Submitted to a Candid World

Ames, if you’ve been able to dig up more details to support your claims than what you posted the other day, please share.

As for federalism – do you think teachign ID should be decided at the federal level? If so, do we want ALL curriculum dictated by the fed?

Palin’s comment was that she would advocate a teacher addressing it in a science class if it came up. As I said, I would think a science teacher would appreciate the opportunity to properly discredit the theory as not being science, rather than just ending the conversation on the spot. That is my logic on the issue.

Palin also said she would NOT endorse adding ID to the curriculum. To me, that is the ‘case closed’ moment.

While I personally don’t like ID I also recognize that federal involvment in curriculum is generaly a bad idea. For example, I would prefer to not have northerners telling southern schools how to teach the Civil War. The national academy of science can set out curriculum giudelines that most schools will willingly follow, but having the Dept. of Education dictate curriculum is a bad idea.

While bad ideas can be spread from a central source, bad ideas can also be isolated when school districts do not all take their marching orders from the same place.

My understanding of it was that she said that it had a place in the classroom – I haven’t yet heard her say that it shouldn’t be in the curriculum – and you’re making a big assumption when guessing that she wants it in only to debunk it. All of her public words on the issue – notably few, and notably muddled, as one would expect of an inexperienced hitherto unknown state politician – suggest that she’s either dodging the issue or trying to hide her tacit support for ID. That’s not leadership. That’s dodging the question.

I credit Pawlenty in that interview with “piercing the veil” and letting us known how he interprets her words: she support teaching ID.

Aside from that, you’re wrong about “no centralized curriculum,” insofar as you mistake, or are willing to give on, the meaning of science. Especially because American science education has been slacking off lately, we need strong guidelines for correct, non-ideologically influenced science, personal moral compunctions about the comfort level of some theories be damned. And Sarah won’t deliver. She’ll hold science hostage to her religion, like Bush.

DM – I thought we were talking about Palin…not Pawlenty.

Also, I don’t think you have to teach it at all. If little Billy raises his hand andsays his dad says god made all the animals and they didn’t evlove, the teacher could say either A) we’re not going to talk about that or B) here’s why we can’t talk about that in a science class.

I also think there is a distinction between a teacher bringing the subject up and them taking 5 minutes to debunk non-science when a kid mentions it.

Lord knows we all sat through longer than 5 minutes of professors trying to straighten out some dummy in one of our freshman Intro classes.

I’m going to risk acting as interpreter for Ames for a moment, since a point keeps being brought up. I don’t think his federalism comment (basically, saying states / municipalities should decide is a dodge) is in favor of the feds deciding. The point is, I believe, that when asked about whether ID should be taught, saying “the states / municipalities should decide” without also giving your own opinion on whether or not it should be taught, is a dodge.

I don’t think Ames, or anyone else, is saying the feds should mandate a curriculum. I think Ames and others (I’ll add myself, though I haven’t said it here before) are saying that a straight answer as to whether the subject should be taught or not, mandated by WHOEVER, would be better.

~ John

The way that I, a chemist, views it is that we don’t spend any time in class discussing phlogiston as an alternative to atomic theory or quantum theory, so why would any sane person talk about intelligent design? And what is there to talk about? There’s no way to link the designer to the designer, certainly no mechanism for the designer to design, just a bunch of hunches and unsupported assertions that are poor. Intelligent design and creationism have become ideologies, code words for the right that their Christain candidates are on their side in an election cycle and rallying cry for evangenlicals. It’s rightful place in modern education is probably in a political science course or in an interdisciplinary course involvoing religion, political science and science, with the latter there to explain why intelligent design is not a science.

Let’s also face it, the next administration will deal with many scientific issues, the central on being energy policy. We have no long term, large-scale, and reliable way of transforming solar energy (and its consequent wind power, biomass, etc.) into usable electricity, and the demand for oil will continue to skyrocket. Drilling is a short term solution, and the answer for these problems will come from science and engineering, not hunches and unsupported assertions. The next adminstration has to set pritorities for funding science and promoting science education or else we’re doomed.

