by the way, posting comments here is incredibly difficult. 95% of the time, if you post anonymously, it fucks up and loses your post. some error occurs. i tried to sign up, but damned if i can find any box to type those letters in.

anyway, of course faith need not conflict with reason if you have a whole body of beliefs that you deem not to require reason! Duh. I'm glad at least that Peck has learned to reason and do science so taht he can see the obvious truths there. Now why can't he just apply THOSE SAME RULES OF REASON TO PLATES BURIED IN NY? And all the other absolute total BS Mormons believe?

Some people, even SJ Gould, have said that that stuff has another epistemology and is valid according to the other epistemology. Problem is, no one has ever written two interesting words about what that epistemology IS, or HOW IT WORKS. Which is exactly what science and reason insist on.

Newton's proof that calculus worked had a fundamental flaw--when he had a an infinitesimal as the denominator in a fraction, he let it be a small but existing number, and when that same infinitesimal occured elsewhere, he let it be zero. Elementary failure of basic logic, pointed out clearly by the philosopher Berkeley (who called infinitesimals "the ghosts of departed quantities). the problems wasn't solved until Dedekind, who offered a proof without the error.

The point is that everyone knew this problem HAD to be solved, or else there was a deep problem in what should be a rational theory. Scientists and philosophers of science dwell on these things constantly. It's not that there aren't problems, but we are committed to solving them.

the other side never mentions their own problems.

Of course 1-on-1 reading with kids improves their skills. Did we really need this as proof? Experts aren't even necessary, it just takes someone to take the time with the child. There are places that make a lot of money doing just that, Silvan comes to mind, for one.

Excellent links today Norm! Thanks!

Second, yeah, anon posting used to bugger me. I ALWAYS copied the text before submitting, just in case. I chalked it up to the 'magic voodoo letters' having a certain time limit of validity, as when you took too long to write, it diminished the odds of the submission taking. shrug Try writing in a seperate editor first, though I do recc. just getting an account. That way I can read your comments immediately and have a more enjoyable day *8)

(the selfish gene indeed)

"The fact that over 90% of blacks prefer Obama and significant majorities of white men should be legitimate topics of discussion, but those raising them are often shouted down with charges of racism. The land of the free indeed."

I think people have been pretty free to talk about why this or that group is supporting this or that candidate. Other people have been free to point out comments they think are racist. Hillary supporters like Geraldine Ferraro made comments with pretty repulsive racial undertones (while Elizabeth Edwards actually complained that the poorer showing of her one-term senator husband was due to the fact that he wasn't female or black--she was not denounced as a racist or sexist for this comment that I know of), and I'm glad people had the freedom to denounce Ferraro's comemnts as racist beause they were. She was certainly free to denounce her critics as racists and she did.

Specifically the Clintons have taken a great interest in why blacks are supporting Obama in high numbers. But Obama supporters have also commented on why so many blacks are supporting Obama. In fact, far from the subect being taboo it's probably discussed more than it should be, since the contest is about the candidates, not about what good or bad conclusions we should make about candidates based on the demographics of their supporters.

The preferences of black Democrats in this race seem to me to be a pretty boring, non-sinister story. They were, like most other solid Democratic groups, firmly in HRC's camp. This changed significantly when it was clear that Obama was a viable candidate that could indeed get white votes. Then it changed again even more in favor of Obama when the contest took on a sour, racial tone. If people are avoiding the claim that black voters are mindless identity voters that care only about skin color, I'd guess it's because the claim is baseless, not because it's politically incorrect.