Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Thanks for reading my post, and just call me Jack. We don’t need last names spread all over the place. It is always better to be talked about than not to be talked about. But you and I don’t have a conflict here. I part company with some of my party colleagues with respect to science and like you understand that saying that science is just the current best guess is not an indictment - merely a affirmation of flexibility and an endless quest for better knowledge.

Where we may disagree is in the societal aspects of science. I expect we do agree on most specifics, but I also do believe there should be some moral check on what we call science precisely because it might be wrong at this time. Morality often reflects long human experience. Experience can teach us the wrong lessons or may no longer apply in a new situation, but it is not something that should be thrown away lightly. There has to be a balancing factor while we are looking for the best guess that works. Beyond that, science, all science depends on its societal context. No knowledge has any meaning outside its human carriers. Finally, scientists themselves usually make very poor policy makers. They are either narrowly into their specialty or fall into the old trap Socrates mentions, that people who know one thing very well think that it qualifies them as experts on many things.

I was reading recently about psychology and how most of what Freud said has been shown by new science to be false. Science is self-correcting. That is true. But sometimes it takes a long time. In the case of Freud, three or four generations suffered literal torture (electric shocks etc) because of Freud’s misinformation. Science showed that chemical imbalances, not Oedipus complexes, are responsible for many of the maladies. BUT Freud was also science at the time, only now do we begin to call him a fraud. It turns out that the “ignorant” approach of my father, who said “if you think a psychologist can help you ought to have your head examined”, wasn’t wrong given the nature of the profession at that time. (By the way, before some literalist corrects me again, I know this is a joke statement)

As for my own post, I am merely pointing to the consequences of anti-Americanism. The roots of this problem are complex, but the obnoxious flowers and fruits are easy to see. Ignorance and hatred may well allow the survival and spread of a terrible disease. I am against it.

Nice post, SD.

One of my biggest problems with the current administration is its preference for ideology over fact, which extends to its dealing with scientific advisors. I agree that scientists should not, in general, make policy - but neither should policy-makers follow ideologs, and ignore the most informed opinions about issues which can be and have been investigated using the scientific method.

I think it’s also wise to remember that science is not just about the big bang and abiogenesis - it’s also the leading edge of innovation and economic growth. The US has been limiting stem cell research for “moral” reasons, and as a consequence we now hear about advances coming from outside the US. The US is ignoring scientific warnings about global warming, while the rest of the world does not - which will likely leave US companies out in the cold in the business of developing, producing, and selling energy-efficient/CO2 friendly technology.

“There are those who rightly question the value of making permanent policy on the basis of theory that may not remain permanently applicable.”

Stephen,
Just like the reporter that has to get his story out before someone scoops him, there seems to be many of the “new” scientists that don’t see the research that went before them and rush the results of science lest someone scoops them. Anyone who gets into science to become a “Rock Star” is in the wrong profession.
Science should be an on going experiment, constantly challenged to keep the “theories” fresh.

By the same token, anyone that asks that we take something on “faith”, does all of us a disservice.

“The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no
longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails.”
H.L Mencken

William

I agree with much of what you are saying, but quibble with details, of course.

There is not now nor has there ever been a ban on stem cell research. The Bush administration was the first to fund stem cell research. The question is how much federal money will go to that research. I am with you on this one in that I don’t think there should be any limits, but it is a misnomer to call it a ban.

The U.S. is in the forefront of fighting FOR scientific research in things like biotech. The opposition comes from Europeans and Green lobbies. These are much more destructive to scientific research than the religious community because they are better-organized and more hostile to change.

It is true that much human genetic research is done in the UK. Why? Because the UK is a bit more reasonable in regulations. but almost all the research on new drugs is still done in the U.S. Why? Because the U.S. is a more welcoming environment. The same is true with GMOs and biotech in general. There are probably more GMO crops in N. Virginia alone than all of Europe. As far as I know, fundamentalists don’t oppose GMO crops or related products.

Who is against GMOs? Who tried to invoke the “precautionary principle?” If we had thought like that in 1880, we would never have electricity today. The enemies of science sit on both extremes.