Given that, why would I support a candidate who has no respect for science?

Ah, also – :

Sarah Palin: “I support this plank in the Republican Party’s platform. I believe society can have healthy debates on scientific theories, so equal representation of creation and evolution shouldn’t be an offense.”

If Palin supports teaching ID…it is unfortunate. It certainly makes me question her judgement. But…

As much as this irks me, the fact is that Bush has been on record as supporting the teaching of ID for years and not much has come of it. Scientists are doing a good job of fighting this off.

On a completely different note, Obama’s proposed policies also demonstrate no real knowledge of economics and I would contend they are based on a sort of ‘magic’ themselves. There’s a lot more danger of those hurting the average American than a few misguided school districts in Backwater, USA trying to teach ID.

While I actually support liberals on the pet issue of ID oppostition, the reality is that it is just that, a pet issue. In this election I would prefer to concentrate on the big things like crazy plans to raise taxes and create huge new entitlement plans with the proceeds.

Nothing has come of Bush being pro-life/anti-abortion. But when the Supreme Court becomes stacked with more conservatives, all could change…

I’m not sure that McCain is any more of an expert on economics than Obama is, or at least I’ve seen no evidence of it. Even if he has more political experience, that doesn’t make him an expert on economics. I think most convention propaganda seems “magical”, for both parties. Both candidates promise to solve all of our problems, while the opponent is going to make life a living hell! What else do you expect them to say?

In my view, there are more deal breakers against the Republican ticket than just the VP candidate being a creationist, although any anti-science attitude is not good for me. There are, of course, single issue voters in the world.

pc, we crazy liberals are concerned with more than simply i.d. … we are concerned with what it represents: the encroachment of religion on the state.

conservatives try to frame it as healthy scientific debate; they try to frame it as a state’s rights issue; in california, they are using parents’ rights to homeschool to get i.d. and other religious doctrine recognized as approved curricula.

and you KNOW this is true … much of your june post (from which i took the long excerpt) discusses the impropriety of bringing religion into the classroom.

i admit palin’s position has put you in a tough spot, but if you could resist the temptation to fall on your sword for the republican party, you might be able to redeem some credibility on this issue. i’m on your side — the one you presented back in june.

i do not, however, support your efforts to deflect attention from this i.d./evangelical debate towards an image of the big, bad democrat who wants to steal everyone’s money.

Further to the point of the dangers of creationism, belief in creationism requires a requisite amount of divorce from reality, or factual relativism that, to me, signifies societal death if left unchecked. We cannot argue away realities if we hope to govern effectively, and when that mindset triumphs in one sphere (creationism), we can trust it to move on into the next (abstinence only education).

PC, we do agree that AOE, at least, is an abject failure?

Btw, I know VERY little about the economy, but the points have been ably presented by both sides at every turn. In the spirit of debate, I’d be happy to do a point-counterpoint post on Obama/McCain on the economy from two of you all. It’d lurn me gud.

well, ames, here’s a real important economic/political lesson … make sure you are represented by someone who can work the system to your (via their) advantage …

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/01/AR2008090103148.html?sid=ST2008090103340&s_pos=

as mayor of that bustling metropolis, wasilla (pop. 6700), palin was able to secure $27M in federal monies for, oh, you know … this and that …. AWESOME!

can ya’ smell the pork?

I don’t know much about economics (chem PhD, you know), but hasn’t “Bush’s” taxcuts (as we like to call them) placed more of the burden for publicly funded services and the like to the states, in a simplistic-naive point of view? (I’m probably showing my ignorance here.)

I’m a few posts behind the curve, so sorry if this derails the thinking – just want to spend my two cents in support of PC’s notion that ID support, while a bummer, isn’t going to drive my vote in either direction. The economy and foreign policy are, or should be, the centerpieces of this election. I have to find who I trust on the economy to guide me (I self-select as economically incompetent on the macro level) , but so far Obama has me on foreign policy.

