[OFFTOPIC:] The Lesson of Tonight’s Iowa Caucuses

_{William Dembski

January 3, 2008

Off Topic}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

My wife’s family is from Iowa, and we got to listen to a lot of the presidential candidates in person during our visit there this December. Here’s our daughter with two of the more successful candidates:

The lesson of tonight is that people are tired of business as usual. How far does that disaffection extend? To the uncritical teaching of Darwinian evolution?

Comments

Jerry, Re: Jonah Goldberg. Listened to the interview, very interesting. Application of Mussolini's totalitarianism to today's society, smashing the sanctity of the family, the two party system analogy - mommy & daddy kind of citizen nurturing, etc. I like his definition of the left/right wing socialism -- right wing = national socialism, left wing = international socialism, with the evolutionary assumption that the "nation" is doomed to extinction and will one day disappear. Interesting observation about Hitler's flag symbolism -- the red field was meant to attract the communists. I read Francis Fukuyama's End of History after it was published, and I think I may re-visit it again just to refresh my memory.rockyr_{January 10, 2008
January
01
Jan
10
10
2008
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT}

jerry, Thanks for the tip on Goldberg's new book, Liberal Facism. I just ordered it from amazon.StuartHarris_{January 8, 2008
January
01
Jan
8
08
2008
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

If we put Nationalism on the right and Socialism on the left, then I suppose freedom loving people are really dead center. OTOH, if we put totalitarianism on one end of the spectrum (you can pick which as to your preference) and anarchy on the other, you will find communism/fascism/Nazism grouped together with socialism a little bit behind and a constitutional republic close the anarchy end.tribune7_{January 7, 2008
January
01
Jan
7
07
2008
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT}

Mike 1962: And let’s not forget that the early Mormon leaders predicted that the US constitution would “hang by a thread” and that the Mormon church would somehow come gallopping in to save the day. And that the “Kingdom of God” was ordained in Nauvoo IL around 1842 by Joseph Smith, where he was “crowned king.” Evangelicals who know about this stuff are going to wonder what’s *really* in Romney’s head about all that.
Mike; This is the kind of out-of-context, purposely misleading crap which overflows anti-Mormon websites and which Huckabee seems so well versed in. ID proponents cry "foul" when people get their information on ID from anti-ID, pro-Darwin sites and then dismiss ID out of hand without really looking at it. The same principle of fairness applies to Mormons: If you want information about them, go to them. If you have real questions there are knowledgeable people who can give real answers, not like Huckabee and his ilk. You can go to the official church website or there is an excellent Discussion Board where you can air and get good answers to any questions or anti-mormon accusations you've heard of.dacook_{January 7, 2008
January
01
Jan
7
07
2008
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

There is a new book on the market by Jonah Goldberg titled "Liberal Fascism" which talks about what these movements were/are. Apparently the most fascist of all Americans was Woodrow Wilson and this was before the term was coined. If one has time and a way to listen to mp3 recordings then go to http://instapundit.com/archives2/013336.php and download a discussion of this book by the author.jerry_{January 7, 2008
January
01
Jan
7
07
2008
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

Just a historical note about Reichstag seating when the National Socialists first gained admittance. The National Socialists were to be seated between the Communists and the Socialists (Social Democrats) with the liberals and conservatives both to the right of the Socialists. But to avoid as much violence in the chamber as possible, it not being a good idea to seat two opposing gangs of thugs next to each other, the National Socialists were seated to the right of the conservatives, not where they fit in the political spectrum. (Please note that the liberals and conservatives here mentioned are not distinct political parties, but, rather agglomerations of smaller parties, whereas the Communists, National Socialists, and Social Democrats were parties in their own right. Oh, the joys of proportional representation!) This is probably where the notion, fervently peddled by Leftists since the defeat of Germany in 1945, that the National Socialists were a right wing party came from.D.A.Newton_{January 7, 2008
January
01
Jan
7
07
2008
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

