Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 13, 2008 19:11:05 GMT -4
If she (Hilary Clinton) were bothering to fake breaking down to win votes, she would have broken down enough so that everyone would have seen it. Everyone did see it. It was a huge newstory. Is there a difference between preventing books from being printed in the first place and not allowing books to be sold? Both sound like banning to me. So as I said, there go the poetry books and the books of Native American legends, right? And probably the picture books too, I would presume? "Limited shelf space. This giftshop is reserved only for SCIENCE!"
|
|
|
Post by mc77 on Jan 13, 2008 20:48:00 GMT -4
* Hillary Clinton's crying was contrived IMO. In my opinion, she was exhausted. Further, unless there's something more than the clips I saw, that was hardly a crying fit or sobbing or whatever. I heard a shake in her voice; I saw no tears. If she were bothering to fake breaking down to win votes, she would have broken down enough so that everyone would have seen it. No need to split hairs about what I meant by "crying," or the ambient moisture-level of her eyes at that particular time, to me her conduct was an effort to soften her image.You don't have to agree.So, are you saying that National Park Service bookstores should only sell books about the Grand Canyon that are endorsed by scientists? Having a book for sale at a National Park Service bookstore (or anywhere else for that matter) that says "God made the Grand Canyon" isn't why some people are ignorant of science gillianren, nor does it imply that the National Park Service is actually promoting creationism as science. That's like saying my local grocer endorses the drivel contained in check-out rags like The National Enquirer or Weekly World News. I myself don't buy into creationism but it's based on critical thinking augmented by scientific knowledge, not because all pseudoscientific tomes were kept from me. If you think the mere presence of unscientific literature in any book store "undermines" science then you are not giving science and most people enough credit. If you or others want to trash "creationism" being part of school curriculum outside of the example I gave in my prior post or some of the policies of our current administration along these and other scientific lines I'll probably agree, but that's where I draw the line. Science doesn't need censorship to work.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 13, 2008 21:23:34 GMT -4
Iquote]And, yes, books about creationism undermine science. So are books that tout astrology. They foster ignorance. National parks shouldn't do that. Teddy Roosevelt established the National Park System for education and preservation, and putting books about creationism in National Park Service bookstores implies that creationism is science. It isn't. It has no evidence; the evidence is all in favour of evolution. I'm not saying ban the books, mind. These idiots have the right to publish whatever they want. That doesn't mean the National Park Service should endorse their beliefs by putting the books on display. It might lead people to believe there's some scientific doubt about what created the Grand Canyon, and there simply isn't. Heck, it's physically impossible for the Canyon to have been created in the way these people claim. I learned about creationism in science classes in the same way I learned about phlogiston and the aether--past ideas that don't hold up to scientific scrutiny. But the National Park Service doesn't have the time to teach that to everyone who comes into their bookstore, so they should reserve their shelfspace for valid science. So, are you saying that National Park Service bookstores should only sell books about the Grand Canyon that are endorsed by scientists? Having a book for sale at a National Park Service bookstore (or anywhere else for that matter) that says "God made the Grand Canyon" isn't why some people are ignorant of science gillianren, nor does it imply that the National Park Service is actually promoting creationism as science. That's like saying my local grocer endorses the drivel contained in check-out rags like The National Enquirer or Weekly World News. I myself don't buy into creationism but it's based on critical thinking augmented by scientific knowledge, not because all pseudoscientific tomes were kept from me. If you think the mere presence of unscientific literature in any book store "undermines" science then you are not giving science and most people enough credit. If you or others want to trash "creationism" being part of school curriculum outside of the example I gave in my prior post or some of the policies of our current administration along these and other scientific lines I'll probably agree, but that's where I draw the line. Science doesn't need censorship to work. My area of work is the distribution of books and magazines. This is a tricky area, however, maybe a few things should be taken into consideration. Does the National Parks service bookstore have a mandate? Are all their books supposed to be devoted to nature, wildlife, ecology, fossils and the like. Or do they like Jason pointed out, have books on Native myths/tales, childrens picture books, Bibles, story books, mass market fiction and the like? If they have a section on fiction in the store, then a book about creationism would not be out of place. If the bookstores purpose is solely to promote non-fiction works - books about science, nature etc. then the creationist book should not be among them. Seems simple enough... ;D I remember been given a directive to pull a book critical of Walmart out of my Walmart accounts. Yes, it was censorship of a sort, but Walmart had the right to reject or accept what titles it wanted in its stores.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 14, 2008 16:49:46 GMT -4
Hilary Clinton's response about "the sob" that was on Meet the Press yesterday:
Russert: In New Hampshire, now, the famous scene in Portsmouth where you showed some emotion, was that exhaustion, frustration? What was it? Mrs. Clinton: No. It was actually, Tim, a moment of real emotional connection. Those of us who are running for office and holding office, I know it may be hard to believe, we're also human beings. And when I spend my time out on the campaign trail, it's usually about what I can do for somebody else. You know, I'm very other directed. I don't like talking about myself, I don't like, you know, sort of the, the whole atmosphere of how people, you know, are judged in American politics too often as to, you know, what you say instead of what you do. And so for me it's always about what can I do for you? How can I help you? And I was very touched when that woman said, "Well, how are you doing? How do you get up in the morning?" Because really, the question is for so many of the people that I meet, how does anybody get up in the morning? I just went door-to-door in Las Vegas. I met construction workers who've lost their jobs, I met a man who's been laid off from the casinos because the economy is beginning to go down. I meet people who can't get health care for their families, people who are just distressed over, you know, what is happening in our country. So when somebody asks me, "How do you get up?" it really triggered in me, you know, the feeling that, you know, that's what I, I want us all to think about each other. How do we get up? How do we, you know, pull on our shoes, go out and deal with the problems America faces. That's what I intend to do as president.
