ALPINE TOWNSHIP -- A 72-year-old former Marine fought off a man who tried to steal money out of his pocket.
Bill Barnes says he was scratching off a losing $2 lottery ticket around 9 a.m. June 22 at the Next Door Food Store at 4616 Alpine Avenue in Alpine Township. That is when he felt ahand slip into his front-left pants pocket, where he had $300 in cash.
He immediately grabbed the person's wrist with his left hand and started throwing punches with his right, landing six or seven blows before a store manager intervened. Get the rest of the story here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19442397/
Good for you Marine. People need to realize senior citizens are still people. No respect. It's sad that I can see the degenerating state of the world and i'm only 17.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
White House Fires Back at Clintons
WASHINGTON (July 5) - The White House on Thursday made fun of former President Clinton and his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, for criticizing President Bush's decision to erase the prison sentence of former aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
"I don't know what Arkansan is for chutzpah, but this is a gigantic case of it," presidential spokesman Tony Snow said.In his commutation decision, Bush left a $250,000 fine. Libby paid the fine on Thursday.Libby's friends and supporters have raised more than $5 million to cover legal fees and were continuing to raise money but Libby paid the fine himself, according to someone close to the fund who spoke on condition of anonymity because details of the account are private. The cashiers check filed with the court was issued in Libby's name.Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., has scheduled hearings Wednesday on Bush's commutation of Libby's 2 1/2-year sentence."Well, fine, knock himself out," Snow said of Conyers. "I mean, perfectly happy. And while he's at it, why doesn't he look at January 20th, 2001?"In the closing hours of his presidency, Clinton pardoned 140 people, including fugitive financier Marc Rich.The former president tried to draw a distinction between the pardons he granted, and Bush's decision to commute Libby's 30-month sentence in the CIA leak case."I think there are guidelines for what happens when somebody is convicted," Clinton told a radio interviewer Tuesday. "You've got to understand, this is consistent with their philosophy; they believe that they should be able to do what they want to do, and that the law is a minor obstacle."
Sen. Clinton, seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, said the Libby decision "was clearly an effort to protect the White House. ... There isn't any doubt now, what we know is that Libby was carrying out the implicit or explicit wishes of the vice president, or maybe the president as well, in the further effort to stifle dissent."Former Vice President Al Gore said he found the Bush decision "disappointing" and said he did not think it was comparable to Clinton's pardons."It's different because in this case the person involved is charged with activities that involved knowledge of what his superiors in the White House did," Gore said on NBC's "Today" show Thursday. See the rest of the story here http://news.aol.com/story/_a/white-house-fires-back-at-clintons/20070705155709990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
What hypocricy. My pardons are better than yours because your unpopular. What kind of stuff is that.
"I don't know what Arkansan is for chutzpah, but this is a gigantic case of it," presidential spokesman Tony Snow said.In his commutation decision, Bush left a $250,000 fine. Libby paid the fine on Thursday.Libby's friends and supporters have raised more than $5 million to cover legal fees and were continuing to raise money but Libby paid the fine himself, according to someone close to the fund who spoke on condition of anonymity because details of the account are private. The cashiers check filed with the court was issued in Libby's name.Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., has scheduled hearings Wednesday on Bush's commutation of Libby's 2 1/2-year sentence."Well, fine, knock himself out," Snow said of Conyers. "I mean, perfectly happy. And while he's at it, why doesn't he look at January 20th, 2001?"In the closing hours of his presidency, Clinton pardoned 140 people, including fugitive financier Marc Rich.The former president tried to draw a distinction between the pardons he granted, and Bush's decision to commute Libby's 30-month sentence in the CIA leak case."I think there are guidelines for what happens when somebody is convicted," Clinton told a radio interviewer Tuesday. "You've got to understand, this is consistent with their philosophy; they believe that they should be able to do what they want to do, and that the law is a minor obstacle."
Sen. Clinton, seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, said the Libby decision "was clearly an effort to protect the White House. ... There isn't any doubt now, what we know is that Libby was carrying out the implicit or explicit wishes of the vice president, or maybe the president as well, in the further effort to stifle dissent."Former Vice President Al Gore said he found the Bush decision "disappointing" and said he did not think it was comparable to Clinton's pardons."It's different because in this case the person involved is charged with activities that involved knowledge of what his superiors in the White House did," Gore said on NBC's "Today" show Thursday. See the rest of the story here http://news.aol.com/story/_a/white-house-fires-back-at-clintons/20070705155709990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
What hypocricy. My pardons are better than yours because your unpopular. What kind of stuff is that.
New ship in the US Navy
USS New York It was built with 24 tons of scrap steel from the World Trade Center .It is the fifth in a new class of warship - designed for missions that include special operations against terrorists. It will carry a crew of 360 sailors and 700 combat-ready Marines to be delivered ashore by helicopters and assault craft. Steel from the World Trade Ce nter was melted down in a foundry in Amite , LA to cast the ship's bow section. When it was poured into the molds on Sept 9, 2003, "those big rough steelworkers treated it with total reverence," recalled Navy Capt. Kevin Wensing, who was there. "It was a spiritual moment for everybody there." Junior Chavers, foundry operations manager, said that when the trade center steel first arrived, he touched it with his hand and the "hair on my neck stood up." "It had a big meaning to it for all of us," he said. "They knocked us down. They can't keep us down. We're going to be back." The ship's motto? "Never Forget"
I got this in an email. It's funny how somthing good can come from somthing so horrible. God bless the US Navy and all other branches in the United States Armed forces.
I got this in an email. It's funny how somthing good can come from somthing so horrible. God bless the US Navy and all other branches in the United States Armed forces.
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Al Gore's son arrested
LAGUNA NIGUEL, Calif. (AP) - Al Gore’s son was arrested early Wednesday on suspicion of possessing marijuana and prescription drugs after deputies pulled him over for speeding, authorities said.
Al Gore III, 24, was driving a blue Toyota Prius about 100 mph on the San Diego Freeway when he was pulled over at about 2:15 a.m., Sheriff’s Department spokesman Jim Amormino said.
The deputies said they smelled marijuana and searched the car, Amormino said. They found less than an ounce of marijuana along with Xanax, Valium, Vicodin and Adderall, which is used for attention deficit disorder, he said.
“He does not have a prescription for any of those drugs,” Amormino said.
Gore was being held in the men’s central jail in Santa Ana on $20,000 bail.
At least he was driving a hybrid lol.
Al Gore III, 24, was driving a blue Toyota Prius about 100 mph on the San Diego Freeway when he was pulled over at about 2:15 a.m., Sheriff’s Department spokesman Jim Amormino said.
The deputies said they smelled marijuana and searched the car, Amormino said. They found less than an ounce of marijuana along with Xanax, Valium, Vicodin and Adderall, which is used for attention deficit disorder, he said.
“He does not have a prescription for any of those drugs,” Amormino said.
Gore was being held in the men’s central jail in Santa Ana on $20,000 bail.
At least he was driving a hybrid lol.