Stephen -

Along the same lines as Jack’s comment, research often stumbles because of a belief in ‘the next big thing’. Some proposed theories have a certain seductiveness to those in related fields, and can certainly mislead everyone into looking in the wrong places. Certainly here in America, we have little patience, we want to be aware of the bleeding edge of things to come. This presents a problem for the reasons that Jack alluded to, although science _is_ self correcting, it can take a while. While we may understand the importance of scientific skepticism, there are always those ideas which will tempt us to accept them despite insufficient foundation. Even the most brilliant scholars fall prey to this from time to time. But we definitely cannot stand behind erroneous policy in the face of established science.

Just a minor correction also, Force = Mass * Acceleration.

There is not now nor has there ever been a ban on stem cell research. The Bush administration was the first to fund stem cell research. The question is how much federal money will go to that research.

I didn’t use the word “ban”. Bush was the first to fund stem cell research simply because it didn’t come up as a scientific topic until his first term - they were only isolated in 1998. And it’s not just a “question is how much federal money will go to that research”. Current policy also strictly limits the kind of research that can be done.

Stephen,
“The Republican party, has been party to such perpetuations in the last thirty years, siding with Big Tobacco, creationists, racists, and others who approach scientific truth as an abstract exercise in influence and control.”

I agree. They are trying to limit scientific research because of some nebulous ‘moral values’ excuses.
Of course, morality should be a consideration with some forms of scientific progress - the creation and use of atomic research should appear to most of us as having been one obvious example from our past. Others would be cloning (also morally questionable for some pretty obvious reasons), or nanotechnology - something that scientists don’t yet fully understand or can control, and which could potentially wipe out the human race in a short amount of time since it is a process designed to multiply independently.
But with stem cell research, this administration has pitted themselves against scientific research only because they insist on bringing religion into the equation. And strangely, they don’t see denying someone a cure for a terrible disease as calling into question their own morality whatsoever.
By linking this research with the idea that it is somehow “against life”, they are also ignoring an important fact - that there are millions of fertilized eggs that have been sitting in frozen storage in fertility clinics all over the country for years that no one has the intention of ever using for invitro fertilization. In fact, couples whose eggs are being stored often wonder what to do with them after they are successful with having a child. And many of them would rather have the eggs be used for research designed to help people, than to have to make the call that they should be discarded.
The amount of research that can be done with the small number of existing lines of stem cells that the administration has approved is not enough to make the curing of diseases possible, and so Dubya must be held accountable for the fact that through his abstract exercise in religious influence and control, he is in fact, turning his back on helping the human race.
He will also always be remembered for the fact that because of his decision, it will be other countries who make all the discoverys on the cutting edge of this research, rather than American scientists.

BTW, very thoughtful and well written article.

Okay, concerning stem cell research, it’s hardly a ‘nebulous’ excuse. You think the administration is just flat out against scientific research that can help cure disease? They’re just grasping for any notion that can get them out of supporting scientific research? I can see then why this administration is so horrible in your mind, however this is a rather shallow assessment of the situation. It couldn’t be that the same people who think abortion is wrong would think that fetal stem cell research is the equivalent of a Matrix-esque harvesting of humanity? Whether you agree or not, this is hardly a ‘nebulous excuse’, and not un-scientific as there is no evidence concerning the humanity (not read - citizenship) or lack thereof inherent in a fertilized embryo. It is certainly not a viewpoint to be completely disregarded, as you seem to think.

AParker:
“It couldn’t be that the same people who think abortion is wrong would think that fetal stem cell research is the equivalent of a Matrix-esque harvesting of humanity?”

That conclusion makes no sense at all when we are talking about frozen fertilized eggs that will never be used to produce a child.
As for the harvesting of humanity - we humans already do that. There are people walking around with the hearts, eyes and other organs of people who have died but who wished to donate their organs to the living. And couples who lose their children to untimely death are often very comforted by the fact that their beloved child gave life to someone elses child.

Again with the stem cells.

This is not the only scientific research in the world.

