do that, being such strong supporters of what they consider to be a fundamental right and all?"

Because it's pro-CHOICE. The pro-choice view is that people who choose to have an abortion should have safe, legal medical access to have it done safely; and people who choose not to have an abortion can choose not to have one. It's the pro-life view that forces its view on everyone -- no one can have an abortion, regardless of their beliefs or choices.

I went to vote about 10:00 this morning, in my quiet little New Jersey town. No challengers, no lawyers, just two little old ladies eating bagels and cream cheese and a third trying to work on the crossword puzzle. No lines, no wait, athough I think the little old ladies were less than amused when I said I was voting strictly LOTTE: Lesser Of The Two Evils.

Seriously though, I think there are too many factors out there that haven't been factored into this race, most notably young and first-time voters. In most places, they're un-pollable because they can't be reached by land line phones, so it should be interesting to see what happens if these people turn out in force.

Bladestar posted: "Some one mentioned assassination, but we were due for that with Bush in 2000. Every 20 years we shoot a president... or it sure seems to work out that way, haven't all the shot presidents been elected in election years ending in 0...."
That's not quite accurate. The deal was that every president elected in a year ending in -0 would *die in office* with William Henry Harrison being the precedent in 1840 (we had two Presidents elected prior to that--Thomas Jefferson in 1800 and James Monroe in 1820--who not only survived their full terms in office, but both managed to live for a number of years following leaving office; Jefferson died in 1826, more than 2 decades after leaving office, and Monroe died in 1831, a little more than 6 years after leaving office).
The full list runs
W H Harrison (elected 1840, died 1841 of pneumonia)
Abraham Lincoln (elected 1860, reelected 1864, died 1865 from assassination)
James Garfield (elected 1880, died 1881 from assassination)
William McKinley (reelected 1900, died 1901 from assassination; McKinley was first elected in 1896)
Warren Harding (elected 1920, died 1923 from unspecified illness, though some conspiracy theorists believe he may have been poisoned in connection to administration scandals)
Franklin D Roosevelt (reelected 1940, reelected 1944, died 1945 from cerebral hemorrhage; FDR was first elected in 1932 and reelected in 1936)
John F Kennedy (elected 1960, died 1963 from assassination)
Ronald Reagan (elected 1980, survived assassination attempt 1981, reelected 1984, left office in fair health, died just this year)
George W Bush ("elected" 2000, almost choked on a pretzel a couple of years ago)

Reagan is said to have "broken the curse"--and due to the rather unique manner that Bush assumed the Presidency, the "curse" might not have been in effect. ;-) In any event, only 4 Presidents were assassinated (with 1 additional who survived an attempt) while 3 died of "natural causes" under the "curse". It should also be noted that Gerald Ford survived 2 attempted assassinations, though he was not elected to the office and his term began and ended between "curse" years (had he died from either attempt, the "curse" could not have explained his death--although he assumed the Presidency without benefit of being elected to the post).

Second no-brainer prediction--after winning by, at most, 3 or 4 percentage points (and quite likely far less) the winner will claim a mandate and pundits will treat the loser as though they were tarred, feathered and ridden out of town on a rail. Sort of like how the Superbowl loser becomes synonymous with the word "loser" when, after all, they beat every team but one.

Well, since that's what Bush actually did (with a far smaller margin), that's not much, even for a no brainer.

Until it can adequately be explained how matter self created from nothing, why can't intelligent design be presented in schools as one theory?

Because it ISN'T a theory.

Intelligent design has no ongoing reasearch program, has laid out no interesting questions or hypotheses to guide research and has not been able to organize facts in an interesting way to suggest new insights. Without that, intelligent design isn't even an hypothesis (let alone a theory) and shouldn't even be mentioned in a science classroom.

Last chance everyone! Cthuhlu/Yoggoth '04. "When you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils."

As per the '93 WTC bombing, the last I heard was that the individuals responsible for the act were apprehended during Clinton's years. The Cole attack was handled swiftly as well.

Someone makes fun of people who can't find Afganistan on a map and no one makes fun of comments such as these? The Cole attack was NOT handled swiftly. In fact, much there was very little response because it happened so close to the transition between the Clinton and Bush presidency.

So we caught the people who did the '93 bombing? The true people behind it were still in place and carried out 9-11. That is like saying we caught 3 hitmen but left the mafia king in power. Is that really handling the situation? No, it is just leaving the threat in place to strike again -- as actually happened.

Look, I can understand someone supporting Kerry because he is pro-choice, for raising the minimum wage, and other Democratic talking points. But the rewriting of history, the unwillingness to look at the actual threat of terroism is not just a Republican problem as some of you seem to think.

Yeah, I did. Because that incident didn't happen on American soil. And it's truly WISHFUL THINKING that 9/11 would have been prevented if America had taken a more proactive stance towards this situation. More likely, we'd have ended up with the mess we currently have now in Iraq much sooner.

This is the kind of thinking that scares me. If I am understanding it right, KET's approach would only lead to further attacks.

First, to say the attack on the USS Cole does not bother/frighten her (or him) because it was not on US territory is idiotic. (Sorry to be so harsh, but it is.) While a warship is not the same as an embassy, there is no question that it is an extension of the US. Such an attack is clearly an attack on the US and is an act of war. If someone feels free to attack a heavily armed warship, why would they fear some unarmed towers?

Second, if it was wishful thinking that we could have not stopped 9-11, why do PAD and other Democrats or anti-bush people like to remind us 9-11 happened on Bush's watch? You can't have it both ways. Either it could have been stopped, or not.

Third, the point of acting sooner would be to avoid another Iraq. But if another Iraq was necessary to stop 9-11, would it not be worth it? Frankly, this is why some of you scare me. You don't seem to realize that in a few hours in one day more Americans were killed on 9-11 than happened in a year and a half of war in Iraq.

There is no doubt we Bush could have done some things better. So could have any past President. But it is an outright lie to say we are losing in Afghanistan. It is an ouright lie to say we pulled troops from Afghanistan to fight in Iraq. According to Gen. Frank, who was in charge, it never happened. It is an outright lie to say things in Iraq are worse today than 4 years ago. (Go watch a true documentary, "Voices of Iraq." It is interviews with hundreds of Iraqis. Some are for the war, some are against it. Some love Bush, some hate him. But you get a dramatically different picture than what the media is peddling. You begin to realize that there ARE some good things happening, there ARE a significant number of people who do see us as their liberators. You see that we are making progress.)

I have no idea who will win today. I hope Peter is right. Because if John Kerry wins, we are in serious trouble. Not on the first day of his presidency. I don't think Kerry is deliberately out to ruin America. But his policies will return us to the Carter era when the economy is in the dumps, we can't even rescue our own hostages, and the best we can do is boycott come Olympics to try to influence another country.

Jim in Iowa

Every four years, I inform those who know me that I’m running as the presidential candidate of the Good For Nothing party (“This time, why not the worst?”). There is, however, only one real choice for president in this election.

We need someone who is willing to fight for the little guy. Someone who stands up to bullies and won’t be pushed around. Someone who can handle pressure well, and no matter how bleak things seem to get, always comes out on top (the “Opera” incident notwithstanding). Someone capable of coming back from behind and single-handedly winning a baseball game.

That’s right. The choice is obvious.

Bugs Bunny for President.

Rick

Intelligent design has no ongoing reasearch program, has laid out no interesting questions or hypotheses to guide research and has not been able to organize facts in an interesting way to suggest new insights. Without that, intelligent design isn't even an hypothesis (let alone a theory) and shouldn't even be mentioned in a science classroom.

I am sorry, but you are just not correct. All of the thiings you have mentioned are currently going on by very highly reputable scientists (such as Michael Behe, "Darwin's Black Box"). I can list 5 books on my shelf written not by "Chrisitan Scientists" with an agenda, but by top notch, world respected scientists who may not agree with Genesis 1, but who say that the evidence clearly points to intelligent design.

Here is just one of many quotes I could provide: "Scientists who utterly reject evolution may be one of our fastest growing controversial minorities . . . . Many of the sceintists supporting this postion hold impressive credentials in science." That was back in 1979 (Larry Hatfield, "Educators Against Darwin," Science Digest (Winter 1979).

Intelligent Design is not being chosen in spite of a well developed evolutionary theory. On the contrary, evolutionists themselves have yet to come up with an adequate theory to answer questions for any biochemical system (which by definition is not subject to the "survival of the fittest" criteria since it is deals with chemical laws and not a DNA that can change over time) or where human consciousness came from.

For example, "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substituion of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; but we mush concede that there are presntly no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations." (Franklin M. Harold, The Way of the Cell, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001, page 205).