Monday, July 2, 2007
invisible children
Although the film focuses primarily on children, the entire area of Northern Uganda has been ravaged by this 20-year-long war. Roughly 95% of the people in Northern Ugandan districts forced to evacuate their homes are now living in camps, earning no monetary income, and living in absolute poverty. One quarter of the children in Northern Uganda, over the age of ten, has lost one or both parents due to life in displacement camps – suffering starvation, disease, and nighttime attacks from the LRA.
As conservatives we should be worried about things like this yet liberals are all over it. We are to spread freedom no child should be forced into this.
As conservatives we should be worried about things like this yet liberals are all over it. We are to spread freedom no child should be forced into this.
Dennis Miller
Dennis Miller on 'The Tonight Show With Jay Leno'Feb. 25, 2003
Jay Leno: Let me ask you, war inevitable, what do you got?
Dennis Miller: Listen, we have got to do it soon, just — we've got to mark our turf. I think Iraq is like East Korea. I think you got to send a message to these people over there, and I think this build-up to the war is why we're having all this controversy.
"I would call the French scum bags, but that, of course, would be a disservice to bags filled with scum."
Because the last one, is it just me or did it seem to happen just like that. Was watching CNN one night, the first Gulf War, they are sitting around in the Baghdad hotel, the No Roof Inn or something, and they're watching "the Bachelor," and it's a little harder for the bachelor over there because it's tough to tell who's hot under the Burqua. They had just ordered some hummuus and smores from room service and all of a sudden a gallaga game broke out. The sky was full.
We waited so long here, of course you'll hear a lot of controversy. I think it's time to go in. You think the Elite Republican Guard is really going to stop us? Anybody remember these guys from the last battle? They warned us, you don't want to run into the Elite Republican Guard, they're killing machines. We got 20 miles away from them, all we saw is Roadrunner clouds running off into the distance. They were in Vegas last week opening for Robert Goulet.
I think it's time to start the war. My favorite Afghani war story is the Al Qaeda fighter who is crushed to death by the dissenting humanitarian food pallet. Everybody sitting around in the next life at the Psychotic Algonquin Roundtable swapping tales. What happened to you, Khalid? I saw a shadow, looked up, Del Monte cling peaches coming right at my head. I didn't even have the Kevlar turban on that day.
Listen, it's time to do something. For God's sake, Saddam Hussein is — well, it kills me that so many people are thinking this man — I hear this revisionist stuff now, that he doesn't deserveto be attacked. It's unbelievable to me. I saw Ed Harris one night speaking at a pro-choice — pro-choice rally. Ed Harris the actor said we shouldn't go to war. I was thinking if you can't get your head around the war, why don't you just think of it as choosing to abort Saddam Hussein. Wouldn't that be a rationale that you could possibly —
Listen, we got to take care of ourselves now. I mean who going to protect us? I'm not saying we have to be trigger happy, but let's not be trigger sad either. Who are we going to bank on. You going to rely on the Germans? For god's sake, with the Germans you never know if they're not signing on because they don't believe in it or it's just not on a grand enough scale, you know. The Germans, it's like when Alfred Nobel started giving the peace prize. You know where he made his fortune, dynamite, he invented dynamite. He was so haunted he was going to go to hell, he said at the end, here's 9 million, give out the peace award. That's what the Germans do. They know they've got the skankiest track record on the planet earth so now they'll be obstinate about being pacifists.
Even with bad guys, the Russians, I don't know, I think Putin is on a tight leash right now because of that nerve gas disaster they had in Moscow. Really stop to think about it, if they could take out that many friedlies liberating an opera house, do you really want them flying off your wing in a real war? You know something? The Belgians, you knew they'd waffle?
That brings us to... well, you know where that brings us, to the French. The French, you might as well gas up the dinghy and go fishing with Fredo because you are dead to me, okay. You know something? These pricks are now putting — they're putting swastikas on our flag in France. You've got all those boys buried in Normandy. And after we had the good taste to chisel thearmpit hair off the Statue of Liberty you gave us, you know something, I — always thought that tint was oxdized copper. Little did I know it was green with envy.
You know something, I say we don't let these guys on the war train now. They don't want to be involved, fine. I say the train pulls out, leave them on the platform and say listen you're not allowed to fight with us now. You guys want to get your hands dirty at this late date, you'll have to run them through your own hair.
"If you're in a peace march and the guy next to you has a sign that says Bush is Hitler, forget the peace thing for a second and beat his ass, because he is not Hitler."
You know something, everybody's talking about post-liberation Iraq and who should take care of it. Listen, you know they need the oil and you know there's a lot of dirty paper on the French providing reactor parts that we're going to unearth. I'd have a back channel call from Bush to Chirac and I'd tell him, listen, pal, you know who's going to handle the day-to-day necessities of the noble Iraqi, it's you, my friend. Consierge is a French word, isn't it?
You know something, if they couldn't — I say we invade Iraq and then invade Chirac. You run a pipe -- you run a pipe from the oilfield right over this Eiffel Tower, shoot it up and have the world's biggest oil derrick. We got a picture of it right here. Yeah. Listen, I would call the French scum bags, but that, of course, would be a disservice to bags filled with scum.
I'm just saying listen, I'dlike to have allies too. What's happening in this world right now, we have a competency chasm. We are getting real good at what we do and the whole world is going to hell in a handbasket. As that gap gets wider, they'll hate us more and more and more. We are simultaneously the most hated, feared, loved and admired planet — nation on this planet. In short, we are Frank Sinatra and you know something, the Chairman didn't get to be the Chairman lying down for punks outside theFountainbleu.
Now listen, I don't know what I think of George W. Bush when he first got in, but I've grown fond of the man, and maybe it's the times we live in. They say he's not an environmentalist. But every time I see his ranch on tv, it looks pretty nice. You know something, if we all took care of our own, we'd have a great environment.
I think he ought to take Saddam Hussein on this debate, I like that idea. Because we can't find the guy anyway. Maybe this is a way to flush him out, huh? He can say... — I hate to go back to the Godfather again, but we just sit Bush down and say, listen, we know where the debate is. Halfway through the opening remarks you say you got to take a pee, go into the bathroom, Rumsfeld will tape a gun up under the flusher. You come out, make sure it's there. Rumsfeld, I don't want my president walking out of there with just his dick in his hand. You put two shots into Hussein's head, you drop the gun and walk out of the restaurant. You do not run.
Listen, I do not need a time of war to see peace protestors — and that's fine, peace is fine, dissident is fine, that's the American way, but the Nazi signs have got to stop. If you're in a peace march and the guy next to you has a sign that says Bush is Hitler, forget the peace thing for a second and beat his ass, because he is not Hitler.
You know something, this is — this stuff has got to stop, somebody's got to say something good in this community about this man. I'm starting a new web sit, pro-Bush, called www dot w. And you know something, if you're watching tonight, President Bush, and I'm not sure you are because I got a feeling you watch the national network reruns of "BJ and The Bear," but if you're watching, I want to just say, I think you're doing a hell of a job and I'm proud that you're my president. I want to thank you and wish you Godspeed because you got a tough deal of the cards. I think there are a lot more people out here on your side than you would think.