If you look at the totality of the Bush administration and science, it is a good record. The administration is fighting hard to get acceptance of GMOs worldwide, looking into ways to make nuclear power safer, which will allow us to limit our use of fossil fuels. It even restored tax breaks to wind power. These are politically incorrect fields of science to many leftists, but they are science.

Please turn some of the ire you aim at stem cells toward those clowns who oppose all forms of GMOs and genetic engineering.

If you look at the totality of the Bush administration and science, it is a good record.

I beg to differ. It is an atrocious record. Leaving aside stem cells, Bush has politicized science more than any other administration. Evidence of global warming has been ignored. There was a congressional outcry after the National Cancer Institute’s web site was altered to suggest there was a link between abortion and breast cance - there is none. Scientists for advisory positions have been vetted for their political positions. Scientists were dismissed from the President’s Council on Bioethics because they frequently disagreed with the administration’s positions. Whistleblowers have stepped forward claiming inappropriate political pressure - starting with corporate lobbyists - from the EPA, the USDA, and the FDA.

Global warming – the world has gotten a little warmer in the last century. (Although the warmest decade of the 20th Century was the 1930s) The question is the exact causes and the remedies. The Bush administration has been studying it maybe too long, but it still is not clear what we should do about it. The long term solution to fossil fuels is to get rid of most of them and that will take clean nuclear power making hydrogen. This the Bush administration is encouraging. You may not agree with the Bush policy, but it is not anti-scientific.

Breast cancer – there was a correlation between women who had abortions and a slight increase in breast cancer in some studies. It was evidently spurious, like the claim that high-tension wires or cell phones cause cancer. It should not have been on the site, but a lot of that kind of thing sneaks into public discourse. There are still people who contend that breast implants cause cancer.

Whistle blowers step forth in every administration. There might be a legitimate disagreement.

What about GMOs and nuclear power? Don’t those count as science?

The current administration has, like most administrations, chosen which science to champion (and which to either ignore or discredit). One of the biggest frustrations I have with the current administration is their continuing support of fossil fuels for our energy consumption. Yes, there have been SOME efforts in the nuclear arena, but the larger concern should be our HEAVY dependence on foreign oil. Fuel cells can, and one day will, change the way we power our automobiles, homes, and even industry. This administration should do whatever it takes to make this happen. All I’ve seen from the current administration is lip service….but, then again, their bread has been buttered via big oil companies.

Please turn some of the ire you aim at stem cells toward those clowns who oppose all forms of GMOs and genetic engineering.

Jack, as those nuts aren’t running the country, I hardly see how that’s relevant in this discussion. If you’d like to make a post about them, I’ll happily comment that they’re absurd scaremongers.

The problem, as I see it, is that too many decisions in business and government are made in a denial of facts and information afforded them by scientific disciplines. Trouble is, the laws of nature do not negotiate, and time is often a factor in how much damage is done. If you wait until the scandal breaks, much harm will already be wrought.

PBS’s program Frontline has done a number of excellent programs on these issues. Here are some links:

Medicating Kids
The Alternative Fix
Dangerous Prescription
Diet Wars

It is indicative of the current state of scientific issues that Dangerous Prescription Was aired in November of 2003, and yet there is already more than enough material to make the report troublesome.

I think there are some places where scientific rigor needs to be ensured.

I watch Frontline and have seen some of the things you cite. None of them should be problems of the Federal government. Maybe our problem is that we have come to expect too much from the Feds and we should take care of ourselves better. That philosophy is one difference between conservatives and liberals.

The secret of weight loss, for example, is to eat less and move more. The rest is commentary. Fat Americans are a problem FOR the Federal Government (because they raise insurance costs), but they are not a problem OF the Federal government. The couch potatoes are letting us all down. Medicating kids results from overzealous teachers, parents and people in the so-called caring professions. They are frightened by the rambunctious behavior mostly of boys. The caring professional are problems for all of us, but not the Federal government’s problem. Parents should just say no.