People can shout all they want about letting foreigners decide our elections, but I think electing McCain is horrible for our reputation abroad. I also think that it’s more than just soldiers in bodybags; it’s economics, diplomacy on a host of battle fronts, it’s trade… it’s a lot. And he’ll hurt us in all of it, if for no other reason than he’ll be seen as an American affirmation of its attitude the last 8 years. That pretty much seals it for me.

But ID? Meh.

~ John

I’m sorry I jump on some of your comments PC.

I’ve just seen this issue a couple of times, and I’m not trying to argue who’s right and wrong (we’ve discussed it), just that with something as contentious as economic theory, to repeatedly say that someone is ignorant or outrageous on economics because you don’t agree with him…is a bit much to me.

Especially with such conflicting data out there. Like the article others posted, and here’s another one talking about how well economies do under Democrats: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?em=&pagewanted=print

well, p.c., it is easy to minimize the encroachment of god in the classroom (and throughout our secular institutions) when one’s eyes are so implacably fixed on the prize that is outlawed abortion.

and i agree with oneiroi: you consistently and summarily dismiss every obama position with a knee-jerk rapidity that belies serious thought and substantive debate.

regarding your concerns for the people who are going to be hardest hit by increases in the capital gains tax … obama recently said he would increase the tax from 15% to 20% for individuals making over $250K annually.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/08/obama-clarifies.html

(if you are lucky enough to be in this bracket, then bully for you, and i would understand your deep concern. if you are not in this bracket, i am sure those wealthy people who are appreciate your advocating for their interests.)

Get in! Coward!

From DM: and i agree with oneiroi: you consistently and summarily dismiss every obama position with a knee-jerk rapidity that belies serious thought and substantive debate.

I don’t dismiss all of his ideas. I like obama’s position on gay marriage. His energy policy is decent. He favors faith-based iniatives, which I also support. I really liked the stance he took on attacking targets in afghanistan. I’m on board with about 99% of his immigration policy.

You see, ONE of us took the time to read the other guy’s positions, word for word. ONE of us has gone on record more than once to compliment the other guy (and not one of those backhanded compliments that Ames likes where you throw in a dig at the end). The dozen or so lunch hours I spent with Obama’s ‘Blueprint for Change’ with a highlighter in one hand reflects that ONE of us actually cares about educating ourself about the other guy.

I came to my conclusions about Obama from reading his opinions first, then reading the opinions of others. You seem to be forming most of yours about McCain by doing a quick Google search in response to each comment on Ames’ blog.

and i agree with oneiroi: you consistently and summarily dismiss every obama position with a knee-jerk rapidity that belies serious thought and substantive debate.

Pot, meet kettle…

I’m just saying, someone not agreeing with you does not equal that they know nothing about economic policy.

I’ve asked before about banning the capital gains tax on lower income businesses and how that will really help, on how the only thing anyone’s been able to really point out about capital gains tax changes is that it increases investment before the increase, how the levels between the classes gets more severe in Republican years (and how I think that creates an unstable economy).

I’m not saying my measley knowledge is better. Because I’m no expert. But there are plenty of think tanks, economists (some referenced in this post) that don’t really come down heavily for either side in this issue or opposite from you. And dismissing everyone else because they don’t agree…I don’t think is a fair argument.

And as I said before, most of the taxes Obama has have been the same since the Reagan years, and we’ve been fine. It isn’t the end of the world. The economy isn’t going to spiral out of control all of a sudden because people repealed the most recent tax break, while giving money back to the middle class.

I would even say a large part of the problem with our economy is the failing middle class. The people that are hurting aren’t businesesses, so much as the middle class which has fallen behind and has hurt retail, the housing industry, all sorts of business. Trying to balance out an economy that has been run heavily favoring the upper percents for most of 8 years, I think will benefit everyone.