Tribune, Jerry, PaV, I agree that the labels "left/right" wing, "liberal/conservative", and other so-called opposites like capitalist/socialist, etc. are misleading. I am surprised that the Oxford dictionary does not clarify this. Their definition of right-wing is: 3. That section of a political party, assembly, or other body most tending to hold conservative or reactionary views. Their definition of left-wing is non-existent, in fact it is a nonsensical circular reference of "left" pointing to "left-wing" and vice-versa. This is a serious flaw. So what other flaws can one find in less-prestigious dictionaries? Other dictionaries define left-wing as "the liberal, socialist, or radical" with reference to the National Assembly in France (1789–91), where the nobles sat to the president's right and the commons to the left. As I hinted previously, these simple dictionary definitions seem to be useless and misleading. One has to look behind the definitions, and at the real meaning of these antagonistic movements that are usually associated with the left/right labels. Not an easy thing in general, (most people are confused about this), or in a blog that is meant to be brief, since one would have address the complex history of the last century of so, or even going to the ancient Rome. Jerry, if fascism is not compatible with communism, it is because communism is nothing like the idea of the Roman fasces, (the bundle of rods bound up with an axe in the middle, which were carried by lictors before the superior magistrates at Rome as an emblem of their power.) The idea of the Roman "republic" or the "res-publica" (which means "the public thing") is quite different from the communist dictatorship. One could argue that it is the ideal of the Roman republic that the US ought to be striving for, i.e. making its politics a "public" thing. Mussolini's life is quite fascinating and full of interesting moments. His name "Benito" (after a Mexican reformer), his childhood and youth as an atheist and anti-clericalist, his vagrant life in Switzerland, (which was at that time a hot-bed of the future Soviet communists like Lenin), his 1917 war injury which supposedly had something to do with his sudden change towards anti-socialism, to his baptism in 1927. Also fascinating is Hitler's life and ideology, his quasi-religiosity and how he twisted it into creating his own new ideology with which he managed to fool and control the whole nation. It would really pay for the ID to study those aspects of German history which lead to that climax, from the Reformation, to Friedrich the Great's atheism, Goethe's evolutionism, to Nietzche, Hegel, Marx, etc. Evolutionism was the key ingredient. It is of secondary importance that both Mussolini and Hitler were socialists. They needed a state with total control, so naturally socialism would do. In fact, communism is just a more radical form of socialism, and that is why the British socialists like G. B. Shaw admired and defended Communism in Russia, even after Stalin intentionally starved millions to death in Ukraine. Socialism is characterized by the total state control of all productive means, so it would be quite inaccurate to call Hitler or Mussolini right-wing and Stalin left-wing. (Total state control was used whenever there were a serious need for it, such as when repelling an invader, and there are many examples of it in history. Hitler's hatred of communism and of Russia was of a different kind, but for a while Hitler and Stalin managed to form a short secret pact, until they destroyed both the Catholic Austria and Poland, which were for centuries the key powers in Central Europe.)rockyr_{January 7, 2008
January
01
Jan
7
07
2008
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

We love to distort these terms. It amazes me that we some how end up with a phrases like "freedom hating leftist media". It starts with the quite reasonable position that the media in general opposes censorship and favor freedom of the press. Thus the media is liberal (favors freedom). A liberal (progressive) is the opposing view to a conservative. A conservative is on the right, therefore the "liberal" media is "leftist". Socialism and Communism are on the left. These are associated with oppressive governments like Stalinism, therefor the media is "freedom hating". So those who want freedom actually hate it. (Hmm, maybe that explains the whole "greeted as liberators" thing.) BTW, Both Hitler and Mussolini were Nationalists (right) and Militarists (right) in greater degree then they where Socialists (left). If we put Nationalism on the right and Socialism on the left, then I suppose freedom loving people are really dead center.Alann_{January 7, 2008
January
01
Jan
7
07
2008
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

Jerry: Both Hitler and Mussolini were socialists to the end so it is ludicrous to say that fascist were right wing. I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one who sees it this way.PaV_{January 7, 2008
January
01
Jan
7
07
2008
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT}

