Wednesday, November 14, 2007

OT:21% In Iowa!

Fred Who? Mike Huckabee IS electable

For the hordes of Republican ColdFusion and Flex developers out there, it's nice to see someone like Mike Huckabee doing well. We know what it's like to have the best solutions to our problems and yet often remain the underdog technology/candidate. Fred Thompson seemed promising before he got in the race, but he always reminds me of Dan Akroyd as the judge in "Nothing but Trouble".

read more | digg story

9 comments:

  1. Hey man - who was Bill Clinton before Iowa...heck, New Hampshire? Stranger things have happened, thats for sure.

    I don't believe in these "draft" campaigns - I think Thompson was convinced to run by many people (first and foremost, his wife), but he just doesn't seem to have the commitment needed to sustain these campaigns.

    As to whether he's electable to the general public? That remains to be seen - but there's only two candidates, so you immediately have a 50/50 chance, right?

    The Christian right chooses the Republican candidate - My Father says they will stick to their principles and nominate a guy like Huckabee, I think they'll sell out and go for one of the top 2 (Rudy/Mitt).

    It'll be interesting.

    Cheers,

    Davo

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's definitely going to be a wild ride, Davo. I hope your Dad is right about who the Republicans choose. It's strange, but I'd rather lose on principle than win on style.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sorry, but anyone who doesn't believe that the theory of evolution by natural selection is real is at best uninformed and at worst an idiot. Either way, I don't want such a person leading this country. Maybe he needs to go read any high school biology book that was published in the last half century.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Besides supporting the FairTax plan, which is enough for me to vote for him, Huckabee's site was done in ColdFusion.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Brian,
    I didn't want my comment to make it sound like I support the guy. I'm an independent, and I agree with some of his positions. However, the two MASSIVE stumbling blocks for me are
    1) His creationist views
    2) When asked what he would have done differently to the current president, with respect to foreign affairs, he said "nothing". (My jaw dropped!)

    I have a lot of problems with a lot of the candidates, but these two are no-go's for me.

    Just MHO (like you asked for it :-p)

    Davo

    ReplyDelete
  6. Certainly interesting comments. I vaguely remember seeing several Republican candidates raise their hand when presented with a question regarding intelligent design being taught in schools.

    Personally, I have a bigger problem with the ID group than the Genesis group. ID seems to be purposefully ambiguous about the nature of the designer. At least the Genesis people are open about their hypothesis being based on faith.

    ID clearly flies in the face of Occam's Razor. As far as I can tell, the single concept that gives rise to ID is that some biological systems are simply too complex to be created randomly. Hence the proof that there must be a designer. I'm much more inclined to believe that humanity simply doesn't understand or is ignorant of the circumstances that gave rise to the complex system in question. Why is it so hard for us to admit there are some aspects of the universe that we simply don't understand. Yet.

    Well, I found the whole ID idea interesting. I wanted to know what Mike Huckabee actually thought about it. It's not easy to find official statements from him about it, but I dug this up as one of the responses his press people sent in response to their inquiries:

    "I believe in intelligent design and I don't think intelligent design and evolution are mutually exclusive. I think both information about intelligent design and evolution should be available to Arkansas school students. I believe both should be available because one is the consensus theory of the scientific community, and the other is the predominant belief of most Arkansans and Americans. This would provide Arkansas students background they need to wrestle with these and other fundamental questions as they become adults. As a matter of law, the United States Supreme Court prohibits teaching intelligent design in the public schools at this time."

    A couple of things here. First, note that he avoids saying that ID should be taught in science. Also, I get the impression from this statement that the distinction between ID and creationism is lost on Mr. Huckabee and I think he is actually talking about creationism. And finally, it really doesn't sound like he's that interested in altering the current law.

    I actually would like to have ID taught in school alongside evolution, but only as an exercise in what makes a bad theory. It's surprising to me how similar ID is to spontaneous generation. I think looking at either of these flawed theories makes a great exercise that actually strengthens the evolution theory because it points out how the theory was developed and supported by observation and weight of evidence.

    @Davo: regarding Mike's comment regarding foreign policy, at least you got a straight answer. From what I can tell so far, Mrs. Clinton would do nothing different either, but lets hear her say what Mike said.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mike, I like that fact that Huckabee gives a straight answer - for my taste, however, I think his answer is wrong. I can't believe after all thats happened in the past 4 years that he can't find SOMETHING to criticize about the Bush foreign policy.

    If there was a "none of the above" choice on the ballot, it would prob get my vote at the moment. I prob wouldn't vote for Clinton either.

    I have heard Huckabee actually say he believes in creationism - the world was created in 7 days. That's very different to ID.

    I don't think ID and evolution are mutually exclusive at all - however, one belongs in the science classroom, and the other belongs in a theology/religion class room. I was educated in Ireland, and this is exactly what happened. We were treated as intelligent people who could digest two competing theories and not be scarred for life! The "ID" people don't want that, they want to undermine the science teachers teachings with some sort of "disclaimer"

    Could you imagine if a priest was forced to give a similar disclaimer before preaching mass? "What you are about to hear may not be true - it is based on books that are thousands of years old, and may have been translated incorrectly. You should consider that there is no God at all...."

    That would just be plain stupid.

    Seriously....we could go on and on about this.

    Cheers,

    Davo

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hahaha. Now that's a priest I might follow. Did you ever get a chance to see a bbc show called "Father Ted". What a scream. I gotta go see if I can find it on dvd somewhere. I think a lot more people would be religious if it was funny.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Fr. Ted is a pure classic!

    Cheers,

    Davo

    ReplyDelete