You know, Jay, I used to be a liberal. You look at what happens in the State of California with untethered liberalism. Everybody in this state in charge now is a Democrat. It's no longer the Andreas Fault, it's Gray Davis's fault. This is what happens when you elect lawyers. Shakespeare said first kill all the lawyers. I've been doing some some thinking, I think we could get away with it because if you kill all of them, at our murder trial, we wouldn't have adequate representation.
While Dennis Miller is a comedian he is also pretty smart on politics
KENNEBUNKPORT, Maine — President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin projected a united front Monday against Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program.
"When Russia and the United States speak along the same lines, it tends to have an effect and therefore I appreciate the Russians' attitude in the United Nations," Bush said. "We're close on recognizing that we got to work together to send a common message."
Putin predicted that "we will continue to be successful" as they work through the U.N. Security Council.
Security Council members have begun discussing a U.S. proposal for sanctions against Iran because of its refusal to stop enriching uranium. The U.S., Russia and their fellow permanent U.N. Security Council members, however, have told Iran they will hold off on new sanctions if it stops expanding its enrichment activities while they seek to restart talks about the program with Tehran. Diplomats say the Iranian government has not yet responded to the proposal.
Putin suggested there would be "further substantial intercourse on this issue."
It was unclear whether the leaders had agreed on methods or merely wanted to gloss over for public consumption any differences on strategy.
Bush and Putin have contrasting views on democracy and missile defense, NATO expansion into Russia's backyard and independence for Kosovo. They both want to stymie Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions, but haven't seen eye-to-eye on how tough to get with Tehran or even whether Iranian missiles currently pose a threat.
On the prickly missile issue, Putin proposed transforming U.S. plans for an Eastern European missile shield into a broader system that would incorporate a radar system in southern Russia and bring more European nations into the decision-making process.
"The relationship of our two countries would be raised to an entirely new level," Putin said, standing alongside Bush on the lawn of the Bush family summer home overlooking the craggy Atlantic shoreline.
Washington is planning to build a new missile defense system based in Poland and the Czech Republic. Putin had said the United States "overstepped its national borders" in every way and has threatened to reposition Russian rockets in retaliation.
Last month, Putin surprised Bush in Germany by proposing a Soviet-era early warning radar in Azerbaijan as a substitute for the radar and interceptors the United States wants to place in Poland and the Czech Republic. Washington has been clear it doubts the Azerbaijan facility is up to becoming a substitute.
Bush called the Russian leader's latest missile defense idea "very sincere" and "very innovative."
However, the president said, "I think the Czech Republic and Poland need to be an integral part of the system."
Earlier, Bush and the Russian leader piled into a powerful speedboat navigated by Bush's father — former President George H.W. Bush. Under a bright morning sunshine, Putin and the Bushes roamed close to the shoreline around the Bush family's oceanfront estate for about an hour and a half.
TO see two of the worlds most powerful men band together in a time like this is good. I hope America and Russia can remain together on this issue but i don't think we'll ever fully trust each other.
"When Russia and the United States speak along the same lines, it tends to have an effect and therefore I appreciate the Russians' attitude in the United Nations," Bush said. "We're close on recognizing that we got to work together to send a common message."
Putin predicted that "we will continue to be successful" as they work through the U.N. Security Council.
Security Council members have begun discussing a U.S. proposal for sanctions against Iran because of its refusal to stop enriching uranium. The U.S., Russia and their fellow permanent U.N. Security Council members, however, have told Iran they will hold off on new sanctions if it stops expanding its enrichment activities while they seek to restart talks about the program with Tehran. Diplomats say the Iranian government has not yet responded to the proposal.
Putin suggested there would be "further substantial intercourse on this issue."
It was unclear whether the leaders had agreed on methods or merely wanted to gloss over for public consumption any differences on strategy.
Bush and Putin have contrasting views on democracy and missile defense, NATO expansion into Russia's backyard and independence for Kosovo. They both want to stymie Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions, but haven't seen eye-to-eye on how tough to get with Tehran or even whether Iranian missiles currently pose a threat.
On the prickly missile issue, Putin proposed transforming U.S. plans for an Eastern European missile shield into a broader system that would incorporate a radar system in southern Russia and bring more European nations into the decision-making process.
"The relationship of our two countries would be raised to an entirely new level," Putin said, standing alongside Bush on the lawn of the Bush family summer home overlooking the craggy Atlantic shoreline.
Washington is planning to build a new missile defense system based in Poland and the Czech Republic. Putin had said the United States "overstepped its national borders" in every way and has threatened to reposition Russian rockets in retaliation.
Last month, Putin surprised Bush in Germany by proposing a Soviet-era early warning radar in Azerbaijan as a substitute for the radar and interceptors the United States wants to place in Poland and the Czech Republic. Washington has been clear it doubts the Azerbaijan facility is up to becoming a substitute.
Bush called the Russian leader's latest missile defense idea "very sincere" and "very innovative."
However, the president said, "I think the Czech Republic and Poland need to be an integral part of the system."
Earlier, Bush and the Russian leader piled into a powerful speedboat navigated by Bush's father — former President George H.W. Bush. Under a bright morning sunshine, Putin and the Bushes roamed close to the shoreline around the Bush family's oceanfront estate for about an hour and a half.
TO see two of the worlds most powerful men band together in a time like this is good. I hope America and Russia can remain together on this issue but i don't think we'll ever fully trust each other.