And the list can go on and on. Unless you arbitrarily exclude the possibility of a designer, there is plenty of evidence that suggests such is the case. This is not using the "god of the gaps" type of thinking. This is using the same normal logic we use in any part of life. If you come across a flower bed where the flowers clearly spell out "welcome," you can be reasonably confident someone planted them that way. The odds of it happening randomly are so small as to be insignificant.

The case for Intelligent Design is not only a valid theory which is currently being researched, it is worthy of consideration. I would suggest that the reason some do not want to consider it is not because of any evidence, but because if we are here by design, what is our relationship to the designer?

Jim in Iowa

"Second, if it was wishful thinking that we could have not stopped 9-11, why do PAD and other Democrats or anti-bush people like to remind us 9-11 happened on Bush's watch? You can't have it both ways. Either it could have been stopped, or not."

I forgot to finish my thought. KET's quote actually seems to imply that we should have in some way conceded to Osama. I hope I am misunderstaning KET, but I fear I am not. And that is what scares me. We did NOT deserve to be attacked on 9-11. This was the act of a tyrant. To suggest that we could have somehow made peace with Osama beforehand is ludicrous.

KET, please define what you mean by being less proactive. If there was something we could have done to have avoided 9-11, tell me what it was?

Jim in Iowa

RE: Stem Cells

The rhetoric about stem cells is appalling. The truth is, we are not even close to being able to use embyronic stem cells to cure a single disease. The biggest, consistent problem is that we can't figure out how to turn them off, so they cause tumors and cancer.

There are many other forms of stem cell research that not only is not banned, but that are producing actual treatments for diseases. There are well over 25 known treatments from using ADULT stem cells.

Leaving aside the morality of using embyronic stem cells, why are the actual, current uses of adult stem cells and umbilical cord stem cells being overlooked? I would suggest there is a deeper issue involved, namely, a desire to keep abortion legal and necessary.

Jim in Iowa

"Intelligent Design" is not an answer, because it doesn't explain where "intelligent design" comes from. It doesn't actually answer the question. It's only an explanation for the religious, who don't need an answer that makes sense.

"I don't think Kerry is deliberately out to ruin America. But his policies will return us to the Carter era when the economy is in the dumps, we can't even rescue our own hostages, and the best we can do is boycott come Olympics to try to influence another country."

I thought our economy was inb the dumps, and how many beheadings have we managed to stop? But Bush did not boycott the olympics! So thats one up for Bush I guess.

I am sorry, but you are just not correct.

Sorry, but I am.

Behe is NOT doing any active research in the area. He is writing books, but he is not doing anything that is being placed in peer review (which is what doing research means).

Scientists who utterly reject evolution may be one of our fastest growing controversial minorities . . . . Many of the sceintists supporting this postion hold impressive credentials in science." That was back in 1979

And evolution holds just as well in biology now as it does then. There frankly is no competing theory; as biologists say time and time again, biology simply does not make sense without evolution. This statement is just one of the most evil canards that the creationist movement has put out, because VERY few biologists have rejected evolution (because, as you can figure out, what physicists and astronomists say about evolution is not quite as relevant as biologists).

The case for Intelligent Design is not only a valid theory which is currently being researched, it is worthy of consideration.

Sorry, but this is not the case. There is no research being done; when you look at the articles, all they come down to is that "evolution does not explain x" or "evolution does not explain y". This is not a scientific research program; it's anti-evolutionism masquerading as science. It does not work except in response to and reaction to evolution--which is not a good way to do science. Moreover, ID proponents have failed utterly to operationalize their concepts; how can you do any work if you can't operationalize things like complex specified information to conduct research???

"There is no doubt [that] Bush could have done some things better."

Unfortunately, Bush wouldn't agree with this statement. Which is probably why many people have a problem with him.

I went to the polls to vote shortly after they opened at 7 am in Canoga Park, CA. There was already a long line. In the past, maybe there would be a couple of voters in front of me. Not this time. I had to wait about twenty minutes to vote which is so unusual in the morning.

Prediction: This is going to be one of the highest turnouts in voters in decades and the voting polls are not going to be prepared for this.

Election prediction: Kerry due to the Michael Moore voters.

I just wanted to share this with you guys... I wrote it this morning and posted it on my blog (accessable via URL link)

THE MOMENT OF CHANGE

It's not very often that the world changes in so notable a way that both the old and young can stop and see the change occur around them, like air molecules drenched in the golden sunlight of an autumn dusk. Yet these moments occur, perhaps as often as blue moons; perhaps as rarely as leap years.

I don't need to tell you that we live in a world of change and chaos. We live in a time of innocence ending, and where we walk now will be remembered always. These are the days and actions that will be repeated in story again and again for the rest of our society's future history, and the most amazing thing is that we now decide the course of that history. I know this: we will be heroes, but whether we will be flawed or perfect is still something we are deciding at this late hour.

My message to you is this: we no longer have to be afraid. We no longer must embrace fear as though it is an old lover or friend. Our best days are yet to come, and if we maintain the courage of our convictions those days will be sooner rather than later. I tell you this because today is the day we can vote for change. Today is the day we can vote to ease our conscience and strengthen our hope, and we can do it by simply voting for a man named John Kerry. The days of our shame as Americans can be over, the hours in which we hide behind our fear can be passed. Amazingly we are the deciders of our destiny, and I ask you how many societies are allowed that privilege? How many societies can change the very course of future history in the moment of greatest need?

I believe that a vote for Kerry is a vote for a stronger future - a future where we will no longer need to be afraid. Already, I am not afraid.

I hope you won't be afraid either, and if you're reading this and are American and registered to vote, I beg that you do. Even if it's for George W. Bush. But a vote for Bush is a vote for fear, and I for one am tired of fearing anything.

Proponents of Intelligent Design do not necessarily dispute evolution, at least not for the purpose of or need to legitimize ID. Often, those who attack ID attempt to do so by attacking Biblical scripture and the notion of devine revelation, disregarding the fact that many who believe in ID base their beliefs on logic, reasoning, and established scientific principles and not necessarily scripture. Noted figures in history such as Benjamin Franklin and Albert Einstein shared such beliefs and there is a lot of literature supporting it.

Intelligent design is at least as valid (much more valid IMO) as the notion of the spontanious appearance from nothingness of enough motion filled matter to create the expanding universe. I see no reason why it cannot be presented in schools as a viable theory.

Ok I know this has NOTHING to do with this topic BUT WHEN is Peter David's New Frontier After the Fall book coming out this month, I cant wait!?

Anyone know the Specific date?

On Amazon's description of the book, it has Nov. 30th by the publisher's name. That's all that I know.

Took me two hours to vote today. My first time, too. Some welcome to the process, huh?

Voted Kerry. Not because I like him. Because I despise Bush with a passion usually reserved only for Avengers Disassembled and Byrne's ego.

Bush, in four years...

Squandered worldwide sympathy.
Alienated many nations.
Lied to the public about Saddam and 9-11
Went on a cowboy trip to finish what his Daddy started.
Started a war without a solid exit strategy.
Got countless Iraqi citizens killed.
Got well over a thousand U.S. Troops killed.
Managed to bring beheadings back to dinner's news viewing.
Spewed the same tired rhetoric for months on end.
Cannot see what he is doing wrong.
Lost millions of jobs.
Helped cause gas prices to soar ludicrously.
Failed to get Osama.

By comparison, Kerry just makes no impression at all. Better no impression than a terrible one.

Four more years of Bush? Why not just nuke ourselves and be done with it? This keeps up, the entire WORLD is gonna hate America.

"4) Repeal that nasty first amendment. It shouldn't be used to criticise our President in a TIME OF WAR."

John Adams?

Dear God, how I wish John Adams could be president again instead of the choices we have...

Don't think it'll be a blow out either way. Don't know what the turn out will be. Don't think Kerry will have a bad showing.

Millions of jobs is probably an exaggeration.

"Millions of jobs is probably an exaggeration."

Millions of jobs were lost on his watch. I can't really blame MILLIONS on him personally in good conscience.

Voted during my lunch hour today. It just took a few moments and was entirely painless. The election officials were very helpful, too. OTOH I live in Texas so I have no real hope that my vote against Bush (I'm voting against, not for) will have any effect in the slghtest. On the other,other hand, I got to cast my vote against a congressional canidate that I despise even more so I can take some solace that my vote for her opponent might make an actual difference.

Regarding the Cole and the first WTC bombing, I'd recommend "Against All Enemies" by Richard A. Clarke, which provides a great amount of detail about bin Laden, al Queda, and how things evolved into the current state of affairs.

I realize that Clarke is probably not considered a solid source by pro-Bush factions, but given the depth and length of his experience, I think it's worth looking at.

JSM

I truly hope that Kerry wins. Granted, I fear that if he does, we'll see Bush on tv in the Oval Office in dark robes. Next to him will be Dick Cheney breathing hard, and Tom DeLay with a weird speech impediment.

Bush: Fellow Americans, I know that in *your* eyes I lost this election, but that isn't so. Isn't that true, Tom?

DeLay: Yousa not losing da power, big baddie daddie!

Bush: Indeed. I have dissolved the Senate and the House, and all power will be mine. This will be a dictatorship, with me as the dictator. Hopefully.

Cheney: It is useless to resist!

Ok, so it may not happen...Let's just hope that if Bush does lose that he loses gracefully, since we know Kerry would do so.

All I can say is if Bush wins even by the slimmest majority then I'll tip my hat in respect to him.

Seriously, he had everything stacked against him:

-the majority of Americans did not vote for him the first time
-a record deficit which was a record surplus before he took office,
-the first president in ages to have a net job loss
-Most major musicians and celebrities coming out publicly against him

-his actions have separated and polarised the country in a manner not seen for quite some time

-A major film that was a huge box office draw slammed and denigrated Bush in every respect and then is released on DVD just in time for the election

- He invades a country for completely false reasons, one can be chalked up to a lack of credible intelligence :) and the other is an outright, lie Saddam had NOTHING to do with Sept 11,

- The man George Bush vowed on television to make capturing or killing his number 1 priority, showing up hale and hearty with a brand new video just days before the election

Despite all of the above, Bush is in this neck and neck against Kerry and could win. If he does win how could anyone not be impressed with his ability to campaign successfully?

It would actually cause me to hold him to a higher degree of respect because winning a second term would clearly demonstrate that the guy can do some things extremely well. Nobody could have run a better campaign then he did.

Saw most of "Bush's Brain" last night. You must give credit where credit is due. Svengali, I mean Karl Rove would have won thisfor Bush. I still think Kerry will have both popular and electoral votes!

Karen:

>Saw most of "Bush's Brain" last night. You must give credit where credit is due.

Given the subject matter, you have to suspect it would be void of any comprehendable plot. ;)

OK, this is starting out well and nuts.

Popular vote: 56% Bush, 43% Kerry.

Electoral college: 66 Bush, 77 Kerry. That works out to 46% Bush, 54% Kerry.

I assume it can only get goofier from here...

Ah..saner, but still depressing.

The electoral vote has been updated to match the popular vote.

Much like CNN et al and ad nauseum 4 years ago, I spoke to soon.

"It's been interesting reading some blogs of people who are obviously Republican or Democrat. They're prediciting the other side is going to win. I think it's a mental defence mechanism - if you're right, then you're prepared for the letdown. If you're wrong, then you can be happy that you were wrong."

Well, it's the Mel Brooks song from the beginning of "The Twelve Chairs"--hope for the best, expect the worst.

PAD

If the Americans vote for Bush, the country will go on... mayhap into the dusks of the glory that it has passed into. But the world will be distoryed, just like Rome, America is starving the world to feed its mobs. It must stop! It must stop now!

James Tichy: So in '93 when two CIA agents are killed in virgina by terrorists, when '93 thw WTS is bombed and six people died and 1000 injured…
Luigi Novi: Clinton was in office for less than 40 days when the WTC was bombed. Subsequent to the bombing, the perpetrators were caught and convicted. Similar action was taken after the other events you describe. Saying he did “nothing” is such a distortion that it functions as a lie.

James Tichy: Bush's first nine months:
January 2001:
-President Bush proclaims a National Day of Prayer
-Executive order by President Bush establishes the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.
Luigi Novi: Precisely part of the problem with Bush.

James Tichy: -A Chinese fighter jet downs a US spy plan causing an international incident. China held the crew for 11 days, until the Bush Administration negotiated their release without admitting responsibility.
Luigi Novi: As I recall, Bush apologized to the Chinese, even though it was their guy who impacted our plane, even though we were in international airspace.

And I hardly think it would be difficult to find Clinton doing things during his first 100 days like meeting with “math champs” and winners of awards, or “declaring” special days or weeks. To argue that one cannot find him doing these things during his first 100, and that all he did therein was “gays in the military or a tax increase,” is to be fair, an obvious case of biased spin.

KET: ...were actually spent ON VACATION about 40% of the time.
Luigi Novi: Many of which were work vacations. Camp David, for example, is a fully equipped alternate Oval Office at which he met with important foreign leaders.

Thomas E. Reed: And...God help me, but I have this terrible premonition...whoever gets elected will be assassinated before his term is out by some nut from the other side of the aisle.
Luigi Novi: I don’t know about assassination, but I would imagine eggs being thrown at his inaugural motorcade, as in Jan. 2001.

Jerome Maida: Again, you're wrong. What we find unpatriotic is questioning him and his policies in a dishonorable manner.
Luigi Novi: What’s this “we” stuff? Yes, I’m glad that you make that distinction, Jerome, but what we’ve been hearing from some right-wing Republican pundits has not been so discriminatory. Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter, for example, have stated that it is wrong to criticize the President during time of war because it gives “aid and comfort to the enemy,” or that protestors are traitors, etc.

Johnny Fuller: Until it can adequately be explained how matter self created from nothing, why can't intelligent design be presented in schools as one theory?
Luigi Novi: First, what you describe has nothing to do with evolution. Second, the reason it cannot be presented in public science classrooms as one theory is because only scientific theories can be presented as alternates. Intelligent design is neither a theory nor scientific. A theory is by definition an idea that is tentative, based on observation and evidence, and subject to revision. Intelligent Design is a religious dogma, and is none of these things. (Religious dogma are not “tentative,” nor do they tend to be revised when evidence disproves them). A scientific theory is one that is falsifiable.

Intelligent Design is not falsifiable. In addition, creationists often attempt to discredit evolution while not offering evidence for ID, using the mistaken fallacy of an Either-Or argument, as if discrediting evolution automatically lends credence to ID. That’s not how it works in science. In science, you have to provide evidence that shows why your “theory” explains the observed phenomenon, and does so better than the current prevailing one. This is not the case for ID, as there has never been a peer-review study illustrating any evidence for it, let alone validating it. Whether evolution fails is entirely irrelevant, as ID must be validated on its own merits.

Jim in Iowa: So we caught the people who did the '93 bombing? The true people behind it were still in place and carried out 9-11. That is like saying we caught 3 hitmen but left the mafia king in power. Is that really handling the situation?
Luigi Novi: Given that Osama is still free three years after 9/11, you tell me.

Jim in Iowa It is an ouright lie to say we pulled troops from Afghanistan to fight in Iraq.
Luigi Novi: Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer, and former deputy director of the State Department’s Office of Counterterrorism, and a FOX News told Sean Hannity that going into Iraq would divert vital resources and attention that should be focused on Al Quaeda. When Hannity, insisted that we could do both, Johnson replied that when resources are diverted, certain assets, such as airlift assets, are compromised.

Jim in Iowa: I am sorry, but you are just not correct. All of the thiings you have mentioned are currently going on by very highly reputable scientists (such as Michael Behe, "Darwin's Black Box").
Luigi Novi: First, reputation is irrelevant. What is relevant is EVIDENCE, and no one has every presented any for ID. Behe’s book’s central thesis is that many biological systems are "irreducibly complex" at the molecular level, essentially a rehash of the famously flawed watchmaker argument advanced by William Paley at the start of the 19th century, which has been long-discredited, most prominently by Richard Dawkins in his book The Blind Watchmaker. Is that one of books on your shelf?

Jim in Iowa: I can list 5 books on my shelf written not by "Chrisitan Scientists" with an agenda, but by top notch, world respected scientists who may not agree with Genesis 1, but who say that the evidence clearly points to intelligent design.
Luigi Novi: ID proponents most certainly have an agenda.

Jim in Iowa: Here is just one of many quotes I could provide: "Scientists who utterly reject evolution may be one of our fastest growing controversial minorities . . . . Many of the sceintists supporting this postion hold impressive credentials in science."
Luigi Novi: Again, credentials are irrelevant. Issac Newton was the genius who gave us calculus and Newtonian physics. Does that mean his work in alchemy was scientific? No. This quote of yours is not evidence, nor has anyone ever provided that was published in the Peer Review process.

Jim in Iowa: Evolutionists themselves have yet to come up with an adequate theory to answer questions for any biochemical system (which by definition is not subject to the "survival of the fittest" criteria since it is deals with chemical laws and not a DNA that can change over time) or where human consciousness came from.
Luigi Novi: A commonly repeated creationist fallacy. Evolution’s validity does not, and never has hinged on its ability to answer any and every question about life that someone comes up with. Evolution merely describes how organisms adapt to their environment. It does not presume to have all the answers to all the questions, nor has it ever said it that it does.

