A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics


Centerfield is the blog of the Centrist Coalition.

We're open to new contributors. If you would like to blog with us, email
cf at centristcoalition dot com

Get all the new posts from a wide variety of centrist blogs with a single click of the Centrist Blogosphere

Google Centrist News

Get a balanced diet of liberal, and conservative blogs at the
Centerfield Blog Aggregator

Links

Independent Nation

Center Links:

<< ? The VCWC # >>

Radical Middle

Resources:

 

May 26, 2005

Open Thread

What's on your mind? Nothing is off-topic.

(Yes, it's a day early. I'm on my way out of town for the holiday weekend, and wanted to beat everyone else to the punch....)

Posted by Tully at May 26, 2005 10:17 AM
Comments

qando.net and right-thinking.com believe that the Bush Administration's domestic agenda has the earmarks of Christian Socialism and predict substantial Dem '06 gains. They argue that the Administration's domestic policy combines excessive spending with religious intrusiveness.

I agree with their characterization of Bush's domestic agenda as Oddball Christian Socialism. I'm less sure about dramatic Dem gains in the Senate- there's still the ever-looming War on Terrorism. Unfortunately, neither party is embracing centrism. McCain's recent compromise success dooms his 08 nomination chances. Alas.

Posted by: kreiz at May 26, 2005 10:45 AM

Lots of weekend painting here. Just closed on my new home, so I've got plenty of work to do. In addition, I've got a class that starts this weekend, so I'm in a last minute scramble to get my stuff all in line for the students.

But, hey, I'm on vacation next week. Plan on enjoying a week of baseball, zoo, and beach with my son.

Posted by: AR at May 26, 2005 11:41 AM
Oddball Christian Socialism
That's a new one.

Anyway, I'm working tomorrow when everyone else is running off for a 4 day weekend. Now what's the holiday we're celebrating?

Posted by: c3 at May 26, 2005 06:20 PM

Ummm, C3, I think it's National Barbeque Weekend. Not positive about that...

Posted by: AR at May 27, 2005 10:45 AM

Well, C3, it's Memorial day...Or Vetern's Day...or Labor Day...what the heck! It's a three day weekend, OK? Enjoy! ;-)

Posted by: Blue Jean at May 27, 2005 12:11 PM

Rick,

Ever since April 19th when I said you have ‘no enemies on the left’ and you accused me of slandering you by calling you a liberal you seem to have mellowed. Or maybe I have because I really can’t find much to fault in what you have written here.

P.S. The journalism blog is excellent.

Posted by: Alf at May 27, 2005 01:16 PM

I don't want to weigh down the usually light open thread, but I had a thought on Intelligent Design (ID). My understanding is that the basic premise of ID is that the probability of life as we know it occurring and developing randomly is so small that one must assume that there was a guiding force behind it all. So, if I were able to flip a coin ten to the tenth to the tenth to the tenth power times, I would get a sequence of heads and tails in some specific order ten to the tenth to the tenth to the tenth power long. The probability of that outcome would be one in two to the tenth to the tenth to the tenth to the tenth power. Does that mean that I would then have to assume that there was a guiding force behind that outcome? Feel free to add as many "to the tenths" to the proposition to make the probability sufficiently low.

P.S. Please don’t let me cast a shadow of boredom over your holiday weekend.

Posted by: WHQ at May 27, 2005 01:42 PM

First, a vocab lesson. Innumeracy is to math as illiteracy is to reading and writing,

Here's the thing about ID's seemingly clever probability argument: it's innumerate. Probabilistic reasoning implies that time overcomes any odds, no matter how great. The whole monkeys typing shakespeare thing. If something is possible, then probability in essence says it must happen eventually, given enough time. So you can't say something is subject to probability, and also say that it couldn't occur without divine intervention.

Now if the argument had been phrased that the development of the species was too fast, they might at least show that they understand how it works, even though they'd still be making a quantitative judgement about unquantifiable things.

What they are concealing in their weasel use of"probability" is that they really mean that its impossible, not that it's "too improbable." "Too improbably' doesn'r relly have a mathematical meaniung, and thus it's true logical meaning is really "I don't believe it and I think it's impossible," but I'll soften my language, either out of politesse or treachery.

Posted by: bk at May 27, 2005 02:17 PM

I took a thermal physics class in which we calculated that the typing monkeys were still utterly unlikely to type Shakespeare's works within the lifetime of the universe. I know that were not talking in terms of approaching infinity as far as the lifetime of universe is concerned, so your assertion holds. It's just a funny aside, at least to me.

Posted by: WHQ at May 27, 2005 02:35 PM

Hey, bk and WHQ; can you guys come out and talk to our anti-evolutionists here? They still seem to have trouble grasping your ideas...;-)

Posted by: Blue Jean at May 27, 2005 10:40 PM

But they'd have to spend a long time in Lenexa at the HQ, Blue Jean. That's not a fate to wish on anyone! Why do hate bk and WHQ so much? [lol]

OK, I guess they could stay in the better parts of KC and eat good barbecue and commute, but still....

Posted by: Tully at May 30, 2005 09:14 PM
(Comments on this entry may be closed after 7 days to prevent spam)




Do you choose the politicians, or do they choose you? Find out how to put the people back in charge.

Archives


Recent Entries

March 2006
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  


Powered by
Movable Type 2.661