Evolution
Earlier this month, the Kansas board of Education decided to remove the theory of evolution as a requirement in their science curriculum. Rather than teach macro-evolution as fact, they instead are referring to evolution for what it is: a theory. People are up in arms, assuming that the "religious right" is slowly overthrowing the educational system, and arguing that what they see as "the Fact of Evolution" (as opposed to the "Theory of Evolution") should be at the heart of any science curriculum. This seems a bit reactionary, considering that it is science, and not merely religious beliefs, that has revealed that Darwin's theory is unsound. Kansas isn't the first state to cause an uproar over the evolution theory. Two states - Arkansas and Louisiana - tried to mandate equal time for ''creation science'' and ''evolution science.'' The Supreme Court struck this down, and many argue that we should not equate the two theories in any fashion, because science and religion can never, and will never, mix. Why do so many people treat religion and science as opposite ends of the spectrum? Polls consistently show that at least 44% of Americans believe God created life as described in Genesis, and a roughly equal percentage accept evolution but think God had a hand in guiding it. Only about 10% believe in strict evolution, unaided by external forces. (LA Times, Monday, July 12, 1999 Home Edition Section: PART A) And in spite of current and past controversies over science vs. religion, both continue to thrive. Why do the pure evolutionists continue to dismiss the beliefs of creationists as merely superstitious theory without ever doing an in-depth study of Biblical writings? And conversely, why do Biblical scholars rely on popular press articles for their scientific knowledge? The current dismissive attitude of pure evolutionists toward creationists is odd, considering that Darwin himself considered the existence of a Creator. Obviously, those advocating pure evolution are uncomfortable with the concept of a Divine Being as a Creator, even though the theory which they adamantly defend includes such a Creator. The Harvard University Professor Stephen Jay Gould, who has recently been making the talk show circuit as a proponent of Darwin's theory of Evolution, has quoted the closing lines of Darwin's The Origin of Species in two essays he wrote for Natural History magazine, and in both cases he omitted the words "having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one." One has to wonder why Gould must eliminate some of Darwin's own words to fit a theory he passionately defends. On the other hand, why are many Biblical scholars afraid to delve into current scientific research? Perhaps they are afraid that science could challenge, or even disprove, their religious beliefs? Yet the pursuit of scientific knowledge and holding religious beliefs aren't mutually exclusive. In The Science of God, the distinguished physicist and Biblical scholar Gerald L. Shroeder (formerly of the physics department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology) shows striking parallels between a variety of Biblical teachings and current scientific theory. He computes the time of the creation as recorded in Genesis in terms of cosmic time, and finds a surprisingly good correlation between the Earth-based time of 6 days and a universal time of 15 to 16 billion years. There is no possible way for the 6 days of creation to be measured in Earth-time since for the first two days there wasn't any earth. The Biblical calendar separates time before Adam from time after Adam - or Earth-time. Scientists are fond of referring to their theories as facts - yet from the time of Aristotle until the 1960's, most scientists dismissed the theory popular among Biblical believers that the universe had a beginning. Scientists steadfastly maintained the fact that there was no beginning to our universe - that it was eternal. But today Big Bang is described as the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe. In this theory, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion. Although the Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, it's likely to remain unproven. However, if scientists were wrong about the beginning of the universe, isn't it possible they were also wrong about the beginning of life? For years Darwin's theory of evolution has been accepted in spite of the fact that fossil records do not corroborate his theory, and in some cases contradict it. For instance, Darwin claimed that we evolved from the simplest of life forms, from invertebrates to vertebrates, and so on. Such an occurrence would have required an extensive amount of time for transitions to take place, and fossil records would then show transitions from simplistic to complex life. We should be able to complete the story, as it were, from simple to complex. Micro-evolution, or evolution within a phylum, does occur. However, it is inter-phylum development, the heart of the Darwin's evolutionary theory, that has been proven to be little more than wishful thinking. We have fossils of simplistic life forms and fossils of complex life forms, but no fossils showing a macro-evolutionary change from simplistic to complex. The entire theory of evolution demands that they exist and none have been found as of yet. Throughout the entire fossil record, no midway transitional fossil has been found; that is, no trace of an animal that was half the predecessor and successor, except one: the Archaeopteryx, which existed 150 million years ago in the late Jurassic period. Six were found between 1861 and 1987. They have feathers on wings and a wishbone. This creature though, also had jaws with teeth, not a beak, and claws on its wing-liked feet, so it is somewhat like a reptile. This is considered an example of the transitional form in modern evolution from reptile to bird. It is the only one ever found. Some scientists have claimed they have found transitional fossils, but later these have been shown to be hoaxes. Many times scientists mix fossils of one creature with another. One example of a supposed transitional fossil combined pig bones and human bones. Based on past experiences, one might even consider that the Archaeopteryx is also a hoax. Ironically, in the Bible there is just one animal listed in two categories in the Old Testament - once in the reptile category and once in the bird category. This Biblical reference does not scientifically prove the existence of the Archaeopteryx, but, all religious beliefs aside, isn't it interesting that the one and only one "evolutionary" animal just so happened to be mentioned in the Bible in two categories -- something that was written thousands of years prior to the fossil discovery. (1) In Darwin's The Origin of Species we are told to ignore the evidence of the fossil records and to fill in the gaps with our imagination. "Fill in the gaps" with imagination? Is Darwin suggesting that we have faith in his theory, and ignore scientific evidence in favor of our imagination? Is "filling in the gaps" scientifically sound? As our scientific knowledge has increased, the stability of Darwin's theory of evolution has decreased. This is not to say that one day, we won't find something that again bolsters evolutionary theory, but in light of current scientific progress, wouldn't dropping evolutionary theory as a factual educational requirement be considered progress, not regression? Why would we continue to teach something that has an increasing amount of scientific data building up against it, as fact? The belief that Darwin's theory of evolution is unstable is based on scientific evidence, not religious beliefs. In addition, eliminating evolutionary theory as the "heart" of science curriculum does not mean it should be replaced with religious theory. If certain religious beliefs coincide with scientific theory, that doesn't make the theories invalid, but just all the more intriguing. However, continuing to teach a theory as fact, despite scientific evidence, simply because it counters certain religious beliefs, is teaching ignorance, not scientific fact.
A chinese scientist once said that in china you can criticise Darwin but not the government but in America you can criticize the government but not Darwin.
Why is this, why can we not teach two competing theories two our children why must we choose one. You are supposed to teach your children their core values any way if you are atheist you can teach your child evolution at home. If you are religious you can teach your child creationism at home. We are giving too much power to the government by allowing them to teach our children what is right.
A chinese scientist once said that in china you can criticise Darwin but not the government but in America you can criticize the government but not Darwin.
Why is this, why can we not teach two competing theories two our children why must we choose one. You are supposed to teach your children their core values any way if you are atheist you can teach your child evolution at home. If you are religious you can teach your child creationism at home. We are giving too much power to the government by allowing them to teach our children what is right.
Last month we reviewed a web site that gave the judge’s decision in a court case that decided that creation science could not be taught in public schools because creation science is “not science.” Lothar pointed out that the court used a definition of science that was so biased that it precluded creation from the outset. Given that definition of science, there was no way any lawyer could have won the case for creation.
The court used the following (flawed and biased) definition of true science.
More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are:
It is guided by natural law;
It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
It is testable against the empirical world;
Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
It is falsifiable. (Ruse and other science witnesses).
But, by the definitions used by that court, Darwinian evolution isn’t scientific, either. Here is the court’s definition of evolution.
``Evolution-science'' means the scientific evidences for evolution and inferences from those scientific evidences. Evolution-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate:
Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered matter and emergence of life from nonlife;
The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds;
Emergence by mutation and natural selection of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds;
Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes;
Explanation of the earth's geology and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism; and
An inception several billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life.
That’s an accurate definition of the theory of evolution. It covers the entire molecules-to-man process generally taught in schools. As we have noted in a past newsletter, it depends more on inference than experimentation.
Let’s compare these six major aspects of the theory of evolution against the five-part definition of science used by the court.
Origin of LifeIs “Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered matter and emergence of life from nonlife” guided by natural laws? What natural law creates order from disorder? What natural law creates life from death? There are no such natural laws. Evolution fails this test.
Is “Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered matter and emergence of life from nonlife” correctly explained by natural law? It isn’t explained by any known natural law. Evolution fails this test.
Is “Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered matter and emergence of life from nonlife” confirmed by tests in the empirical world? We don’t know of any experiments that have shown this. We only know of experiments that have shown it can’t be true. Evolution fails this test.
Is “Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered matter and emergence of life from nonlife” tentative? In other words, “Are evolutionists willing to admit that the universe didn’t arise naturally from disordered matter, and that life didn’t arise naturally from non-life?” Certainly the evolutionists who took this matter to court won’t admit this. Evolutionists categorically reject all non-natural explanations for the origin of the world and life on it. Evolution fails this test.