So she claims it was a moment of "real emotional connection" rather than the result of fatigue or frustration. And, in a two-paragraph answer in which she claims she is "very other directed" and doesn't like talking about herself, she refers to herself 24 times.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 14, 2008 17:06:23 GMT -4
I have no problem with the mythology of the people who actually are actually native to the Grand Canyon region being in a Park Service bookstore. Those books are clearly labeled "mythology," for one thing, and for another, what the local people believed is part of the sociology of the local culture and therefore social science. What a religion founded six thousand miles away thinks about the origins of the Grand Canyon is completely irrelevant.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 14, 2008 17:13:33 GMT -4
A nice, tidy rationalization.
So how do the poetry and picture books qualify as science?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 14, 2008 17:27:51 GMT -4
Were the poetry and picture books masquerading as science?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 14, 2008 22:05:24 GMT -4
Was the creationist book?
It was in the "inspirational" section, according to David Barna, chief of public affairs of the National Park Service.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 15, 2008 11:45:28 GMT -4
Who cares what section it is in? It is an idiot book promoting an idiot idea that runs counter to actual science. Putting it on a different shelf doesn't make it any less so. ... when Grand Canyon National Park superintendent Joe Alston attempted to block the sale of Vail's book at canyon bookstores, he was overruled by NPS headquarters, which announced that a high-level policy review of the matter would be launched and a decision made by February, 2004. So far, no official decision has been announced.
Even worse, according to the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), an organization that includes many Park employees, papers obtained under the Freedom of Information Act reveal that no review has ever taken place.www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,783829,00.html
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 15, 2008 11:52:56 GMT -4
So? Why so concerned about what is in the inspirational section of a National Park Bookstore? Who educates their kids entirely off of books purchased at National Park Bookstores?
Why must an alternative view be silenced in order for your view to prevail?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 15, 2008 12:01:41 GMT -4
Who gets to decide which alternate views are allowed on the shelves? Why should alternate views of widely-accepted science be necessary? Oh, right. To appease the Christian fundamentalists.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 15, 2008 12:08:36 GMT -4
Is evolutionary theory really so flimsy that it can't withstand having a few creationist books published and available for sale alongside "evolutionist" books? Why this fear of a theory you ridicule? If it's so ridiculous then why worry about it?
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Jan 15, 2008 12:09:53 GMT -4
So "Inspirational" is modern US parlance for "lying garbage". OK...
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 15, 2008 12:39:55 GMT -4
Let's take a step back for a moment here. I don't want creationism taught in science classes. It's not a scientific theory, and it doesn't deserve to be treated as such. I don't want Intelligent Design taught as a viable scientific alternative to evolution - I feel that at its best some points can be viewed as valid criticism of evolutionary theory, but it's not a coherant scientific alternative. So, there is no place in school science classrooms for books that teach such things.
National Park bookstores are not science classrooms.
This Panda'sThumb article about trying to ban books from National Parks is not about defending or improving the nation's educational standards. It's about attempting to censor the views of those he disagrees with. It's about the arrogant pride in knowing more than the ignorant masses, and condescending to prove that he was the one who was right all along. And it's about the fear of religion. That's why I object to it - because the author's motives are not the "holier than thou" devotion to science and education that he pretends they are. He's just as detached from reality in his criticism of the government as any number of the conspiracy theorists who have written on these boards - he just happens to have picked science as his jumping-off point.
Do you seriously think that President Bush has put any thought at all into what should appear in bookstores in the National Parks? Did the staffers of the National Park Service who chose to sell the book decide they would insidiously introduce religion in the guise of science, thereby ensuring that the children of the nation would grow up to be good Republicans? Or did they instead see a possibly controversial book that might sell well and earn a little cash for the financially-strapped National Parks? Which of these two scenarios is the more believable?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 15, 2008 12:47:02 GMT -4
Is evolutionary theory really so flimsy that it can't withstand having a few creationist books published and available for sale alongside "evolutionist" books? Why this fear of a theory you ridicule? If it's so ridiculous then why worry about it? I have no problem with those books being sold at Borders or Amazon or Barnes and Noble or any commercial outlet. But I have a big problem with the government selling them. Again, who gets to decide which alternative "theories" get to be in the NPS bookstores? Why not a book about Pan Gu? Why not a book about Ame-no-Minaka-Nushi-no-Mikoto? Tepeu and Gucumatz? They are just as relevant. Oh, right - Christians are deciding.
|
|