And the raising in deficit point you made, which those numbers tend to come from the Tax Policy Center tax policy center study, say that McCain will bring us to debt 1 trillion more dollars than Obama. On top of that it projects a .4 increased GDP growth under Obama’s plan. Again I’m not saying that it’s right and you’re wrong, but that there are credible sources that don’t agree with you, and dismissing the economic policy with such disdain when there are credible sources citing different results than you.

That doesn’t mean I think McCain is ignorant or making crazy plans, I just don’t think the economic plan he’s proposed has been that fruitful so far, and there was a reason he opposed the tax cuts he supports now. But I understand it’s based on a different theory than I think is correct.

Maybe we’re just arguing semantics and style when discussing this though.

and while we’re talking about economic plans, let’s not limit ourselves to just taxes.

what about infrastructure investment? p.c., you wrote a post on your site lamenting the pathetic state of investment in public infrastructure in this country.

obama wants it. he’s planning on it. economists have long argued that deficit spending for infrastructure improvements is a good kind of debt … kinda like how credit card debt is bad but home equity and mortgage debt is good for individuals (the sub-prime fiasco notwithstanding). well, right now the u.s. has a lot of “credit card” debt … owed to the likes of china and saudi arabia in the form of bonds … while very little infrastrcture investment … falling bridges … failing levees …

i have repeatedly looked on mccain’s site for reference to infrastructure investment … i looked in his “economy” section … i also looked in his section on “national security” … i found nothing.

obama’s infrastructure plans go literal brick and mortar … he also wants to invest in updating our “technology grid” … right now the u.s. does not have the fastest fiber-optic network … europe’s internet speeds, for instance, dramatically out pace ours. keeping out technological infrastructure cutting-edge (or at least up-to-date) is important for the economy AND national security.

where does investment like this fit in mccain’s economic plan?

(p.s., i finally found mccain’s *.pdf … his briefing paper. infrastructure investment is still not in there.)

DM, If you think my remarks are ’stereotypical’ I can only say that they are in response to a very ’sterotypical’ liberal economic policy of tax and spend. You have yet to refute the fact that Obama is planning a massive overall tax hike on the American people. I guess because it’s targeted at those evil rich folks and not the vaunted ‘middle class’ it’s easier to stomach, but again, you all ignore the fact that those evil rich people are the ones that employee most of us.

Your statement that it is a 5% increase is also incorrect. He is proposing a 10% increase from 15% to 25%. Maybe that still doesn’t sound like much (it’s easy to write it off if you don’t think it will ever affect you) but on a property sale of $300,000 the seller will lose an additional $30,000 under Obama’s plan. The translation is that Obama thinks he knows how to spend that money better than them. He believes it’s more important that he have the money for programs like training minorities for ‘green jobs’ than for a landowner to be able to claim the profit on property their family has held for generations.

What concerns me the most DM is the way you seem to write off these concerns. Maybe you believe in Robin Hood economics and maybe in your part of the country people don’t have a lot of wealth tied up in property. Around here there are a lot of people who stand to lose tens of thousands of dollars under Obama’s plan. Perhaps my concerns are too pedestrian since they come from first-hand knowledge rather than Googled articles, and they probably sound very ’sterotypical’ to you….but that is MY perspective.

Hope he can find a way to pay for them? Why not that concern with McCain when I just pointed out an estimate that McCain would put us in 1 trillion more debt than Obama? Want more sources? I’m trying to find another non partisan study now.

Why is it so wrong to repeal a tax cut? Because that’s what Obama is doing. And still not to the same level as it was before. The tax cut wasn’t permanent in the first place.

