Paul Krugman has a joke that if the Republicans came out and said the world was flat, and the Democrats responded by saying that wansn't true, the newspaper headlines would read, "The Shape of the World - Two Opposing Views."
Scientific American put their own twist on this for their April 1st issue -- the editorial page was a tongue-in-cheek apology to the right wing, promising to stop favoring things like peer-reviewed scientific studies and to start giving more "fair and balanced" coverage of the issues. Cracked me up.
Here is an interesting exchange from a conservative talk show and a doctor:
Heh.
ION, does anyone have the latest issue of
Scientific American?
This is supposedly an editorial from the April issue - it's damn sarcastic.
In retrospect, this magazine’s coverage of socalled evolution has been hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time, but that was no excuse to be fanatics about it.
Where were the answering articles presenting the powerful case for scientific creationism? Why were we so unwilling to suggest that dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood carved the Grand Canyon? Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles. As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence.
I can't get to it from the SA website - apparantly it's print only. Or it could be a fake.
eta - xpost:
Scientific American put their own twist on this for their April 1st issue -- the editorial page was a tongue-in-cheek apology to the right wing, promising to stop favoring things like peer-reviewed scientific studies and to start giving more "fair and balanced" coverage of the issues. Cracked me up.
t stops going to the movies forever
I can't get to it from the SA website - apparantly it's print only. Or it could be a fake.
No, that's what they printed. It was so perfectly pitched.
Aims, that pretty much happened when Emma was born (or depending on how badly your bladder was smooshed, a few months before).
Gud, thanks for posting that link. Thank goodness
someone
involved is as aghast at the level of discussion as most of us are.
I don't think the media is necessarily biased toward the Schindlers and their supporters, but their claims were given too much uncritical attention. For example, their consistent pleas for Michael Schiavo to let their daughter live, when the decision had been made by the court acting as Terri's advocate, and he had no power to change it.
And, for all the Schindlers' vaunted love for their daughter and desperate desire for her to live on, I think the things that they have said about Michael Schiavo are disgraceful and immoral. I can't see how these means justify that particular end. I can't have respect for them for calling someone who clearly loved and took care of their daughter a greedy abuser and murderer.
Aims, that pretty much happened when Emma was born
t thinks back
Last movie I saw at the theater was The Incredibles.
Dammit.
I also don't understand the Schindler's attorney asking why Michael Schaivo didn't just "walk away" years ago. That poor man. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.
