What is it with Howard Dean and the Democrat Party in February? Last February, by his unexpected primary wins, he set in motion the party’s eventual defeat by driving the other primary candidates to the hard left to counter him, and Kerry proved unable to move back to the center. This February, he wins the party’s chairmanship and virtually guarantees by his radicalism that the party will remain in the minority.
Valerie Schmalz writes at Ignatius Insight about Dean’s chairmanship and its impact on the tiny pro-life Democrat movement. I want to point out a strange quote at the beginning of the article from Carol Crossed, president of Demcorats for Life of America: “Our Party has a choice: to keep abortion unrestricted and unregulated or to fail at the polls. Which is it going to be?”
Um, I don’t think that means what she intends it to mean. The way she has it phrased, she’s saying that if the party decides to keep abortion unrestricted and unregulated, it won’t fail at the polls. That’s what happens when you phrase it as an “or” choice. I think what she means is that if the party keeps abortion unrestricted and unregulated, it will continue to fail at the polls. Otherwise, it makes no sense from a pro-life point of view.
I like his novels. (Ducking behind wall to avoid flying missiles.) Up until a few years ago, I had read all of them. They would be really nifty if he would just keep his protagonists out of bed. Of course, after reading a bunch of them you can start to predict what is going to happen. My all time favorite was GOD GAME.
Heard him speak once, though, and was disappointed. He’s a much better writer than speaker. I always figured when he called God “she” that there was an Irish twinkle in his eye while he did it. Almost as though he knew a lot of people hearing him wanted to stand up and yell “NO!”
One thing that the Republicans have to watch out for is der Gropenfuerer out in California. CBS has an upcoming special on how the Governator is spending taxpayer money rather lavishly. Combine that with the $300b he’s sunk into Fetal stem cell research, and you’ve got an enormous financial scandal in the making.
Ahhhnold seems to have forgotten why his predecessor was recalled by the voters.
Y’know, that’s the thing about Fr. Greeley – he starts to say something, and you go, “Yeah – hey, I’m agreeing with him!” And then of course he goes off on to some point of wackitude and then he’s lost you again. And then you don’t know whether to be astonished, relieved, disappointed, or what.
Reminds me of what my father (who’s 66) keeps saying: “The Church in North America isn’t going to really improve until my whole d—ned generation dies out and yours takes over” (i.e., his generation’s flubbed it). Fr G’s old enough to know better.
Actually, Dean never won a primary (well, his home state of Vermont after he had melted down). The first votes that counted were the Iowa caucuses, and Dean’s third-placed finish there prompted that uuuuuuughhhhhhh speech and his free fall began from there.
Which isn’t to say, Dom, that your essential analysis isn’t correct—Dean was the front-runner in polls and so forced the other Dems (with the exceptions of Lieberman and to a lesser degree Edwards) to counter him by tacking left on the war, so costing the winner (Kerry, as it turned out) in the general election.
AAAAAAAAAACK! (rolls eyes in disgust)
Makes me wonder how educated he really is to make such statements. *sigh*
I realize that this is secondary to the discussion, but Fr. Greeley’ understanding of ID is not correct (at least es explained in the quote above).
Intelligent design does not claim that the physical world is so nicely organized that someone must have designed it. It claims that biological life is too complex to have occurred through the mechanisms described by evolution and hence that some direct design must have occurred in the process.
For instance, one of the facts that they point to is that certain biological structure do not seem to work (both theoretically and experimentally) if any one piece is missing. The eye has been often used as an example, but other, better example exist. If they cannot exist in a simpler form, they cannot possibly have evolved through chance and gradual mutation.
So, if ID is correct, it DOES mean that evolution has some major explaining to do.
However, Fr. Greeley may still be right in observing that whatever physical explanation we come up with for the development of life (and humans) cannot deny the possibility that God started it in the first place. So, strict evolutionists will continue to bark up the wrong tree in deducing atheism from their scientific theory.
For the record, I am not opposed to evolution and I am not a fan of ID. I think that both, being scientific theories, provide lots of good ideas and possibilities but still have big holes. I just wish that scientists of all sorts would focus on investigating those holes and come up with better theories rather than fighting religious wars over them. Especially since when they get involved in theology they often just display how ignorant they are.
rnity” file. I leave it to herstory s to judge him.
Greeley wants to be to Catholics what Groucho was to Margaret Dumont. He wants to be so giddily outrageous that every old boy in mid-drink sprays one another to a chorus of hysterical laughter; he wants to make Col Mustard’s mustache twirl and his monocle pop out of his goggling eye; he wants to elicit a collective horrified gasp from every one in the drawing room.
He views his religion as an endless succession of opportunities for pie fights. Very sixties.
In short, he wants to be the fourth stooge.
Roberto, thank you for pointing out the error in Fr. Andrew’s thinking.
To take it one step further, there is no war between ID proponents and Darwinian evolutionists.
The majority of ID scientists simply want a level playing field, and an admission that evolution is a theory, not a fact. In simple terms, they are ignored by the evolutionists or subjected to ridicule. This, in spite of the fact that evolution is itself an unproven theory.
The issue of “creationism” and a literal interpretation of Scripture is not even a part of this scientific standoff.