Skip to main content

View Diary: Republican frontrunner for Senate in Montana wants schools to teach creationism (193 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I think you should reread the diary. Hunter (10+ / 0-)

    was not suggesting that this is Rep. Daines' belief, only that his belief might be equivalent to the "giant space turtle" theory.

    In one fell swoop he provides a scenario (not theory) that is even less probable than the current ID scenario and avoids treading on a multitude of toes.

    I'm guessing that you signed up today for the purpose of responding to this diary, since all your comments, so far, have been here. Welcome to Daily Kos. And enjoy reading the DiskWorld series by Terry Pratchett, should you decide you want further background in this area.

    I'm not at all sure, even after reading your comment twice, where you got the "cheap, sensationalist and disingenuous ranting passing for journalism" bit from. This is, as much as anything, an OpEd piece.

    Metaphor is not barred when doing a righteous riff on current news, though it is frowned upon in straight reporting. That Fox cannot be bothered to make the distinction is a separate question.

    At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

    by serendipityisabitch on Fri May 16, 2014 at 03:57:24 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  OK. I re-read the diary. (0+ / 0-)

      And, amazingly enough, although I can't find where I said that the diary SAID Daines believed in the giant turtle theory, you honestly think

      "We can believe that the earth is balanced on the back of a giant space turtle. After we go to space and take pictures that show no turtle there, however, we can no longer "believe" that with any credibility. We don't (most of us) suggest that the turtle is simply invisible. We don't (most of us) say that the turtle only exists when nobody is looking at it. We don't (most of us) suggest that scientists have spirited the turtle away because they don't want us to know the truth about the giant space turtle, or that they are involved in the lucrative cash business of pretending there are no turtles in places that there are turtles. We don't (most of us) do that.

      But some do. If the thermometers say the temperature is rising, they assert all the thermometers in the world must be wrong. If we can measure certain pollutants being output by smokestacks and can measure an increasing number of those very same pollutants throughout the rest of the atmosphere, they claim the two things must of course be disconnected, and that the increasing measured levels of pollution in the atmosphere at large must be because the invisible space turtle is farting. If we can find bones in the ground and determine via the known properties of radioactive decay that they have been there for one or two or ten million years, it is because all of the parts of science that are required to be wrong in order to reach that conclusion are, each and every one of them, coincidentally wrong, and only when applied to fossils—not less controversial things. Then that same science can be right again.

      So we've got yet another actual maker of our laws and decider of the rules of our civilization saying that the space turtle theory must be taught..."

      isn't inferring it?  The wording is disingenuous.  It's dishonest.  It's deceptive.  And it's unworthy of being called journalism.  Calling it metaphor or "a righteous riff" is cute word-play, but that's really all it is.  Hunter has a perfect right to write that way.  Absolutely.  It's just the kind of writing I expect from Fox.  I would have hoped for someone setting their sights a little higher.

      •  Steve, it isn't journalism. It wasn't intended to (10+ / 0-)

        be journalism. Editorial opinion has never been journalism, though Fox has tried its level best to blur the distinction for years now.

        The distinction, or at least what I hope is the distinction, is that the audience that Hunter is writing for knows that there is a difference, and is not going to get caught up in any attempt to conflate it with "fact".

        And no, it isn't inferring it. Only inferring that the "space turtle" scenario is just as reasonable as Intelligent Design or Creationism. That's an inference with which I would agree, actually.

        At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

        by serendipityisabitch on Fri May 16, 2014 at 04:46:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Look at the second word (0+ / 0-)

        in Hunter's statement.  The word is "can".  We CAN believe (but we don't) that the world is balanced onthe back of a turtle...  That pretty much tells me he's making a comparison, not stating a belief that Daines actually said such a thing.

        "There are times when even normal men must spit in their hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken

        by rwgate on Sat May 17, 2014 at 03:31:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Belief and Political Expediency are hard to (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wishingwell, serendipityisabitch

      separate in Montana. Neither have anything to do with truth.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (127)
  • Community (60)
  • 2016 (47)
  • Elections (43)
  • Environment (37)
  • Climate Change (32)
  • Bernie Sanders (32)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Republicans (29)
  • Education (28)
  • Civil Rights (28)
  • Media (28)
  • Culture (27)
  • Law (25)
  • Science (25)
  • Congress (24)
  • Barack Obama (23)
  • Labor (20)
  • Economy (19)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (18)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site