They could almost be talking about a different war. The media here, and most politicians on the left, seem to have a hatred for the USA. The media here does too as does the Democratic Party sometimes I think. :-) Actually, what I think is that the leftists, in whatever country, hate freedom, and leftists, in whatever country, gravitate to media-type jobs. Probably because they don't have to think real hard.tribune7_{January 6, 2008
January
01
Jan
6
06
2008
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

Why? That would mean totally fabricating a story. It's been done before, and with effectiveness. The New York Times has yet to surrender Walter Duranty's Pulitzer. And it may not be an out-and-out fabrication. It could just be a flawed study that is being defended and promoted for political reasons. Of course, the same could be said for the other side, but that would be a government cover up, and, say what you want, the allies have taken great pains to avoid being put in a position as to where they could be accused of this. OK, divide by 10, and use a number of 60 000 dead (i.e. less than the Iraq study group). Wouldn’t that imply clashes involving thousands of casualties? So, where have they been reported? Oh, but they were. The battles for Fallujah and the initial invasion, would be examples. Consider that California (which is about a third bigger than Iraq) has had about 12,000 murders since 2003. That would put the level of violence at about 10 times greater in Iraq. I can believe that. I can't believe that the level of violence in Iraq during the invasion/occupation, however, exceeds that of the Iran-Iraq war which would be required if I accepted the Johns Hopkins figure.tribune7_{January 6, 2008
January
01
Jan
6
06
2008
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

Who is Geogre Soros? He funded Lancet Study by "Open" Society. A group that refuses to open their books for review. Well, he has had a Messiah complex since childhood, one that made him uncomfortable early on, but one which he has now grown into as a billionaire, so he says...
It is the hottest day of the year, apocalyptic chords are crashing around an empty church(restuarant) and George Soros is describing his messiah complex. The man who made $1bn in a day by betting against the Bank of England always thought he was set apart. As a child, Soros had what he calls "messianic fantasies".
Uhuh and now those fantasies rear their ugly head in his demented thought process - Regime Change in America. This Hungarian liberated by America now says He knows best for America, for you, for me. And he will spend his fortune of billions made in attrocious deals upon backs of poor countries to make sure you and me accept his divine light against our will. The Hedge fund god speaketh. He also funded Hanen's lawyers against NASA. The data Hansen used to alarm the entire world has now been found faulty, due to some year 2000 glitch. After NASA opened up the data for review, the errors were found. Unfortunately, the liberal news media never reported these facts, only the alarmist global warming statements funded by Soros. None of Soros' non-profit orgs have made this news available to the public. Fortunately some people have... http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=54 So, what we see is Soros funded individuals and groups participating in faulty data in more than one instance. A "pattern" is developing. Hmmm, maybe we can apply ID? ;-)Michaels7_{January 5, 2008
January
01
Jan
5
05
2008
11:57 PM
11
11
57
PM
PDT}