Is “Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered matter and emergence of life from nonlife” falsifiable? We know of no evolutionist who has ever said, “If you can do this or that experiment and get this or that result, then we will admit that the theory that order arose from disorder has been falsified.” What would a scientist have to do to falsify the theory that life arose from nonlife? How many spark-in-the-soup experiments have to fail before evolutionists will admit that organic chemicals can’t form living cells? If Louis Pasteur’s experiments didn’t falsify life from nonlife, then nothing will. Evolution fails this test.
The origin of life component of the theory of evolution fails all five of the court’s criteria for being scientific.
Origin of KindsIs “The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds” guided by natural laws? Certainly mutation and natural selection bring about limited variation in existing kinds; but there is no evidence that mutation and natural selection have ever brought about a new kind from simple earlier kinds. Evolution fails this test.
Is “The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds” explained by natural law? No, it isn’t. There is no natural explanation of how new genetic information required to produce complex kinds from simple earlier kinds comes from natural mutation and natural selection. Evolution fails this test.
Is “The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds” confirmed by tests in the empirical world? Breeding experiments have shown that natural selection can produce a limited variation in one kind. Experiments on generations of fruit flies have shown that random modifications of genes can cause a loss of information resulting in inferior mutant varieties of fruit flies, but no new kinds of insects. In these experiments, scientists have not been able to use artificial selection to create a new kind of insect because mutation hasn’t produced anything suitable for selection.
Only when a scientist uses unnatural processes to remove existing genetic information (that has a known function) from the DNA of one species, and uses it to replace part of the DNA in another species, have new kinds of living organisms been produced. In these experiments the “gene jockey” plays the role of an intelligent designer using a “supernatural” process. Scientists have to resort to intelligent molecular rearrangement because mutation and natural selection is not sufficient to bring about new kinds. Evolution fails this test.
Is “The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds” tentative? In other words, “Will evolutionists ever accept that new kinds arose through any natural process other than mutation and natural selection?” Well, scientists used to believe in Lamarkian evolution (where parents somehow “willed” their children to be better suited for survival) before they accepted Darwinian evolution. Now we are starting to hear theories about how bacteria can somehow consciously make their offspring evolve to resist antibiotics, so maybe Lamarkian evolution just lost a battle and will eventually win the war. Surveys and news stories that we have reported upon in the past say that some good scientists are rejecting evolution of purely scientific grounds. Therefore, evolution passes this test.
Is “The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds” falsifiable? Experiment after experiment has failed to show that forced mutation and artificial selection can create any new living kinds from existing earlier kinds. Modern understanding of genetics and information theory shows that new kinds can’t arise from existing kinds. This should be sufficient for falsification, but apparently evolutionists don’t think it is. What more could a scientist possibly do to falsify this doctrine? We don’t know of anything. Evolution fails this test.
The origin of kinds component of the theory of evolution fails four out of five of the court’s criteria for being sceintific.
Origin of ManIs “Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes” guided by natural laws that really exist? There are no natural laws that turn apes into men. It is true some men have made monkeys of themselves, but only figuratively. Evolution fails this test.
Is “Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes” correctly explained by natural law? No. How can it be, since there are no such natural laws? Evolution fails this test.
Is “Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes” confirmed by tests in the empirical world? Absolutely not. Evolution fails this test.
Is “Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes” tentative? Will evolutionists ever believe we evolved from pigs? We don’t think so. No matter what the evidence, evolutionists will dogmatically insist that men and apes evolved from a common ancestor. Evolution fails this test.
Is “Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes” falsifiable? What experiment could anyone do that would prove, to the satisfaction of an evolutionist, that men and apes did not evolve from a common ancestor. If you know of one, we would love for you to tell us what it is. Evolution fails this test.
The origin of man component of the theory of evolution fails all five of the court’s criteria for being scientific.
Origin and Age of the EarthIs “Explanation of the earth's geology and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism; and an inception several billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life” guided by natural laws? This is debatable. Sedimentary rocks may have been formed over long periods of time at the bottom of an ocean. The existence of fossils in these rocks more strongly suggests that they were formed rapidly, and not uniformly slow, however. But, we must admit that there are natural laws that could be used to explain present geologic formations. Although we don’t believe these natural processes did form the present geologic formations, we admit that the explanation is natural and possible. Evolution passes this test.
Is “Explanation of the earth's geology and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism; and an inception several billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life” correctly explained by natural law? We don’t think so, but some people do. Since we are kind, generous, and magnanimous, we will give them a pass on this one. Evolution passes this test.
Is “Explanation of the earth's geology and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism; and an inception several billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life” confirmed by tests in the empirical world? The young-earth interpretations of geological evidence tend to be as good, or better, than the old-earth interpretations, so one really can’t say that the old-earth explanations have been confirmed by laboratory tests. There have been no tests that have proved that life has been around for hundreds of millions of years. Evolution fails this test.
Is “Explanation of the earth's geology and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism; and an inception several billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life” tentative? Yes, it is. Evolutionists are always accepting new dates for the formation of the earth and appearance of particular life forms (as long as those dates aren’t dangerously close to 6,000 years). Evolution passes this test.
Is “Explanation of the earth's geology and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism; and an inception several billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life” falsifiable,? There is abundant evidence for a young age of the earth. Catastrophic (rather than uniformitarian) formation of some rock formation is gaining acceptance. But we know of no test that any scientist could do that would prove (to the satisfaction of evolutionists) the Earth is young. Therefore, this doctrine is not falsifiable. Evolution fails this test.
The origin and age of the Earth components of the theory of evolution fail two out of five of the court’s criteria for being scientific.
The Test ResultsNearly every aspect of the definition that the court used for evolution fails the court’s test for being scientific. Those few tests it does pass, it passes more by our generosity than by its own merit. If we felt more argumentative, we could probably prove in a court of law that they don’t really pass those tests either.
If being non-scientific is grounds for not teaching a subject in public schools, then evolution should not be taught, either.
Evolution is not scientific. Science is against evolution.
The court used the following (flawed and biased) definition of true science.
More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are:
It is guided by natural law;
It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
It is testable against the empirical world;
Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
It is falsifiable. (Ruse and other science witnesses).
But, by the definitions used by that court, Darwinian evolution isn’t scientific, either. Here is the court’s definition of evolution.
``Evolution-science'' means the scientific evidences for evolution and inferences from those scientific evidences. Evolution-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate:
Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered matter and emergence of life from nonlife;
The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds;
Emergence by mutation and natural selection of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds;
Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes;
Explanation of the earth's geology and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism; and
An inception several billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life.
That’s an accurate definition of the theory of evolution. It covers the entire molecules-to-man process generally taught in schools. As we have noted in a past newsletter, it depends more on inference than experimentation.
Let’s compare these six major aspects of the theory of evolution against the five-part definition of science used by the court.
Origin of LifeIs “Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered matter and emergence of life from nonlife” guided by natural laws? What natural law creates order from disorder? What natural law creates life from death? There are no such natural laws. Evolution fails this test.
Is “Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered matter and emergence of life from nonlife” correctly explained by natural law? It isn’t explained by any known natural law. Evolution fails this test.
Is “Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered matter and emergence of life from nonlife” confirmed by tests in the empirical world? We don’t know of any experiments that have shown this. We only know of experiments that have shown it can’t be true. Evolution fails this test.
Is “Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered matter and emergence of life from nonlife” tentative? In other words, “Are evolutionists willing to admit that the universe didn’t arise naturally from disordered matter, and that life didn’t arise naturally from non-life?” Certainly the evolutionists who took this matter to court won’t admit this. Evolutionists categorically reject all non-natural explanations for the origin of the world and life on it. Evolution fails this test.
Is “Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered matter and emergence of life from nonlife” falsifiable? We know of no evolutionist who has ever said, “If you can do this or that experiment and get this or that result, then we will admit that the theory that order arose from disorder has been falsified.” What would a scientist have to do to falsify the theory that life arose from nonlife? How many spark-in-the-soup experiments have to fail before evolutionists will admit that organic chemicals can’t form living cells? If Louis Pasteur’s experiments didn’t falsify life from nonlife, then nothing will. Evolution fails this test.
The origin of life component of the theory of evolution fails all five of the court’s criteria for being scientific.
Origin of KindsIs “The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds” guided by natural laws? Certainly mutation and natural selection bring about limited variation in existing kinds; but there is no evidence that mutation and natural selection have ever brought about a new kind from simple earlier kinds. Evolution fails this test.
Is “The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds” explained by natural law? No, it isn’t. There is no natural explanation of how new genetic information required to produce complex kinds from simple earlier kinds comes from natural mutation and natural selection. Evolution fails this test.
Is “The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds” confirmed by tests in the empirical world? Breeding experiments have shown that natural selection can produce a limited variation in one kind. Experiments on generations of fruit flies have shown that random modifications of genes can cause a loss of information resulting in inferior mutant varieties of fruit flies, but no new kinds of insects. In these experiments, scientists have not been able to use artificial selection to create a new kind of insect because mutation hasn’t produced anything suitable for selection.
Only when a scientist uses unnatural processes to remove existing genetic information (that has a known function) from the DNA of one species, and uses it to replace part of the DNA in another species, have new kinds of living organisms been produced. In these experiments the “gene jockey” plays the role of an intelligent designer using a “supernatural” process. Scientists have to resort to intelligent molecular rearrangement because mutation and natural selection is not sufficient to bring about new kinds. Evolution fails this test.
Is “The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds” tentative? In other words, “Will evolutionists ever accept that new kinds arose through any natural process other than mutation and natural selection?” Well, scientists used to believe in Lamarkian evolution (where parents somehow “willed” their children to be better suited for survival) before they accepted Darwinian evolution. Now we are starting to hear theories about how bacteria can somehow consciously make their offspring evolve to resist antibiotics, so maybe Lamarkian evolution just lost a battle and will eventually win the war. Surveys and news stories that we have reported upon in the past say that some good scientists are rejecting evolution of purely scientific grounds. Therefore, evolution passes this test.
Is “The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds” falsifiable? Experiment after experiment has failed to show that forced mutation and artificial selection can create any new living kinds from existing earlier kinds. Modern understanding of genetics and information theory shows that new kinds can’t arise from existing kinds. This should be sufficient for falsification, but apparently evolutionists don’t think it is. What more could a scientist possibly do to falsify this doctrine? We don’t know of anything. Evolution fails this test.
The origin of kinds component of the theory of evolution fails four out of five of the court’s criteria for being sceintific.
Origin of ManIs “Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes” guided by natural laws that really exist? There are no natural laws that turn apes into men. It is true some men have made monkeys of themselves, but only figuratively. Evolution fails this test.
Is “Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes” correctly explained by natural law? No. How can it be, since there are no such natural laws? Evolution fails this test.
Is “Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes” confirmed by tests in the empirical world? Absolutely not. Evolution fails this test.
Is “Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes” tentative? Will evolutionists ever believe we evolved from pigs? We don’t think so. No matter what the evidence, evolutionists will dogmatically insist that men and apes evolved from a common ancestor. Evolution fails this test.
Is “Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes” falsifiable? What experiment could anyone do that would prove, to the satisfaction of an evolutionist, that men and apes did not evolve from a common ancestor. If you know of one, we would love for you to tell us what it is. Evolution fails this test.
The origin of man component of the theory of evolution fails all five of the court’s criteria for being scientific.
Origin and Age of the EarthIs “Explanation of the earth's geology and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism; and an inception several billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life” guided by natural laws? This is debatable. Sedimentary rocks may have been formed over long periods of time at the bottom of an ocean. The existence of fossils in these rocks more strongly suggests that they were formed rapidly, and not uniformly slow, however. But, we must admit that there are natural laws that could be used to explain present geologic formations. Although we don’t believe these natural processes did form the present geologic formations, we admit that the explanation is natural and possible. Evolution passes this test.
Is “Explanation of the earth's geology and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism; and an inception several billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life” correctly explained by natural law? We don’t think so, but some people do. Since we are kind, generous, and magnanimous, we will give them a pass on this one. Evolution passes this test.
Is “Explanation of the earth's geology and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism; and an inception several billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life” confirmed by tests in the empirical world? The young-earth interpretations of geological evidence tend to be as good, or better, than the old-earth interpretations, so one really can’t say that the old-earth explanations have been confirmed by laboratory tests. There have been no tests that have proved that life has been around for hundreds of millions of years. Evolution fails this test.
Is “Explanation of the earth's geology and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism; and an inception several billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life” tentative? Yes, it is. Evolutionists are always accepting new dates for the formation of the earth and appearance of particular life forms (as long as those dates aren’t dangerously close to 6,000 years). Evolution passes this test.
Is “Explanation of the earth's geology and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism; and an inception several billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life” falsifiable,? There is abundant evidence for a young age of the earth. Catastrophic (rather than uniformitarian) formation of some rock formation is gaining acceptance. But we know of no test that any scientist could do that would prove (to the satisfaction of evolutionists) the Earth is young. Therefore, this doctrine is not falsifiable. Evolution fails this test.
The origin and age of the Earth components of the theory of evolution fail two out of five of the court’s criteria for being scientific.
The Test ResultsNearly every aspect of the definition that the court used for evolution fails the court’s test for being scientific. Those few tests it does pass, it passes more by our generosity than by its own merit. If we felt more argumentative, we could probably prove in a court of law that they don’t really pass those tests either.
If being non-scientific is grounds for not teaching a subject in public schools, then evolution should not be taught, either.
Evolution is not scientific. Science is against evolution.
Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson.
Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson.
As former Republican Senator Fred Thompson ponders a late entry into the 2008 Presidential race, the actor's biggest advantage just might be that people feel they already know exactly what he would be like as Commander in Chief.
The Watergate lawyer, Tennessee senator and 2008 Republican presidential hopeful has built an impressive resume of gruff yet avuncular supporting roles on TV and film
The Second Republican Debate
The long shots threw some jabs and the favorites played defense. Mark Halperin rates each of the performances
Searching for Another Reagan
Conservative voters are feeling glum about the Republican Presidential front-runners. What they really should be lamenting is the collapse of their pet issue: national security
Even before his Law & Order depiction of district attorney Arthur Branch, Thompson nearly always played variations on the same character — a straight-talking, tough-minded, wise Southerner — basically a version of what his supporters say is his true political self. And he is often cast as a person in power — a military official, the White House chief of staff, the head of the CIA, a Senator or even the President of the U.S. It could be called the Cary Grant approach to politics. As the legendary actor once explained his own style and success, "I pretended to be somebody I wanted to be, and I finally became that person."