Jim in Iowa: And the list can go on and on. Unless you arbitrarily exclude the possibility of a designer, there is plenty of evidence that suggests such is the case
Luigi Novi: None of which, curiously, you have mentioned here.

Jim in Iowa: The rhetoric about stem cells is appalling. The truth is, we are not even close to being able to use embyronic stem cells to cure a single disease.
Luigi Novi: Precisely the point of the need for research.

Karen: Saw most of "Bush's Brain" last night.
Luigi Novi: I saw it on September 10th, but it was hard to keep from being distracted. The movie is straightforward in its presentation of its facts, though a bit more dry than films like The Corporation or the films of Michael Moore, which use pop culture clips to punctuate its metaphors in a more accessible, humorous way, and it was hard to follow some if the material in its first half. After the first 30 or 40 minutes, however, the movie got interesting when it explored Rove’s use of bugs, how he helped Bush defeat Texas governor Ann Richards, how he engineered the scandalously dishonest smear campaign against Vietnam vet and triple amputee Max Cleland in the 2000 South Carolina primaries, and the Bush campaign’s attacks on Arizona senator John McCain, etc.

I’m not sure, however, about the relevance of that U.S. soldier killed in Iraq to the subject of Rove.

It isn’t a good thing that I looked at my cell phone clock at the one hour, nine minute mark, but luckily, the movie was only about one hour and sixteen minutes anyway. Despite the fact that some of it was a bit hard to understand, I think much of the film contains very important information about the man it calls our “co-President,” and in light of the flap over the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth anti-Kerry ads, everyone should see it.

By contrast, The Hunting of the President, which illustrates the absolutely corrupt and partisan witch hunt that Ken Starr pursued against Clinton, and which I saw a couple of days ago, was far more electrifying. I recommend it highly.

Today was my first time voting, and as I'm watching the various channels calling this and that state, I'm wondering why everyone's calling states where only 2% of the vote is in...and it's close? (Mostly watching NBC Channel 5 Chicago, and keeping on top of Yahoo's live results)

Well, unlike 2000, I decided to vote in this election. And, as I have done so many times in the past, I voted a split ticket.

KET: ...were actually spent ON VACATION about 40% of the time.
Luigi Novi: Many of which were work vacations. Camp David, for example, is a fully equipped alternate Oval Office at which he met with important foreign leaders.

...which is NOT the same thing as I've said. Camp David is known as a Presidential RETREAT, and that's hardly a vacation zone.

KET

Wow, what a day...the early exit polls had kerry winning by a landslide, you could see eleation in the faces of his supporters...now the actual results are a whole other story...Joe Lockhart doesn't look like a man on the winning side...higher than expected turnout and Bush is winning by 3 points in the popular vote??? Of course, it is to be expected that Bush would be piling on the states now, all you Kerry supporters out there should calm down, the left coast will bring some better news. It all comes down to Florida, Ohio, Iowa, just like we thought it would.

My students better not expect any Dead Poets Society quality lectures on Wednesday. I'm in this for the long haul.

I'm wondering why everyone's calling states where only 2% of the vote is in...and it's close?

I wonder the same thing.

Personally, I think calling ANY state before ALL polls are closed should be considered voter intimidation. Pure and simple.

But hey, if Bush wins reelection, I want a bumper sticker saying "God curse America".

Statistical sampling is a great tool - it's what allows Bush and Kerry to concentrate advertising in two districts in Ohio, and ignore the rest of us.

I'm curious what broadcasts/web sites are people using. I'm using primarily CSPAN for their online Electoral Map, and NBC for the "news".

"I'm curious what broadcasts/web sites are people using. I'm using primarily CSPAN for their online Electoral Map, and NBC for the "news"."

I'm using the remote to skip from station to station between the various cable news shows, with an occasional stop on Cinemax to check out DARKMAN. If you time it just right it makes it look like Liam Neeson is beating the hell out of Paul Begala.

RE: Intelligent Design

Ok, let me make this as clear as I can. Let's start at the very beginning. Where did everything come from? That is not just a "biology" question. That is a question of how the big bang happened in the first place. There is mounting evidence that the universe and matter are not eternal. So they must have come from somewhere. Ultimately, it is a leap of faith to either think it came from nothing (which is logically impossible), or that it was created. If there is a creator who exists out of time (which would be true by definition since time is relative and is a function of our current laws of physics), then it offers a distinct alternative to the universe coming from nothing. (Theories of multiple universes, etc., do not answer the question but just push it back one step.)

When you get to biology, the theory of evolution works fine on the micro level. It is obvious that organisms develop and change over time. But there is not yet any proof that an organism has become a distinctly different organism. The quote I posted says this very thing. That is a crucial point.

Finally, there is absolutely no adequate theory for how humans became concious individuals. How did inamimate matter become self aware? None of the models suggested have proven to be true.

In the normal world, when you find complex information, it is sign of intelligence. When you find a book, a piece of music, and mathmatical equation written out, they are all signs of intelligence. Our DNA is the greatest, most compact information ever developed. There is no evolutionary theory that can explain how this information became encoded.

When you find evidence of intelligence, it is natural to assume there is an itelligent agent involved.

I won't waste time here arguing this further since the majority probably don't care. I have read the wathmaker book (I don't have it on my shelf) and found it lacking in many ways. If you want to read a good summary of ID from a Christian author (unless you are afraid to read what a former top reporter for the Chicago Tribune has written based on interviews with top scientists in their various fields), check out "The Case for the Creator" by Lee Strobel.

Jim in Iowa

It's lies like this a vote for Bush is a vote for fear that I believe Kurt mentioned and other lies that were perpetuated by the Democratic Party (i.e. October surprise, privatization of social security, preventing minorities from voting) that polarized a lot of people who didn't vote before to vote for Bush this time.

Think about that for a minute or two.

[I]Ultimately, it is a leap of faith to either think it came from nothing (which is logically impossible), [B]or that it was created.[/B][/I] (emphasis mine)

Which, you know, is also logically impossible, since accepting the existence of an intelligent creator brings us back to square one: Where did the creator come from? It is true that both theories/beliefs face the same chicken/egg dilemma, but the Big bang can be at least partially verified by modern science, and there are theories as to how the material that would form the basis for the BB came to be. But no one has proven God's existence even indirectly.

(I'm actually a believer in the existence of God, but in scientific terms, the BB wins.)

(Fine by me, Glenn. Me, I'm guessing it's never too soon to start printing up those "Don't blame me, I voted for Kerry" bumper stickers we should be needing in the next few years.--PAD)

Nice to know you still have your sense of humor. :-) Nice twist on what some did during the Clinton era.

Jim in Iowa

Which, you know, is also logically impossible, since accepting the existence of an intelligent creator brings us back to square one: Where did the creator come from?

I would beg to differ. It is not "logically" impossible. I would agree that is impossible to prove by empirical methods, but that is logical. If God exists and created the universe, then by definition, he exists outside of the universe. It is logical that he would not be measureable.

At this point it becomes a metaphysical issue. There are theories/faith stories, particularly the Judeo-Christian faith story, that is logically coherent. It suggest that God is eternal, existing outside of time.

That is very different than saying the universe is in some way eternal. That is based on laws of physics, and the laws of physics and the evidence we have collected show this is not true.

If the universe started with the Big Bang, that then mixes physics and metaphysics. There is no theory yet that can explain how something came from nothing by natural means.

Jim in Iowa

Air America just reported that Kerry has conceded. I hope you Bush supporters are happy. We now have a man who started an unnecessary war, is ruining our environment, wants to gut social security, and cares only for his base (the haves and have mores) Congratulations. Your blind worship has put in office the worst president we've ever had.

Welp, I sold my car when I moved to NY, but I'll still take one of those "Don't Blame Me" stickers for my backpack.

Jim from Iowa said: Which, you know, is also logically impossible, since accepting the existence of an intelligent creator brings us back to square one: Where did the creator come from?
Jim, you have to know a little something about science before you can begin arguing against Darwinism. For the record, a Catholic Priest taught the theory of Darwinism to me. Creationism doesn't neccessarily contradict Darwinism- they can coexist and you pointed out the exact mechanism of how. Current theories can't ultimately explain creation, and one is free to believe however their faith dictates matter came to be. I believe it was created by God. But that doesn't mean I literally believe the scribing of the fallible humans who wrote the Book of Genisis. Seven days? No where is the Bible does God ask us to believe this literally means seven days and is not a metaphore for a greater passage of time.

I hope you Bush supporters are happy. We now have a man who started an unnecessary war, is ruining our environment, wants to gut social security, and cares only for his base (the haves and have mores) Congratulations. Your blind worship has put in office the worst president we've ever had.

More fear-mongering and hateful exagerations from the left. These recent threads have been quite interesting.