Jerry, good article posted. I was going to link it earlier. Glad to see someone has commmon sense. To others... Bob, GodsIpod, The Lancet Study is if not outright fraud, then politically motivated hack job, funded by self-proclaimed Messiah George Soros. Specifically to undercut America, any allies and George Bush. He hated George Bush decision to enter Iraq. And after 2004 he exploded as 60Million Americans voted Bush back into power for victory in Iraq. He has vowed to "Change Regime in America." He does this thru multiple "non-profit" groups. He throws his millions to the far left in America. So much far left that it makes Hillary look right of center. He funded the alarmist fake survey indicating that America is evil, Bush is evil. Iraqis are dying. The uninformed, or willfully misleading on queue cry out. This is the only report funded by a far left radical to reach these numbers. All other surveys, including the Iraqi government reports, do not come anywhere close to the fake numbers by Lancet. At worst, up to 100,000 ending in 2006. With current records, around 115,000 "civilian" deaths since 2003. But, none of these "civilian" deaths are investigated, delineated and reported as insurgents, terrorist, foreign suicide bombers, or even Hezbollah foreign infiltrators. They are fighiting in civilian clothes. They do not wear military uniforms! The Lancet study makes no correction for these facts. None. Who is George Soros? Why is he funding such faulty studies? A quick read of Soros facts helps... http://ibdeditorials.com/series4.aspx I recommend reading all the articles. This man has a Messiah complex, thinking he is set apart. Besides being convicted in France's Highest Court for Insider Trading, he also managed to disrupt and mangle financial markets all over the world, many times leading to total disarray in new struggling economies of Eastern Europe and Russia. This is the man who wants to change American Regime, but leave Iraqi Saddam Hussein, murderous thug, genocidal maniac alone. Why? He has ulterior motives. One less tyrant, one less lubed hand to bribe. This is the way he and his hedge fund cronies worked thru the East. Corruption favors his profiteering. He should be kicked out of America. I can only imagine what George Washington would have done to this man during a time of war. Soros funds the more outrageously disturbing MoveOn.org thru his "Open Society." Who attacked a sitting General Petraeus during a time of war. They put Ads at an illegal discount rate in the NYT calling Petraeus, "General Betray Us" the day he appeared in front of Congress. Where the Senate recently approved Petraeus by 98-0 for the new job. An outstanding professional man, with a PhD from Princeton and the grit, determination and smarts to win the war in Iraq. He is doing so dispite the shrill attack ads like those funded by Soros and MoveOn. A European funding American public manipulation by "non-profit" orgs. Most people are ignorant of this process. Anti-American, Anti-Bush, anti-Iraq Liberation. The Iraqis however know who their friends are. They recently signed a long term agreement with President Bush for American bases to support stabalization long term. This is the same strategy of Germany, Italy, Europe and Japan. We are winning and the Iraqis want us to stay because they know we are their friends, not enemy. It took 5 years to get Germany moving in the right direction in WWII. We are only now at that timeline in a much different cultural nation. Our military has done fantastic work in short time. Iraqis deserve liberty, not Soros funded Stalinista propaganda which his "Open Society" refuses to let go of data for critics and experts to review. Why do they refuse? Because, like the global warming alarmist Hansen at NASA, which Soros funded, they know the data collecting will be found flawed and the methodologies and corrections found wanting. The only reason we found out is because NASA, unlike Soros "Open Society" believed in transparency and opened their data to all for review. His org should be called Closed Society, or Billionaires Behind Closed Doors Society. OR, You will Bow Down to Elite Europeans Society.Michaels7_{January 5, 2008
January
01
Jan
5
05
2008
11:27 PM
11
11
27
PM
PDT}

#21 Maybe its because you are not American that you don’t understand what is going on over here. Don’t trust your country’s media. I agree -- from my observations, the US media are FAR less biased then the media in New Zealand. They could almost be talking about a different war. The media here, and most politicians on the left, seem to have a hatred for the USA. Also, it's not like the USA can be blamed for all the Islamic-hate-killings of their own people. If they stopped the killing, the US would surely leave tomorrow.CN_{January 5, 2008
January
01
Jan
5
05
2008
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PDT}

You would think an article in a very left-leaning paper would have been able to find some mid-level person to quote saying the war allies were involved in some massive cover up.
Why? That would mean totally fabricating a story. There isn't a cover-up in this case, simply because the government and coalition forces haven't been collecting any figures to cover up.
600,000 dead over three and a half years would mean a lot of bodies. It should mean clashes involving tens of thousands of casualties. That hasn’t been happening. In fact, if five or 10 die in some action over there it’s considered big news.
OK, divide by 10, and use a number of 60 000 dead (i.e. less than the Iraq study group). Wouldn't that imply clashes involving thousands of casualties? So, where have they been reported? BobBob O'H_{January 5, 2008
January
01
Jan
5
05
2008
11:04 PM
11
11
04
PM
PDT}

Fross122585: “Even though Romney is a Mormon he is still a Christian and it isn’t his fault that he was born into a Mormon family. Oh, come on. Even my young kids know this is bad theology.CN_{January 5, 2008
January
01
Jan
5
05
2008
10:55 PM
10
10
55
PM
PDT}