Dieting I never suggested be a governmental problem. The Ritalin situation is of concern, but I do believe that there are cases in which Ritalin is a good prescription. I just think educators are too quick to diagnose on simple behavior what is really a complex disorder.

Neurological conditions, including ADHD, are real, and their effects should not be underestimated. It’s easy to take a hard-nosed, attitude about them. That is to say it requires little thought to take that attitude. but practically speaking, you cannot punish a person like that into getting over the problem. Arbitrary discipline can only deepen frustrations, and humiliate the person. Some of you political comrades would ask whether the person deserved such special treatment, I would argue that such a person would need special treatment, if they are to become a strong, productive citizen. People with conditions like these, can be hardworking, even extraordinarily talented. To waste such effort and talent to be a purist about egalitarian impulses is to miss what egalitarian principles are about.

As for medicine and pharmaceuticals, I don’t see the value of not having broad federal regulations in place, setting universal standards for healthcare and medicinal practice. I don’t see regulation as a perfect solution, but I see it’s lack as a disaster waiting to happen. Medicine, in both the pharmaceutical sense of the word and the occupational sense of it are specialized fields enough, and cross state lines enough to justify a regulatory response from the Federal government What you describe seems just too piecemeal, and places too much of the burden on ordinary citizens who are not experts in the field. We got to do better than snake-oil medicine here. We got to let people know that taking their medicine is the smart thing to do, if that’s honestly the case.

Government action is a blunt tool. Some regulation is very much needed, but it has to be light and not directive.

Many problems can’t be solved by the government at all and sometimes government action makes them worse. Consider the war on poverty. Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty. Poverty won and took reparations. We are still digging out of the social morass that caused. Just because something we have a problem, it does not follow that the government is the solution and the more often we reach for government the weaker we get in solving our own problems.

The biggest flaw in government action is the government itself. When people call for the government to do something, they imagine a always wise, competent and well-organized organization. This is not our government or any other.

But Republicans and Democrats would agree that the leadership of our government is not always wise and competent. They would just disagree about when that was the case. I think it is ironic that Democrats are often the ones calling for more government power, when they must realize that Republicans will be exercising most of that power at least for the next couple of years.

So sometimes you are better off with the problem than with the government solution. Americans are fat. Those of you affected, please put down that donut and get more exercise. There – I have just accomplished about as much as the government can. Let’s just reserve the vast and majestic power of our Federal Government for the big issues, not the big people.

RE: The long term solution to fossil fuels is to get rid of most of them and that will take clean nuclear power making hydrogen. This the Bush administration is encouraging.
In what ways is the Bush administration encouring reducing dependency on fossil fuels? I dont’ see it. On the other hand, I see much encouragment to increase use. Given how important it is to find an alternative to this environmentally damaging finite resource that results in so much blood spilled, R&D funding is low. On the other hand, oil and gas tax subsidies save the industries $1.3 billion per year, with oil companies getting subsidies for things like drilling on federal land and for exploring in deep ocean.
And then there’s the rise of the SUV. While a handful of small cars are getting 40-plus miles per gallon, the vast majority of new vehicles coming into U.S. showrooms get about half that, the government’s latest automobile fuel economy statistics show.
SUVs are sheltered from the luxury car tax and the gas guzzler tax. Granted, these were in place before the current administration. However, the Bush Administration continues to set policies that encourage their purchase. During this administration, the amount eligible for expensing was raised from $25,000 to $100,000. So if you buy a Range Rover this year for a business, you can expense the entire cost.
The sad thing is that existing technology could result in far more fuel efficient SUVs, but it doesn’t look like the government is going to push that, and without the government forcing t he issue, it ain’t gonna happen. It’s not that I think getting rid of SUVs is the whole solution, but give that they are about 40% less fuel-efficient than cars and they are taking over market share, they are a significant problem that could easily be dealt with.

Jack-
Light and not directive? Look, either you regulate, or you don’t. Voluntary regulations are a contradiction in terms. Light regulations just add reams of text to our laws without doing the job. If you want limits to regulation, you do it by not overcomplicating it with toothless or compromised regulation. You get clear, direct, and authoritive regulations in there, and then you leave it alone unless an issue demands further attention.

Welfare will be a problem as long as the minimum wage remains absurdly low, and living wages are not a reality for most people. Your people constantly speak of trickle-down economics, but wages for middle and lower-class earners have only gone up 75% in the last thirty years, while executives pay themselves over a thousand percent more, relatively speaking. Trickle, indeed. As long as business is stingy, your theory is an exercise in naivete. If Business can provide superior benefits and a living income, people’s pride will get them off the welfare rolls. Welfare should not be subsistence, but if business doesn’t provide a living wage, that’s what it will become.

Your anti-government attitude seems rather prejudiced to me Government isn’t about wisdom, though we would like it to be there. It’s about authority, force if you will. The Average citizen can suggest, can organize, but they cannot demand something the way a government can. The average consumer, frustrated with Microsoft’s low quality and high prices, cannot demand that Microsoft end it’s monopoly. The Government can force that, on behalf of consumers. It can force polluters to stop polluting, where the average citizen might get turned away at the gate. It can demand honesty in finances and accounting where we can only wish for it. Now, you prefer private methods to create this kind of accountability, but how successful have such methods been? Not very, if you keep track of current events.

I included Diet Wars as part of an example of social issues dealing science, not governmental. But the supplements and drugs are another matter. There are so many commercials for things like Enzyte, Hydroxycut, and other supplements that claim to have great benefits, and yet a question comes to mind: If they are effective, they must have powerful effects on the body, effects that could create problems if they manifest as side effects. If they’re not, consumers are being defrauded. That’s the supplements dilemma, right there: They claim drug-like results, but have not been reviewed for safety or efficacy, standards by which the FDA is at least supposed to judge drugs.

The question here is, are you willing to expose the American people to unsafe or ineffective substances, just to satisfy an anti-authoritarian impulse? We can refine the law. We can’t refine chaos.

Jack:

I think it is ironic that Democrats are often the ones calling for more government power, when they must realize that Republicans will be exercising most of that power at least for the next couple of years.

It’s ironic to me that after years of having Republicans call for fiscal restraint and balanced budgets and small governments, now that they’re in power, they’re the party of big government and deficits. Look at Bush’s record vs Clinton’s wrt government growth.

I’m not in favor of “big government” for its own merits, but I’m in favor of a strong commons - strong common resources like an educated population, a healthy environment, funding for research and innovation. You need a government to ensure those goals - like national defense, they just don’t happen on their own. And they need to be maintained, no matter who is in power.

I’m also in favor of a society in which economic inequities are bounded: I don’t want to see beggars on the streets, for example, or have retired people living on cat food. That’s a separate goal, and a separate set of values, one which some Republicans don’t share.

“Americans are fat. Those of you affected, please put down that donut and get more exercise. There – I have just accomplished about as much as the government can.”

I don’t agree, the government should wisely spend our tax dollars educating Americans about nutrition. What we eat is literally killing us - old and young alike.

FAST FOOD makes people obese and can bring on type II diabetes - but its cheap and people are busy, so they eat it. Maybe if they knew that staying away from those places would automatically make them drop a lot of weight, they would do so. (For you lefties out there, don’t eat at Wendy’s even though you can get something healthy like a salad from them when you’re on the road - they give 100% their campaign money to the Republican’s. It may not be drive-thru, but these days, a lot of supermarkets will often have a salad bar in the deli section.)

TRANSFATS (hydrogenated or partially-hydrogenated oils) in pre-packaged food gives people heart disease. Go to the supermarket and try to find a box of something without it - its rather hard to do. Something as basic as bread will often contain transfat. Almost all snack foods contain transfats - look at the labels. Margarine is nothing but a tub full of transfat - even if someone has heart disease (or even if you don’t), its better to use a tiny amount of real butter, or better yet, olive oil, than to ever use margarine. Health supermarkets and stores rarely sell anything with transfats, and products coming from Europe often don’t contain them either.
Its no big mystery how people in France can eat tons of butter and cream, and yet have a fairly low incidence of heart disease - they eat a lot of meals with the magic combination of olive oil, garlic, seasonal vegtables and herbs, and red wine - all are great for your health and heart.

If the government could be made to educate people on just those two things - fast food and transfats - along with encouraging people to get some exercise, there would be a lot less sick and overweight people in America.

“That’s the supplements dilemma, right there: They claim drug-like results, but have not been reviewed for safety or efficacy, standards by which the FDA is at least supposed to judge drugs.”

Stephen,
These suplements can’t be reviewed because of a law passed by Congress.

http://www.uspverified.org/background/regulation.html

“Under FDCA, the United States Pharmacopeia and the National Formulary (USP?NF) are specifically recognized as providing specifications for dietary supplements. Adherence to these standards, however, is voluntary. Dietary supplement makers are not legally required to meet these specifications.

The FDCA regulates dietary supplements as foods. Under the law, supplement regulations are the same as those that cover conventional food.

Dietary supplement manufacturers do not need to register with FDA, or obtain FDA approval before producing or selling their products.
Prior to marketing a product, manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that a dietary supplement (or a new ingredient) is safe before it is marketed. FDA has the authority to take action against unsafe dietary supplement products.
Manufacturers must ensure that their product label information is truthful and not misleading.”

In reality, what this has allowed is a rash of scam artists and charletans to florish. The only thing the scum have to do by way of “voluntary regulation” is make sure the product won’t kill you.
That would, of course, be bad for business.

“Americans are fat. Those of you affected, please put down that donut and get more exercise. There – I have just accomplished about as much as the government can.”

LOL!!!
Jack, you accomplished twice as much as the govt can with that and it didn’t cost the taxpayers billions of dollars.
EVERYONE knows fast food fattens you up and EVERYONE knows that smoking MAY cause cancer.
People are not all dumb but its THEIR choice and not the govts.
Its not the govts or anybody elses business if or where I smoke or what I eat.
If I want to eat 10 Wendy’s burgers a day, so what. Shut up and leave me alone, I know its not good for me and I don’t need someone WARNING me everytime I eat.

Heres a novel idea, instead of wanting and needing the govt for EVERYTHING, why don’t people take care of themselves.

Sorry to go off topic SD, but this govt is the answer to everything thinking ticks me off.

William et al

Yes. Republicans will do it too. Power is intoxicating and most people who exercise it think they are doing good. That is why they don’t feel bad using power. It is for the greater good, they think. That is why we have to be very careful with giving power to government, which already has coercive power. The people we like are not the only ones who can work through government. As many people in this blog have pointed out, corporate interests also can and do work through government. The big firms, no matter how nasty or powerful, cannot draft you into the army, for example. They have to use the government for that.

The story of regulation in America has often been the following (1) someone identifies a legitimate problem usually a monopoly situation and gets government to regulate it. (2) The laws were imprecise, so additional regulations were needed. (3) Those with expertise were either employed by the regulated industry or groups hostile to them, but there were no real neutral parties. (4) Regulated industry folks and their enemies reach a modus vivendi. (5) government regulations are captured by those who are being regulated and are used as offensive weapons to keep out competition and/or limit innovation. (6) someone identifies a legitimate problem usually a monopoly situation and gets government to regulate it. Only now it starts at a more regulated level.

So I am willing to let a few fat guys eat turn themselves into blobs of blubber rather than see the government closely regulate what I eat at McDonald’s. After all, they always have a choice not to get that Big Mac or maybe even better, get out of their cars and walk. Existing laws are enough to protect an intelligent consumer from getting fat unwittingly. We can’t legislate individual intelligence.

“Heres a novel idea, instead of wanting and needing the govt for EVERYTHING, why don’t people take care of themselves.”

Well, if the government gave enough money to public schools to actually run, Pepsi, Coke and Fast Food companies wouldn’t have had the opportunity to put their products at the instant disposal of America’s children, who don’t even realize how bad their diet is for them. High fructose corn syrup (soda) and fast food everyday = obesity and type II diabetes.