And to be fair, last I heard he now caps the capital gains at 20%. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/08/obama-clarifies.html

I still say, that right now a large part of the reason businesses are failing is the struggling middle class. It works both ways. You can help the middle class and also help businesses. People get on their feet, start spending, then the businesses receive money, and can start hiring more people. So yes the rich hire people, but they have to have enough business to be able to do that.

pc, the majority of american middle class families has MOST of their wealth in property … even liberals in the hudson valley. believe me, capital gains tax, property taxes, county and state taxes … ALL are hot topics in my house. and if you want to see a nightmare, try negotiating the new york state tax system.

the 20% cap rate (5% increase) applies to families earning more than $250K annually. according to the census, in 2006 4.4% of american families made $200K of more.

my family is not part of that group, and i do not wish to punish anyone in that group. if we earned that much, we would have no problem kicking in an extra 5% on our asset sales.

that said, if we were in this income bracket, we would certainly be able to afford to have our estate set up in such a way to take advantage of every tool available to us to protect our wealth.

besides up to $250K in profits from the sale of primary residences is tax free for individuals who meet ownership and use requirements (up to $500K for married-filing-jointly).

so based on the example you provide, if a family makes $250K annually and sold their longtime home at a profit of $300K, they still wouldn’t have to pay any cap gains. (i would love, by the way, to be able to sell our home at such a profit.)

thus, american families, the majority of whom earn less than $250K annually and have most of their wealth tied up in their homes, are NOT going to be hit by a cap gains tax … not now, and not if obama wins the presidency. similary, those families earning more than $250K and selling for profits less than $250K/$500K will not be affected.

I hate to be a math nerd, except it’s really really really really important in this debate. A move from 15% taxes to 20% taxes is not a 5% increase in taxation. It’s a **33%** increase in taxes.

If you were being taxed 15% on $100 you’d pay $15.00. A 5% increase in that would mean that you are now paying $15.75. If the rate moves from 15% to 20%, however, you are now paying $20.00.

I mention this because “5% increase” is, in my opinion, rhetorical subterfuge, although I do sincerely believe that it’s been unintentional in this conversation. Nevertheless, a 33% hike is a significant increase.

OOPS! john, you are totally correct … my mistake … 5-percentage-point increase (that is a mortal sin in quantitative analysis, and i just committed it — YIKES!) … yet while a 33% increase sounds like a lot, the base amount is what determines relative size … for instance, going from 1% to 2% is a 100% increase … a capital-gains tax of 20%, though, is still lower than the same rate under reagan … which topped out at 28% early in his 2nd term.

p.c. it’s hard to know exactly what to say about your aunt and uncle.

but, pc, i can say that because of my value system and how i view the individual’s responsibility to society and vice versa, i can guarantee that a 5-percentage-point increase (amounting to a 33% increase) in capital-gains tax is something i would be willing to pay. you can doubt me all you want.

but, pc, i can say that because of my value system and how i view the individual’s responsibility to society and vice versa, i can guarantee that a 5-percentage-point increase (amounting to a 33% increase) in capital-gains tax is something i would be willing to pay. you can doubt me all you want.

So then why not donate the equivelant amount now? Why let Obama’s $250,000 cap stop you from exercising your responsibility to society? Or does responsibility only lie with the ‘rich’ ?

It’s easy to write off the folks that consistently make $250,000 every year I suppose. But there are a lot of people like my aunt and uncle who will do it once in their lives. And Obama says that money is better spent on his new programs.

Where does responsibility to society end and responsibility to your family start?

Pray tell, what is it?

P.S. i was comment number 5000. W00t!

John – thank you so much for the kind words. I think as of late I haven’t felt I was living up to the progressive part of my handle, so I will take your compliment as a reminder to hold closer to my core principles.

And in that spirit, let me just echo what DM says regarding responsibility between oneself and society. I am not opposed to the government being large. I am not opposed to the government doing extraordinary things to help the lowest of its citizens. I am not opposed to a fair tax for all that funds those efforts. In short I’m not a Goldwater or Grover Norquist conservative. My opposition to Obama’s plan is that it’s just too much and I also can never accept any tax that puts an additional burden on success. I prefer a flat tax and a serious effort to close tax loopholes for corporations. Those two things would more than fund generous social programs for all.

Ames, I think you are confusing deficit with debt. Deficit is much easier to fix but free trade would have to go by the wayside. I really go back and forth on that one.

As for the debt, that’s a very long term problem to solve. i would prefer it be solved by cutting spending. If it must be solved with higher taxes then there should be an earmark that every dollar go to the debt. The problem is that i don’t see obama’s plan cutting the debt because he has so many new spending plans in the works. At best his current plan will just barely fund his proposed programs and at worst he will be passing even more taxes once the bills need to be paid.

#15

As much as this irks me, the fact is that Bush has been on record as supporting the teaching of ID for years and not much has come of it. Scientists are doing a good job of fighting this off.

The problem is, when the President and his political party (excepting folks like George Will, Charles Krauthammer, and Jon Derbyshire, who really need to speak up even more) lend an air of legitimacy to ID, you get nonsense like the “academic freedom” bill in Louisiana, creating even more issues that we as scientists waste our valuable time fighting. The sooner the GOP distances itself from the creationists, the better. I maintain that – by promoting policies that violate the Establishment Clause and weaken American scientific strength and integrity – the leaders of The Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, the Institute for Creation Research, and Answers in Genesis are domestic enemies of the United States. Other than that, I have no strong feelings on the subject.

I’m afraid I’m the one who brought taxes up as a fork in the conversation, sorry about that.

PC, you’re welcome. :)

~ John

james f — totally agreed.

the lack of conviction, the win-at-all-cost ethos of the republican party … it’s maddening … i cannot believe more republicans don’t take a stand against this nonsense.

pc’s assertion that you “scientists are doing a good job fighting this off” is ultimately cowardly … and certainly, it is not something any reasonable person could call “progressive” …

From DM: i have repeatedly mentioned oil subsidies and corporate welfare outlays throughout threads on this site … the response i get from you: crickets chirping.

I have told you, more than once, here and at your blog and probably at mine, that i do not support oil subsidies. In fact I’m pretty sure the only subsidies I have gone on record to support are in alternative energy and agriculture (the latter being a matter of national security).

But just for the record, McCain voted against oil subsidies when Obama voted for them.

pc’s assertion that you “scientists are doing a good job fighting this off” is ultimately cowardly … and certainly, it is not something any reasonable person could call “progressive” …

The point I made, and have made before, is that scientists are the best defenders of ID. Why? Because folks like yourself and Ames, while I don’t doubt you really care about science, also have other motives. You use ID as a club to beat conservatives with. And regardless of how many times you deny it, your political motives are on your sleeves. THAT is why I think that ID should be fought from withing the scientific and Christian community, neither of which you belong to.

Despite the best efforts if the Left to make this a political issue, it frankly remains a very, very minor one. Yes, it sounds pretty important in places like Ames’ blog and Pharyngula because they talk about it constantly, but out in the real world, the average American is completely uninterested in this conversation.

The point you should have taken from my original comment was that you’re wasting your time if that is the best line of attack you have on Palin.

Sites like Pharyngula or Dana’s site are all too happy to use science as a tool to promote an atheist agenda. You’ve admitted as much. ID folks are using science to promote an evangelical agenda. Who is stuck in the middle? Scientists. That’s why they need to kick out both sides. They need to be reaching out to school districts, proactively, to help strengthen science curriculum and explain what good science is and that science should be a non-partisan endeavor. It may surprise you to know that 33% of Americans do not believe there is scientifice consensus on evolution. Who’s fault is that? Scientists also have a responsibility to do better.

