what kind of experience?

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Holy Cow, and all these years, thinking he was a cheat, well I wont be saying those things about him. Hmm, have to think up new ones, be back soon...

 

 

[TheScout 10]

Yes I read it. I really don't get it though. Sorry. What does a community organizer do for 8 hours a day (or whatever their workday is)? Who pays them?

 

I honestly do not know.

[Lisabob 13]

OGE, Biden himself acknowledges that he did plagiarize some lines. That doesn't make it right, regardless of how intentional or inadvertent it might have been. But I give the guy credit for having admitted to it. Biden is also reported to have met face to face with the guy from whom he plagiarized, and introducing him to others at the gathering as being the fellow who wrote some of Biden's best lines. But clearly he knows it was something he ought not to have done.

 

So while I don't condone plagiarism and wouldn't let him off the hook too easily, given the circumstances I guess it isn't a reason that many people would cite to vote against him 20+ years later.

[Trevorum 24]

TheScout, I imagine there is a lot of overlap between the job of a minister and that of a community organizer.

[BrentAllen 10]

"I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities."

Governor Sarah Palin

[NJCubScouter 1389]

The line about Obama having once been a "community organizer" has become one of the talking points at the Republican convention and the Fox News Channel. Rudy Giuliani just referred to it a couple of minutes ago. It's getting tired already.

 

TheScout, as for your inability to understand what a community organizer is, despite having now read a 24-paragraph Wikipedia article that goes into some detail about what they do, I can only say this:

 

There is a biography of the British author Douglas Adams, written by another British author. At one point the author is writing about Adams' participation in a British pantomime show on the radio. At that point there is a footnote that says: "For those Americans reading this, who may have difficulty understanding how there can be a pantomime show on the radio, that is a personal problem that you will have to deal with on your own."

 

TheScout, this is a personal problem that you will have to deal with on your own. I myself cannot imagine how you can have a pantomime show on the radio, but I do know what a community organizer is, especially now that I have read the same article about it that you have read.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Now all the Republican delegates are chanting "Drill baby drill, drill baby drill..."

 

Oil, that is.

 

Leave No Trace, anyone?

[TheScout 10]

If you are so smart can you please tell me what a community organizer is?

 

Thank you.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

TheScout, I could provide you with an official job description and you would still be parroting the same talking point. So, no, I am not discussing this or any other aspect of politics with you anymore.

 

And Sarah Palin just mentioned the "community organizer" thing again, just as Giuliani mentioned it earlier. I am beginning to see a pattern here. Some people need to get a new joke-writer.

[TheScout 10]

I think a lot of people don't know what a community organizer actually is. I don't. Seriously. From the wikipedia article I still don't really get what they do all day, and who pays them, etc.

[GaHillBilly 10]

Packsaddle, to vote against McCain solely because Palin has been reported to support teaching "creationism" in public schools -- a charge which may or may not turn out to be true -- is to take an rather naive and unsophisticated view of things.

 

First, even the President is unlikely to have much influence over what is taught or not taught in high school science classes. The VP is virtually certain to have no influence whatsoever. To reject McCain on this issue suggests to me that you were already looking for a PC excuse for doing so.

 

Second, all press reports on this topic, from all sides of the issue, are virtually certain to have one characteristic in common: they will be seriously inaccurate and they will be very biased. To make a judgment so early, on so peripheral an issue, with so little evidentiary doesn't speak well of your own analytic capabilities.

 

Third, it's fairly well documented that high school science education is a more often a bust than not, no matter what is taught or who teaches it. Apparently, it is well documented that taking high school chemistry or physics is negatively correlated with success in college chemistry or physics. The only subject consistently found to be positively correlated with success in college science is . . . math and more math! (Reading, 'riting, & 'rithmetic) (Here's one example: http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/daily/2006/02/17-ap.html )

 

If you teach science, I'm sure you are already aware of those studies. I understand you may not LIKE the conclusion those studies reach -- I gather most high school science teachers don't -- but, if you apply logic to the data, then it's hard to avoid the conclusion that it may not matter much, what you teach in high school about the origin of life.

 

And, if you focus on what works, which is teaching math, well I'm sure you realize that creationists and atheists teach calculus pretty much identically!

 

 

However, it may not matter much. I just finished watching Palin's speech. If she does half as well with future challenges, as she did with that, she and McCain may not need your vote!

 

GaHillBilly

[croushorn 10]

Yeah, .... what he said. Leave it to a hick from Georgia to say it best.

I love it buddy!

[Gunny2862 11]

I also think it's interesting that those who claim to be science oriented thinkers would be the same people who are closed to alternate explanations.

 

Evolution is a theory, it may be the theory that some scientists think fits the current data set the best but it isn't a proven fact that is unchallengeable. In truth some aspects of evolutionary theory has to be approached on a belief or faith basis of what has occurred during the gaps in the data set.

 

To be afraid of "Intelligent Design" as an alternate theory shows ones lack of belief in Science itself. The stronger theory will win out in the end.

 

Now before I get the Jesus Freak label(although I are one(bad grammar intentional) - I still attempt to engage the limited thought capacity I possess); Do people understand that Intelligent Design in no way posits a Deity - It does leave the door open to one or to a race of beings that are so advanced beyond us that we can only understand them as gods or goddesses.

 

My personal interpretation would be that God did the work but there is no engraved work labeling his ownership of his handiwork for those who choose to believe differently. And so I remain open to listen to the theories of those who choose to believe differently.

 

Do I do my studies in those classes I take which rely on evolutionary theory, of course, - am I required to believe their premises, no, simply to show that I have grasped them and am able to restate them within the context of the class. Why should a competing, and at this time equally valid view, be treated differently by those who are non-theist or for all practical purposes hold "Science" and all of it's current "sacred cows" as their own worldview/religion.

 

Let the two theories compete.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

To say that "intelligent design" is an alternative theory only shows that the speaker does not know what a scientific theory is; intelligent design is not a scientific theory.

 

PS: Americans shouldn't have a problem with pantomime on the radio, we used to have a popular radio show starring a ventriloquist.

[Gunny2862 11]

Merlyn,

I concur with your assessment that the scientific community and even the Vatican decry the categorization of ID as a scientific theory. Although the Vatican has a stake in the game because if they pin their beliefs on the outcome of the debate and ID loses then they lose some credibility in their argument for a deity.

But if Science is REALLY about testing claims then why the "dogmatic" approach to protecting a theory like evolution? Why not test the evidence and let the theories compete?