BTW Tim, that lifestyle of yours might explain why you always seem so enraged in your posts.

Adrienne
I liked that, but that is not me. LOL!!!
I don’t smoke and most of what I eat is fresh from local farms. Farmers markets and such and lots of fresh veggies.
Like you, I don’t like fast food all that much but I do partake in it sometimes. I have just chosen not to support ben and jerry’s instead of Wendy’s like you suggested:)

I’m sorry if my posts seem to be “enraged.” I don’t mean them to be. I’m actually a pretty mellow guy. But I will try to do better with my wording.

Now I don’t believe in govt education but since that is what we have I would have to agree with your saying these camps need more funds to help keep the corps out of them.
But even still, it is not my business if somebody elses kids eat crappy food or drink soda.
I didnt like it when someone told me I shouldnt be teaching my 4 year old daughter how to shoot and I know they wouldn’t like me telling them what their kids should eat or drink.

Stephen,

Interesting read. You could re-write the following paragraph:

The Republican party, has been party to such perpetuations in the last thirty years, siding with Big Tobacco, creationists, racists, and others who approach scientific truth as an abstract exercise in influence and control.

To read:

The Democratic Party has been party to such perpetuations in the last thirty years, siding with the United Nations, darwinists, racists, and others who approach scientific truth as an abstract exercise in influence and control.

Couldn’t you?

It also bears pointing out that the Republican party did not in fact “side with racists” in the complete fassion indicated above. A brief review of history will show that the main branch point for this mightily convenient myth occured when some vocal “Dixy-Crats” jumped to the Republican Party.

It is false to indicate that all Dixie(Dixy)crats became Republicans shortly after passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Mendell Rivers, William Fulbright, Richard Russel, Robert Byrd, Al Gore Sr. and Fritz Hollings remained Democrats. In fact, if my memory serves me, the majority of the Dixy-Crats whent back to the Democratic party.

A lot of people who really reallly reallllly want to believe that 1960s Republicans all slepts on Confederate Pillows seem to forget the actual records of what happened during the fight for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Just for the record, the votes whent like this: Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats more narowly supported it 152-96. Do the math here. Which party had the better proportion?

If you want some more -facts- here’s an excellent resource:
http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/3/82.03.04.x.html

Indeed, the GOP has had racists in its ranks. So have the Democrats. Last time I checked, Senator Byrd was still voting D.

This post is slightly off topic, but when you try to slip the ol’ “Republicans are racists” card on the table in a non chalant way, a response is called for. Let’s keep things reasonable, eh?

Apropos the last link:
Especialy take note of the bibliography. Several of those books are freely available at your public library, and are excellent.

Thanks, Damon.

We need to keep repeating the truth so that the myths don’t become reality.

kctim, You’re teaching your 4 year old daughter to shoot and then you’re surprised when someone reads your post and senses it is kinda “enraged”???

If you plan to teach kids to shoot, you want to start fairly early. I don’t know about the age. I am glad that there will be a another generation of hunters. We need someone to take up the slack (and the over population of deer) when the older generation passes.

ann non
No, I started teaching her when she was 4, shes 7 now and pretty good.
And whats so enraging about teaching kids firearms respect and safety and the ability to shoot?

Jack
We are hoping she gets her first one next season. My son was eight, I think, when he got his first. Go womens lib!

Alan-
Racists deserted the Democratic party for the Republican. I mean, that is how the Republicans got the South, more or less. The xenophobia about the UN is another gimmee to folks like that, folks who believe that the UN is the foundation for the World Government of the Anti-Christ, among others.

The Democratic party cannot be absolved of all scientific manipulation, but it doesn’t make it part of its inherent party philosophy. Science is not treated as elitism as a matter of course.

As for Darwinism, I’d tell you this: you can never prove creationism. Creationism, the belief God created the world and everything in it, is an article of faith. If you believe in an omnipotent God, he could have created the world tomorrow, and we would not know the difference.