On the strength of that visibility and image, Thompson, 64, has vaulted in public-opinion polls to within striking distance of the leading Republican candidates. In the latest TIME poll, he's at 10%, matching Mitt Romney. But Thompson is under no illusion that winning the White House would be easy, despite (or perhaps because of) his frequent acknowledgment that "certain doors have opened to me from time to time in my life."
That is not to say Thompson hasn't had to overcome many personal hardships — a marriage while in high school after conceiving a child with his teenage girlfriend, a subsequent divorce, a diagnosis of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma 2 1/2 years ago and, perhaps most traumatic, the sudden death of his daughter Betsy in 2002 from an accidental overdose of prescription drugs. He is now married to a Republican political strategist and has two small children.
Born in Alabama and raised in Tennessee, Thompson, the son of a used-car salesman, had no family ties to big-time politics or Hollywood, but his charisma — and luck — eventually helped him succeed in both. After putting himself through college at Memphis State and law school at Vanderbilt, he spent several years in private practice and as a prosecutor and then went on to Washington in 1973 to work on the Watergate investigation. His foray into acting began accidentally. Film director Roger Donaldson interviewed the young lawyer while doing research for a movie about a corruption case and offered Thompson the chance to play himself. His political career also took advantage of good timing. When Al Gore vacated his Senate seat, Thompson entered the race for it and won handily, after driving his trademark red pickup truck all over Tennessee.
The single most compelling feature of a Thompson candidacy would be his magnetism. A natural storyteller, he speaks with a relaxed cadence and unhurried confidence, peppering his remarks with language such as "fella" and "bad guys," pausing expertly to make a point, relish an applause line, set up a joke. He is most effective when he makes fun of the superficial glamour of Los Angeles and the tangled hypocrisy of D.C. In a recent appearance, he supplied a cheeky anecdote about a fellow Senator coming up to him after he gave his first speech on the Senate floor, which was on the topic of "having Congress abide by the laws that everybody else had to abide by — a novel concept at the time." His colleague, however, merely wanted to ask him about the submarine from the film The Hunt for Red October.
Thompson is most often compared to Ronald Reagan, and the comparison is apt. Neither would be mistaken for an intellectual, but both got plenty of mileage out of regularly concealing their smarts. Both placed an emphasis on grand, classic American themes, and both offered a folksy way of describing the holy trinity of conservative dogma (lower taxes, less government and a strong national defense).
But unlike the genial Reagan, Thompson's manner can be brusque and his most natural expression is a scowl. Critics question his endurance: he has a reputation for resisting a demanding schedule and is undisciplined as a campaigner. In a recent speech to California Republicans, Thompson began with some jokes that were well received but then abandoned his carefully written text and rambled through remarks that left many in the audience underwhelmed. His high school football coach in Lawrenceburg, Tenn., told the Nashville Tennessean, "He was smart, but he was lazy. He probably could have been a straight-A student if he'd applied himself." With eight years in the Senate, his legislative record was thin. Says a former adviser: "While the Senate is filled with ambitious men who aren't in a rush to get home at night, Senator Thompson kept a lean formal schedule, did the bare minimum to get by and then hightailed [it] to the Prime Rib or the Capital Grille."
But these critics may be underestimating his strengths. As with Hillary Clinton, this is not his first rodeo (a phrase that rolls smoothly in his accent). Like Barack Obama, he is poised and compelling. Like Rudy Giuliani, he can fall back on bold self-confidence in the face of tricky questions. Like John McCain, he can appeal to independents. And like George W. Bush in 2000, he presents a decided equanimity toward his future. As he told an interviewer, "One advantage you have in not having this as [a] lifelong ambition is that if it turns out that your calculation is wrong, it's not the end of the world."
Fred Thompson could be a great president. I just want to see more of him in debate. He has entered late but from the buzz i've heard about him I don't think it really matters.
Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson.
As former Republican Senator Fred Thompson ponders a late entry into the 2008 Presidential race, the actor's biggest advantage just might be that people feel they already know exactly what he would be like as Commander in Chief.
The Watergate lawyer, Tennessee senator and 2008 Republican presidential hopeful has built an impressive resume of gruff yet avuncular supporting roles on TV and film
The Second Republican Debate
The long shots threw some jabs and the favorites played defense. Mark Halperin rates each of the performances
Searching for Another Reagan
Conservative voters are feeling glum about the Republican Presidential front-runners. What they really should be lamenting is the collapse of their pet issue: national security
Even before his Law & Order depiction of district attorney Arthur Branch, Thompson nearly always played variations on the same character — a straight-talking, tough-minded, wise Southerner — basically a version of what his supporters say is his true political self. And he is often cast as a person in power — a military official, the White House chief of staff, the head of the CIA, a Senator or even the President of the U.S. It could be called the Cary Grant approach to politics. As the legendary actor once explained his own style and success, "I pretended to be somebody I wanted to be, and I finally became that person."
On the strength of that visibility and image, Thompson, 64, has vaulted in public-opinion polls to within striking distance of the leading Republican candidates. In the latest TIME poll, he's at 10%, matching Mitt Romney. But Thompson is under no illusion that winning the White House would be easy, despite (or perhaps because of) his frequent acknowledgment that "certain doors have opened to me from time to time in my life."
That is not to say Thompson hasn't had to overcome many personal hardships — a marriage while in high school after conceiving a child with his teenage girlfriend, a subsequent divorce, a diagnosis of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma 2 1/2 years ago and, perhaps most traumatic, the sudden death of his daughter Betsy in 2002 from an accidental overdose of prescription drugs. He is now married to a Republican political strategist and has two small children.
Born in Alabama and raised in Tennessee, Thompson, the son of a used-car salesman, had no family ties to big-time politics or Hollywood, but his charisma — and luck — eventually helped him succeed in both. After putting himself through college at Memphis State and law school at Vanderbilt, he spent several years in private practice and as a prosecutor and then went on to Washington in 1973 to work on the Watergate investigation. His foray into acting began accidentally. Film director Roger Donaldson interviewed the young lawyer while doing research for a movie about a corruption case and offered Thompson the chance to play himself. His political career also took advantage of good timing. When Al Gore vacated his Senate seat, Thompson entered the race for it and won handily, after driving his trademark red pickup truck all over Tennessee.
The single most compelling feature of a Thompson candidacy would be his magnetism. A natural storyteller, he speaks with a relaxed cadence and unhurried confidence, peppering his remarks with language such as "fella" and "bad guys," pausing expertly to make a point, relish an applause line, set up a joke. He is most effective when he makes fun of the superficial glamour of Los Angeles and the tangled hypocrisy of D.C. In a recent appearance, he supplied a cheeky anecdote about a fellow Senator coming up to him after he gave his first speech on the Senate floor, which was on the topic of "having Congress abide by the laws that everybody else had to abide by — a novel concept at the time." His colleague, however, merely wanted to ask him about the submarine from the film The Hunt for Red October.
Thompson is most often compared to Ronald Reagan, and the comparison is apt. Neither would be mistaken for an intellectual, but both got plenty of mileage out of regularly concealing their smarts. Both placed an emphasis on grand, classic American themes, and both offered a folksy way of describing the holy trinity of conservative dogma (lower taxes, less government and a strong national defense).
But unlike the genial Reagan, Thompson's manner can be brusque and his most natural expression is a scowl. Critics question his endurance: he has a reputation for resisting a demanding schedule and is undisciplined as a campaigner. In a recent speech to California Republicans, Thompson began with some jokes that were well received but then abandoned his carefully written text and rambled through remarks that left many in the audience underwhelmed. His high school football coach in Lawrenceburg, Tenn., told the Nashville Tennessean, "He was smart, but he was lazy. He probably could have been a straight-A student if he'd applied himself." With eight years in the Senate, his legislative record was thin. Says a former adviser: "While the Senate is filled with ambitious men who aren't in a rush to get home at night, Senator Thompson kept a lean formal schedule, did the bare minimum to get by and then hightailed [it] to the Prime Rib or the Capital Grille."
But these critics may be underestimating his strengths. As with Hillary Clinton, this is not his first rodeo (a phrase that rolls smoothly in his accent). Like Barack Obama, he is poised and compelling. Like Rudy Giuliani, he can fall back on bold self-confidence in the face of tricky questions. Like John McCain, he can appeal to independents. And like George W. Bush in 2000, he presents a decided equanimity toward his future. As he told an interviewer, "One advantage you have in not having this as [a] lifelong ambition is that if it turns out that your calculation is wrong, it's not the end of the world."
Fred Thompson could be a great president. I just want to see more of him in debate. He has entered late but from the buzz i've heard about him I don't think it really matters.
Terror alert can't stop concert for Diana
By JILL LAWLESS,
LONDON (July 1) - Rockers and royals, including Rod Stewart, Elton John and Princes William and Harry, were taking the stage at London's Wembley Stadium on Sunday to remember Princess Diana almost 10 years after her death in a Paris car crash.
Elton John was on hand for the 'Concert For Diana' at Wembley Stadium in London on Sunday. Sir Elton sang 'Candle in the Wind' at Diana's funeral in 1997.
The concert, organized by Diana's sons, falls on what would have been her 46th birthday. The princess died Aug. 31, 1997, along with her boyfriend Dodi Fayed and their driver when their Mercedes crashed inside the Pont d'Alma tunnel while media photographers pursued them.The memorial concert features music from some of Diana's favorite acts, including Tom Jones and 80s chart-toppers Duran Duran. Younger performers include Kanye West, P. Diddy, Joss Stone and Lily Allen.The two princes were scheduled to address the 65,000-strong crowd from the stage at some point during the show.In an interview with the British Broadcasting Corp., William, 25, acknowledged being nervous."We'll probably be gibbering wrecks by the end of it," he said.
The Show Goes On
Security for the event was being reevaluated after the discovery of two unexploded car bombs in central London on Friday and an attack on Glasgow airport in Scotland on Saturday that involved a Jeep Cherokee in flames slamming into the main terminal.Police said they believed Saturday's attack was linked to the car bombs, and Britain raised its terror alert to "critical" -- the highest possible level. At least 450 officers were to be on duty to police the Diana concert.The show also includes a performance by the English National Ballet and songs by Andrew Lloyd Webber in honor of Diana's love of dance and theater.Diana is remembered for her glamour, for her extensive charity work and for her tempestuous marriage to Prince Charles, heir to the British throne. The pair married in 1981 in a ceremony watched by millions around the world, but divorced in 1996 after admissions of adultery on both sides.William said the concert was a chance for people to "remember all the good things about her because she's not here to defend herself when she gets criticized.""After 10 years, there's been a rumbling of people bringing up the bad, and over time people seem to forget -- or have forgotten -- all the amazing things she did and what an amazing person she was," William said in the interview, which was recorded earlier this month and broadcast Friday.Tickets for the concert cost $90, with proceeds going to causes Diana supported, including land mine and AIDS charities.Harry, 22, said the brothers had asked John to play "Candle in the Wind," the song he played at Diana's funeral in Westminster Abbey. Originally about Marilyn Monroe, its lyrics were reworked in tribute to Diana, and it became a worldwide No. 1 hit in 1997.A memorial service is also planned in London on Aug. 31, the anniversary of Diana's death.
LONDON (July 1) - Rockers and royals, including Rod Stewart, Elton John and Princes William and Harry, were taking the stage at London's Wembley Stadium on Sunday to remember Princess Diana almost 10 years after her death in a Paris car crash.
Elton John was on hand for the 'Concert For Diana' at Wembley Stadium in London on Sunday. Sir Elton sang 'Candle in the Wind' at Diana's funeral in 1997.
The concert, organized by Diana's sons, falls on what would have been her 46th birthday. The princess died Aug. 31, 1997, along with her boyfriend Dodi Fayed and their driver when their Mercedes crashed inside the Pont d'Alma tunnel while media photographers pursued them.The memorial concert features music from some of Diana's favorite acts, including Tom Jones and 80s chart-toppers Duran Duran. Younger performers include Kanye West, P. Diddy, Joss Stone and Lily Allen.The two princes were scheduled to address the 65,000-strong crowd from the stage at some point during the show.In an interview with the British Broadcasting Corp., William, 25, acknowledged being nervous."We'll probably be gibbering wrecks by the end of it," he said.
The Show Goes On
Security for the event was being reevaluated after the discovery of two unexploded car bombs in central London on Friday and an attack on Glasgow airport in Scotland on Saturday that involved a Jeep Cherokee in flames slamming into the main terminal.Police said they believed Saturday's attack was linked to the car bombs, and Britain raised its terror alert to "critical" -- the highest possible level. At least 450 officers were to be on duty to police the Diana concert.The show also includes a performance by the English National Ballet and songs by Andrew Lloyd Webber in honor of Diana's love of dance and theater.Diana is remembered for her glamour, for her extensive charity work and for her tempestuous marriage to Prince Charles, heir to the British throne. The pair married in 1981 in a ceremony watched by millions around the world, but divorced in 1996 after admissions of adultery on both sides.William said the concert was a chance for people to "remember all the good things about her because she's not here to defend herself when she gets criticized.""After 10 years, there's been a rumbling of people bringing up the bad, and over time people seem to forget -- or have forgotten -- all the amazing things she did and what an amazing person she was," William said in the interview, which was recorded earlier this month and broadcast Friday.Tickets for the concert cost $90, with proceeds going to causes Diana supported, including land mine and AIDS charities.Harry, 22, said the brothers had asked John to play "Candle in the Wind," the song he played at Diana's funeral in Westminster Abbey. Originally about Marilyn Monroe, its lyrics were reworked in tribute to Diana, and it became a worldwide No. 1 hit in 1997.A memorial service is also planned in London on Aug. 31, the anniversary of Diana's death.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)