NoChange in 8 above, Live free or die! and on to New Hampshire!Rude_{January 5, 2008
January
01
Jan
5
05
2008
10:55 PM
10
10
55
PM
PDT}

PaV, I am aware of Mussolini's communist background. He dropped it to form his own movement but it still was a socialist movement. Both Hitler and Mussolini were socialists to the end so it is ludicrous to say that fascist were right wing. The ideas that fascist are of the right was a way to manipulate public opinion by the communists and modern socialists and liberals. So it is a joke when they apply the designation to people like Bush. It is as Stuart Harris said in #29, anybody conservative you don't like or those who you are losing an argument with.jerry_{January 5, 2008
January
01
Jan
5
05
2008
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT}

Bob O'H- if you had read the article in the Indy, you would have seen that they stated that internally the numbers had been accepted. No, it doesn't say that. It says some say that Johns Hopkins study used "sound methods". It doesn't say that they secretly think their conclusions are right, or that the they think the methodology of those with a different view is flawed. The article quotes Roy Anderson as describing the methods used in the study as "robust" and "close to best practice". It doesn't quote him as saying the MoD and the British government is wrong. You would think an article in a very left-leaning paper would have been able to find some mid-level person to quote saying the war allies were involved in some massive cover up. 600,000 dead over three and a half years would mean a lot of bodies. It should mean clashes involving tens of thousands of casualties. That hasn't been happening. In fact, if five or 10 die in some action over there it's considered big news.tribune7_{January 5, 2008
January
01
Jan
5
05
2008
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT}

jerry: Years ago, I tried looking into Mussolini. I couldn't find much. But what I did find out is that as a youth/young man, he was a communist: as in, Marxist Communist. I wonder how many people are aware of that.PaV_{January 5, 2008
January
01
Jan
5
05
2008
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

Bob O'H, And the data made available and subject to check. After all these people are still supposed to be dead and that is relatively easily checked.jerry_{January 5, 2008
January
01
Jan
5
05
2008
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

jerry - Actually, there isn't any evidence. There's lack of evidence that it isn't fraudulent, though. For me, that's not a terribly convincing article. The graphic reveals a clear bias (OK, I'm biased too - how dare they criticise statisticians!). At least one of the points is effectively rebutted in the article in Significance that I linked to, and I would want to see a proper analysis of the data to see if the patterns are really non-random. Any study can be chipped away at with doubts and imperfections, but it's not clear if it actually makes a difference. In this case, I'm sure the estimates are biased in various ways, but it's not obvious that there's a huge bias in one direction. Perhaps the most important point is that studies like this should be replicated, and financed and organised better. BobBob O'H_{January 5, 2008
January
01
Jan
5
05
2008
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

Peter wrote: "This is a good day for ID. Huckabee has publically stated that he does not believe in evolution. In fact, he has said that the US Congress is proof of devolution because the senators act more like moneys. This can only bode well for support of ID. Maybe Huckabee is good for ID, I don't know. But I think the real point is that we ought not to be voting for a President based on their religious beliefs, or whether they think evolution is true or not. These are the wrong reasons. What we need is a President who can restore America's place and prestige in the world, deal properly with foreign policy issues, and find solutions for domestic issues. Many have already voted for a President because they thought he was "God's choice", and look where that has got us.tdean_{January 5, 2008
January
01
Jan
5
05
2008
03:36 AM
3
03
36
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H, There is evidence that the Lancet study may be a fraud. They refuse to release the data on which the study is based. Here is a recent investigation into the study http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/databomb/index.htmjerry_{January 5, 2008
January
01
Jan
5
05
2008
03:11 AM
3
03
11
AM
PDT}