And before you go criticizing conservatives as being overly religious, you should understand that a nearly equal number of Americans feel liberals aren’t religious enough:

“Just as many believe that non-religious liberals have too much control over the Democratic Party (44%) as believe religious conservatives have too much control over the Republican Party (45%).”

http://people-press.org/report/254/religion-a-strength-and-weakness-for-both-parties

Ames, the words may not come out of YOUR mouth, but read the comment sections at PZ’s site and others like it. The correlation is made over and over and over and over and over again: if you accept scientific principles, you have to conclude that there is no God.

I’m not even beginning to touch on the question of God, so please don’t anyone take me there. I’m simply saying that the argument is made in the trenches, repeatedly. It’s the Jinxmchue’s of the left, true, but there’s a ton of those types on both sides.

~ John

Ames, I echo John’s comments. The politicization of science has been happening on both sides of the aisle for a long time. And it’s not just on ID. It’s on a number of subjects.

ID is the latest issue, but to pretend that liberal atheists aren’t using science to re-enforce their primary message is naive.

That would be easier to stomach if atheism and liberalism were not joined at the hip these days…

When I see a link to Pharyngula on almost every liberal blog I visit, I know it’s becoming the new version of the Religious Right.

The Atheist Left is a growing contituency.

But just for the record, McCain voted against oil subsidies when Obama voted for them.

that is true, and i have mentioned this before, i think in a thread on my blog.

it was part of the 2005 energy bill, in which cheney had so much involvement. it had farm subsidies in it, too, as well as some money for alternate-energy development. obama represents a farm state. i don’t like his vote, but again, subsidies are so thoroughly ingrained in the political climate, it is no longer a partisan issue. though, i can give mccain credit on this point.

Ames, I have to disagree with you on the minimal impact of atheists on the scientific debate. Here’s a thought exercise (as the physicists say):

there are moderates and liberals that are nevertheless Christians, Muslims, and members of other faiths. Some portion of those people believe in Creation stories that suppose a “Young Earth.”

In your own mind, how easy is it for you to add “far-right” to anyone who espouses support for ID or Creation?

Full disclosure: I’m fine with Old Earth and think it’s painfully easy to prove Young Earth is false to my own satisfaction, scientific or not.

Oniroi, Interesting-looking piece. I tend to be fascinated by almost anything that references the University of Chicago (I was an anthropology major). I will spend some time with this over the weekend when I’m not trying to rid the skies of Kentucky of those pesky mourning doves.

mmmmm … dove! almost as good as quail … the wild kind, not the kind raised on a farm (like the kind cheney shoots) …

not with a hurricane, you won’t … i hope it doesn’t get too freaky in ky. the wind had been blowin’ up here for several hours … hot and humid … ick.

(venison tenderloin … uuuuuhhhhhhhh … mmmmmmmmm … drool …)

***
btw … regarding your comments re: my giving to causes of my choice based on my capital gains encumbrance under obama’s plan … here are some calculations …

because my family makes less that $250K, my capital gains encumbrance (under obama) is $0 … we give more than $0 every year to a handful of meaningful groups/organizations (which shall remain nameless because, again, it’s no one’s bizniss) … therefore, my family is exceeding all expectations … we pay all taxes owed and we give charitably on top of that. if we did make the aforementioned $250K, we would gladly pay the additional cap gains under obama and we would STILL give to our chosen charities.

cheers!

i totally disagree with you, pc … according to your logic, there should be NO TAXES AT ALL … i’m calling bullshit on that.

***
regarding hunting busts … i read a great book by jared diamond (redundant, i know) … why is sex fun? … greatest title EVER!

anyway, diamond has a section about the myth of the hunter … that hunting, actually, was very difficult, and that it was women — as gatherers — who provided the main sustenance with fruits and vegetables and greens, etc. … all this leads to his culminating theory of why women reach menopause … women in the older generations had to be available to care for the youngsters of their daughters while their daughters were out gathering and their sons (and sons-in-law, i suppose) were struggling with the hunt. the grandmothers couldn’t very well do this if they had their own babies to care for …

seriously, like all diamond works … it is a terrific read.

:)