Evolution is provable. Genetics, animal breeding, and observations of nature, all can be brought to bear. There are conclusions and implication that can be worked out and have been worked out. There is a tactile complexity to the portrait evolution creates, scientifically speaking. Not so for creationism. How far can we go before nature ends and God begins? I’d say we can go as far as we like, because we are embedded in the fabric of the natural and only aware of the supernatural by god’s grace. We can’t build the tower high enough to get to him from this world. He must come to us in ours.

I believe God created the world. I just think that we aren’t equipped to see the signs of supernatural aspects of that creation. But the natural? That’s evolution, and that’s what science can and should see. And that’s why children should be taught about evolution in science classes and science textbooks. And it shouldn’t be taught with qualifications attached that have absolutely no scientific standing, that can never honestly be ascribed them.

Stephen

Most racists stayed in the Democrat Party. Damon has shown the actual numbers and facts in a post above. The Republican take over of the South came in the 1980s and 1990s as the old line Democrats passed from the scene. and the Democrats are the only ones who consistently reelect a Senator who was an active member of the KKK.

Both parties have some racist past and some racist members, but neither party is the party of racism. The Bush cabinet is the most diverse in U.S. history. Before that, the Clinton cabinet was the most diverse. The whole nation is changing. This is not 1960 anymore.

I’m aware of the history. What I would tell you is that the Republican party took advantage of the splits in the Democratic party and it’s constituency relating to the Civil Rights issue. Why else does the South go Solid Republican now? The Southern Strategy used anxieties over gun control, desegregation, and secularization in order to drive wedges in the Democrat constituency.

The Democrats are not perfect, but the Republicans of yesteryear made some bargains to gain power that today may haunt the consciences and trouble the minds of today’s party members, even as they feel obligated to carry them on.

I think you underestimate southerners. The most segregated cities in the U.S. are northern places like Boston, Milwaukee and Chicago. I think people in the south support the Republican Party for a variety of good reasons.

Few of today’s voters were voting at all in 1960. Many were not even born. The Civil Rights movement is something they see in history books and almost everyone supports the goals of the movement. The only people I have ever met who support segregation were some African American Studies professors who wanted to have black only dorms. As Damon pointed out, the few Democrats changed to Republicans in the 1960s.

It was a generational change that brought Republican values to the fore and it wasn’t only in the south. My working-class northern family was solidly Democratic in 1960. Now they are generally Republican.

Democrats try to play the race card as a way of explaining their loss of majority party status. If it was the case, how is it that they held onto the House of Representatives for 31 years after the landmark civil rights legislation and most southern state houses even longer? How was it that the Georgian Democrat (Carter) beat the Michigan Republican and then the California Republican beat the Georgian Democrat? Then the Arkansas Democrat beat the Texan (but mostly culturally New England Republican and was reelected against the Republican from Kansas. The theory just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. It is a Democratic myth.

The one real consequence of the civil rights legislation seems to have been firmly planting American blacks in the Democratic coalition. It may not have been a good place to be and this also may be beginning to change.

Look, Jack, I am a Southerner.

Few of today?s voters were voting at all in 1960. Many were not even born.

1960 is an arbitrary date, and the changes involved in desegregation took place over decades, and not in the instant. It’s true that people not alive or of voting age in that time comprise much of the electorate, but you vastly underestimate a parent’s influence on a child, and overestimate the speed with which deep-seated social attitudes change.

I’m not saying the south hasn’t changed, or that the North isn’t perfect. Damon can say what he wants, though, but history itself records how many Democrats switched sides in the south, based on the Civil Rights movement. I mean, for heaven’s sake, who do you think Strom Thurmond was? Go back and see for yourself how many in the Southern leadership started as Democrats or Democrat staffers. It was an issue, and while it wasn’t so simple as pure good and evil, it did matter.

We Democrats can admit our past was not spotless, that we were once the party of entrenched racism. We can admit we screwed up a war, blew a budget, and sent the economy into a tailspin (though the idea it was regulation that did this is dubious in my opinion). It is our experience in having made these mistakes and rebounded from it that qualifies us to criticize mistakes not much unlike our own.

or that the North isn’t imperfect- sorry!