Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Cruising the Web

Once more Palestinians are faking photos of a dead child in order to turn the media and world against Israel. CNN got suckered in to this propaganda. Actually, the child was killed by Hamas's own rocket.

GQ interviews Marco Rubio. In among the usual questions and the fluff questions about his music preferences (NWA, Tupac, and Eminem) the reporter throws in a questions about how old is the Earth. Why ask a politician such a question? It's totally irrelevant except as an opportunity to trip up a religious conservative and make him look silly. Rubio deftly avoids that trap with this answer.
GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?
Marco Rubio: I'm not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries.
Rubio, as Ross Douthat says, gives a muddled answer, but who cares? Why ask a politician about a question of science such as this unless the goal is to get him to say something that would reject the science and then people can laugh at him. Rubio avoided that trap. I wish other politicians would learn how to do that: pay respect to both sides of the debate and then respond that it isn't his role to decide this.

How is that blue state model working out for you? California now has a poverty rate of 23.5%, the highest in the nation including D.C.

And it's not doing great things for France or its credit rating either.

Jim Geraghty analyzes the numbers to hypothesize that a lot of the difference between McCain's vote total and Romney's might have been libertarians voting for Gary Johnson. We don't have a survey to determine if those Johnson voters were former McCain voters so we can't really know. I do know that, when my school had a vote by all the students, Obama's percentage was way down from 2008, but still in the low 50s. Romney was in the 30s and Gary Johnson got 12% of the vote, the highest a minor party candidate has ever received at our school. Several of my students were quite excited to be voting for him.

Samuel Alito defends the Citizens United decision.

Paul Krugman had a silly column yesterday writing about his yearning for the 91% marginal tax rates of the 1950s. Somehow that connects to the demise of Twinkies. I don't understand how someone like Krugman could be so blind to mistake correlation for causation. Is there anyone who really thinks that high marginal tax rates led to the prosperity of the 1950s? AEI resurrects John Kennedy to respond to Krugman.

Amity Shlaes sees some scary parallels between FDR's second term and the economic situation we're facing now.

Democratic politicians who win office are regularly being confronted by public employee unions and caving in to them.

Robert Samuelson explains how the welfare state is breaking us.

Democrats are already worrying about maintaining the enthusiasm in the coalition that reelected Obama.


mark said...

I think it's reasonable to assume that people who think (or claim to think) the way Rubio does about how old the earth is also believe (or claim to believe) that climate change is a hoax. That disqualifies him from ever leading our country, and earns him the scorn he attracts.

Dr Weevil said...

Slate has an amusing comparison of what Rubio recently said about the age of the earth to what Obama said about it four years ago. Short version: pretty much the same answer.

mark said...

Weevil; The question to Rubio was for an adult audience.
The question for Obama was a hypothetical one from his daughter (who at the time were pre-teen). Perhaps some conservatives prefer to be treated as children.

Obama went on to state he believes in evolution. I think Rubio is one who thinks we should give equal consideration to evolution and to creationism. Good luck to repubs if they continue to be controlled by people who think the earth might be 6000 - 9000 years old.

Paul said...


What difference does it make if one thinks the world is 5000 y.o. or 4 billion...your garbage man, investment banker, line worker in a factory still has to go to work everyday and make a living. Liberals obsess over it because they feel everyone should believe EXACTLY what they believe or they are somewhat defective. Yet, Liberals have absolutely no problem promoting the killing of unborn children and call it choice....talk about cognitive dissonance..

mark said...

Simple, anyone who believes the earth is 5000 yrs. old is simply not intellectualy qualified to be leading our country in any capacity. Climate change will affect us in many ways, including the economy. What can be done about it (if anything) is debatable. Whether or not it exists is not. Conserves should stop be selfish, ingrates and look beyond yourselves to the future.
Your contention that liberal enjoy promoting abortion is a ridiculous lie. Welcome to the world of nutjobs posting here.

Dr Weevil said...

Hmmm. I write a comment specifically addressed to Betsy, and 'mark', who doesn't have the courtesy to address me by my chosen pseudonym, butts in with a reply that proves he didn't bother to read the last four paragraphs of the Slate piece.

Paul said...


You just proved my point...Just because you disagree that the Earth is more than 5000 y.o. you feel that the person is unqualified. I personally don't care. And Mark - Abortion is a major plank in the Democrat platform. They promote to all who don't want to take the reponsibility of an unwanted preganancy due to consensual sex. It is promoting killing unborn children whether you like to think about it or not.