The media has not been a friend to Huckabee, so they certainly can't be pumping him up. Most conservative media, even Fox, has been snubbing him for some time, and the rest considered him unelectable even in Iowa until just recently. Everyone is genuinely surprised about his rise, but it certainly wasn't the media that got him there.rswood_{January 5, 2008
January
01
Jan
5
05
2008
02:56 AM
2
02
56
AM
PDT}

tdean:
Maybe Huckabee is good for ID, I don’t know. But I think the real point is that we ought not to be voting for a President based on their religious beliefs, or whether they think evolution is true or not. These are the wrong reasons. What we need is a President who can restore America’s place and prestige in the world, deal properly with foreign policy issues, and find solutions for domestic issues. Many have already voted for a President because they thought he was “God’s choice”, and look where that has got us.
Well said, tdean. In my opinion, there are far more important issues at stake than the creation-evolution debate. I hope that Americans will vote for their next president based on those issues, as opposed to something that the president does not have a direct say in.xcdesignproponentsists_{January 5, 2008
January
01
Jan
5
05
2008
02:09 AM
2
02
09
AM
PDT}

Dr Dembski: How is the lovely young Ms Dembski doing on Math, Science and Phil? [Based on genes and nurturing environment, most likely excellently, I'd say!) (In short, the real issues IMHCO are going to be multi-generational . . . so let's raise the next generation of serious, independently minded thinkers . . . Then, maybe some day it is Messrs Huckabee and Obama [or their descendants!] who will treasure the day when they posed for a snapshot with the justly famous Ms Dembski! ;-> ) ) GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{January 4, 2008
January
01
Jan
4
04
2008
11:57 PM
11
11
57
PM
PDT}

Iraq body count gives a high of 87,00 civilian deaths due to violence since Hussein’s overthrow.
That's well known to be an underestimate, as they admit:
We have always been quite explicit that our own total is certain to be an underestimate of the true position, because of gaps in reporting or recording.
There have been surveys carried out (there's a nice discussion about the statistical issues here, if you have access). The important survey was reported here in The Lancet (you may need to register, but it's free to view). From data collected in May and July 2006, they estimated 654?965 excess deaths (95% confidence interval: 392?979–942?636). So, the 1 million is probably too high, but may not be too far from the truth. tribune7 - if you had read the article in the Indy, you would have seen that they stated that internally the numbers had been accepted. It's worth pointing out that the Roy Anderson, the Chief Scientific Advisor to the MoD is himself an epidemiologist, so he has expertise in this area. Oh, and this was actually reported in the US press - the Significance article gives some choice quotes, of varying quality. Hmmm. Just to drift back on topic, I'll add my voice to those saying what a fun kid you have there! Isn't the real lesson that it's always good to smile? BobBob O'H_{January 4, 2008
January
01
Jan
4
04
2008
11:35 PM
11
11
35
PM
PDT}

Michaels7, Thanks for the heads up. I do produce 99% of my own stuff, so I'll check the link out. (And for those who have no idea what Michaels7 is talking about, you can find my site through my name link and some more intelligently designed Hip-Hop hereAtom_{January 4, 2008
January
01
Jan
4
04
2008
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PDT}

Oh and for the record Obama has no chance of winning he is amedia creation fro all of you true beleivers that are being easily manipulated- just wait he will be riding high then the media will deep six him- just wait and see how right i am- and then they will be tlaking about how he isn't resonating his message well and then - oh my Hillary is mounting the come back just like her husband " The Come Back Kid Hillary Clinton" Wait and see how fast Huckabee disapears too after they try to use him to knock off Romney (becasue they are the two running as religiously socially conservative) the nthey will pump up Mccain who cannot win for every known reason and you wil have Hillary vs Mccain and HIllary will win- This is how the media and the bif money works - picking its match ups. The media created Obama/ Huckabee out of nothing and they will knock it down just as easily. Id looses if Obaa getsi n cause he is definetly anti- ID he is the antithesis of that kind of an anti power movement - Obama is typical washington big government regular politician- just listen to him promise everything in the world- I think once again that Romney would be the best cadidate for ID because i dont think he would care very much either way while the others would not care for ID.Frost122585_{January 4, 2008
January
01
Jan
4
04
2008
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply