Fair question.

I would expect him to say "Evolution is an accepted scientific fact. Personally I believe in a Creator who created all things. But to insert Him into processes and events that are subject to scientific inquiry is unnecessary and counter-productive."

Now that's what I would expect him to say, whether it alienates his base or not. What he did say, as you noted, did not alienate his base. It did alienate me.

In other words, keeping fractious coalitions together is his problem and Karl Rove's problem, not mine. If he came down the other way on one or two of these 'secular vs. religious' questions once in awhile, that would help.

Bill,

I think you're a bit off line with the Rush comment. He was bringing to light the fact that Hacket was wrapping himself in the flag as a patriotic war hero, while bashing Bush and his policies in Iraq. Granted he served in Iraq, which is commendable, but don't place it in adds and not clearly identify who or what your political affiliation is or how you feel about the war. Hacket was attempting to garner political cover by touting himself as a Bush supporter. Disingenuous at best.

Listen to the add he put out and it would lead one to believe he was at the front line of the war, not true.

I disagree.

If for no other reason that Rush Limbaugh's use of "staff puke" maligns every other public affairs officer dodging bullets and IED's in Iraq.

Bill,

I'm a civilian working for the Navy in essentially a "staff puke" position. I'd have to be pretty thin skinned to get upset by that.

If Howard Dean or Al Franken had made the same comment, in a role reversal, I doubt many individuals would be so forgiving of the comment's hubristic, arrogant presumption.

My problem with 'staff puke' is that it implies some safe, rear-echelon, or stateside berth. You might consider Baghdad's Green Zone such, at a stretch.

There are NO SAFE CUSHY, "McHales Navy" assignments in Iraq.

What's more, everyone, from Bush & Rumsfeld on down, agree that the political (i.e. civil) development in Iraq is at least as important as the combat.

Hackett's job was dangerous and verry important.

Nope. Depends on the context. Rush has a solid reputation for supporting troops of all stripes, combat or non-combat. So it's one thing to knock Rush for just one single incident. But to toss out his entire history of supporting the troops because of this comment, about a manipulative, deceptive political puke---who, by the way, did serve honorably in wartime---that's your problem.

Howard Dean and the leftist wing of the Democratic party? Not. If they made a comment like this, yeah, we'd be pissed off, but actually it wouldn't be quite the spike it is with Rush, because we already KNOW they're a bunch of anti-military assh*oles, they establish it every day.

Honestly, Al Franken I'm a bit ambivalent about. He's an assh*le about a lot of things but the man does give some fair props to the troops, including making personal visits. I commend him for that.

I guess all I'm saying is that 1) I do think that Rush ought to apologize but 2) this isn't going to earn him a place alongside Markos "Screw 'em" Kos.

mcg -

None of what you've said contradicts my judgment, as I didn't say Limbaugh was as bad as Kos.

I just said that he's an asshole. And he is.

I think Rush just got a little too carried away. Was his wording appropriate, not course not, and for that he should give an explanation and apologize to anyone who as offended. BUT taken in the context of Hackett’s actions I think Rush was right in his overall message which was that it’s wrong to make yourself out to be something you are not for political gain. I guess I could write that a million times and it won’t change the politicians who do it. Hackett has disgraced the men and women he served with by trying to show himself as this great war hero veteran just to get a few votes from the real hero’s of the war. Rush was wrong but he has never shown himself to be anything less than grateful to our military.

But I don't ONLY advocate teaching ID in a theology class (or, less loaded, a philosophy or history of ideas class, which is it's proper sphere for being taught as a philosophical starting point).

I also write:

While I don’t believe Intelligent Design should be taught as a comparable theory to evolution in science classes (it’s not scientifically falsifiable¹, first of all, which means it isn’t a scientic theory, regardless of how vehemently the anthropocentic proponents of irreducible complexity insist it is—and anyway, it addresses questions about first causes that fall outside the proper purview of scientific inquiry), I nevertheless do believe that addressing the field of ID theory in science classes provides a perfect opportunity to show how ID and evolution do not necessarily contradict one another, and that—if evolution is taught properly—the controversy itself disappears, except as a propaganda tool ginned up either by creationists or materialists who like to use it as a rhetorical club against their ideological opponents.

Th e reason the conflict disappears is exactly the object lesson that the class that introduces the idea of ID should hightlight: evolution doesn't address the question of first causes; ID necessarily must. And of the two, only one is answerable to the scientific method.

What you do by introducing ID in this way is to make the necessary distinctions between science and philosophy, distinctions that -- had they been taught previously -- would have taken the starch out of this "debate" long ago. Similarly, it is precisely because those who reject materialism as a philosophical ground for existence don't feel like they are taken seriously in the public square -- that they have been shut out of the market place of ideas -- that drives the passion behind this controversy. A frank and critical examination of the how and the why natural selection and ID are separate and equally valid in their appropriate disciplines would go a long way toward satisfying the conditions of this debate.

What you do by introducing ID in this way is to make the necessary distinctions between science and philosophy, distinctions that -- had they been taught previously -- would have taken the starch out of this "debate" long ago.

In a fantasy world where this debate was characterized by honest intent and logic, maybe.

On the Rush comment, I heard it live. I thought it was out of place and mean-spirited, but it seemed to me like he was mistakenly trying to paraphrase what the caller was saying. The caller basically said nothing of the sort and I think this does shed some light on the rank partisanship of Limbaugh.

As a moderate Republican do I "repudiate" that comment by Rush ? Yes.

But - BUT - his primary point DOES stand. Hackett was running a fraudulent campaign, portraying himself as a Bush supporter when he is anything but.

Guys (meaning Bill and Herr Commissar)-

I heard it live also and winced when he said it... Today, as typical for Rush's ego, he backtracked hinting that he was just using common military jargon. Problem is, he does "rate" using that term, especially without any military service.

That said y'all ARE going a bit overboard in getting overly excited about this. Couple points:

1) Anyone getting through TBS gets my respect.
2) All Marines are infantry first, independent of their MOS
3) That being said, I STILL think that front line Marines would consider this guy a staff puke also.

JFH -

Calling Rush Limbaugh an asshole is "going overboard?"

I thought negatively about Rush limbaugh before I read this, this reinforces it, and will think so again. As it is, his partisan schtick, looking to take the guy down a peg with this angle, is smarmy.

And once again, with my special visualization techniques, I cannot imagine any right-wingers defending Al Franken if he used similar tactics.

A parallel to me is the "chickenhawk" argument used by the left. In a similar fashion, saying "this guy isn't REALLY a warrior because he's not infantry" is an unfair, ill-intentioned argument.

Since Bill deleted my comment from the other thread I'll add it here.

Chill Bill. I don't think you know what a staff puke is. What is more reprehensible is that this guy ran an advertisement acting like he supported Bush and the war and gave the impression he is a Republican.

Bill, another analogy would be the way some on the left are treating John Roberts as one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse, simply because he's a Republican. It's perfectly fair to disagree with Hackett on policy, or to question his ads, but don't mock or denegrate someone who volunteered to go to Iraq simply because he's a Democrat. IIRC, the entire country is considered a war zone, no?

I was in N. Kentucky, just south of Cincy, last October. One guy running for Congress had an ad touting that he stood with Bush on the war, was against abortion, and believed that marriage was only for a man and a woman. This was the Democrat.

I'm not military, but is it fair to assume that "staff puke" is perhaps an example of a slang term that you "own" if you're part of the group, and it's kosher to use if you're part the group, but is not okay to use if you're outside the group? For comparison: I might joke about being white trash, my friends could call me white trash with no complaint from me, but if a stranger passing me on the street called me white trash I'd probably punch them in the mouth.

anon -

FYI - I deleted your comment because I figured that you would repost in the correct thread after you acknowledged your error.

Now this:

Chill Bill. I don't think you know what a staff puke is.

I know that "staff puke" is a derogatory military term that can be used by individuals with "ownership rights," as outlined by Hubris above. I admit that I didn'y know its specific place in military vernacular when I put up this post. That mitigates Limbaugh's offense only slightly. Furthermore ...

What is more reprehensible is that this guy ran an advertisement acting like he supported Bush and the war and gave the impression he is a Republican

I'm not addressing that point, nor what is "more reprehensible." This is not an either-or situation, where because the guy in question did something wrong, it absolves Rush Limbaugh's political tactic of attacking the nature of his service (and via proxy, the service of other "staff pukes.")

See that? Argumentatively, I can walk, talk and even chew gum, all at the same time!

Sometimes, I even rub my tummy.

Hubris -

but if a stranger passing me on the street called me white trash I'd probably punch them in the mouth.

Thus affirming your white trashiness.

Me? I'd just sneer, then have my chauffeur Dudley beat him up, eventually holding his arms while I mercilessly thrashed him about the head and neck with my pearl-handled cane.

Well, I'd only punch them if it still left me time to yell to the pretty girl across the street: "Hey, what're you doin' with them titties later?"

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to shine my brass bust of Randy Owen.

Since it's not linked, I will assume for the sake of argument that the entire exchange is posted and that the caller made no subsequent comment (I didn't hear it so those who did please correct me if I'm wrong).

It looks like Rush was trying to summarize the caller's characterization of Hackett's vitriol spew against the President by tossing out some kewl derogatory military lingo about Hackett's job in the Marines. Not Rush's finest moment. But ASSH*LE?! He may be an assh*le for other reasons but not for this.

A “Staff Puke” is an Officer or a Senior Enlisted soldier that serves on a Commanders Staff. This can be at any level from Battalion on up. In order to call someone a Staff Puke, you should know what position he/she serves. This is the same in all units of all types, Army and/or Marine. So without knowing what "Position" Hackett served in, leaves a question as to weather he is a Staff Puke or not.

But the question is weather or not Rush Called him that, or stated what a caller said. I read the transcript, seems to me he was re-stating a caller.

BUT, also clarify who Hackett is. What I can tell is: He was a Marine Major, assigned to a Civil Affairs Unit. He was West of Baghdad. Best I remember, and I listened to the fight on the radios, that Fallujah and Rahmadi were cleared by Infantry Units, not Civil Affairs Units. They showed up after the fight for the rebuilding.

NOW, I'm not saying Civil Affair didn't have it as rough as the rest of us, I am saying they didn't clear the towns house to house. So they were in Iraq, just like a lot of us.

I am a Operations Sergeant Major Staff Puke, I spent from Dec 03 to Jan 05 in Iraq. In Najaf, Kerbala, and the rest of the Center South AOR. We had a lot of problems in April and in August. And the whole time, I was a Staff Puke, no big deal.

Bird

PS: But I wasn't a REMF...

PSS: Hackett was a Marine in Iraq, Tip your hat, say Hello, thank him for his service, and go vote a straight GOP ticket. Pay attention when the left cares for our coumtry, not talks about caring.

Sir:
You're way off the mark on the Limbaugh remark. As we all know, and you have stated, rear area public affairs officers are renowned for the wounds they have incurred in desperate hand to hand encounters with fearless watercoolers, mimeo machines, and donut trays. Alas Rush and most veterans did not fell the need to pay hommage to the noted fearlessness of the typewritter brigade who have had to endure the rigors of A/c failures at headquarters, the withering stares of MSM press representatives, and hours of conferences risking paper cuts and unfortable stairs.

Perhaps this is why why such pogues are held in such high esteem by the combat arms. For we all know when the troops get to heaven they'll find the streets patrolled by rear area mfs. Right.

You sir, are a [deleted] smart-ass:

On the second anniversary of the start of combat operations in Iraq, the 422nd Civil Affairs Battalion received the Army’s highest unit award, the Presidential Unit Citation, during a ceremony at the Reeve Reserve Center here March 19. The 422nd CA Bn., nicknamed the Centurion Battalion, is a North Carolina-based Army Reserve special operations unit that deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom from March 2003 to March 2004. According to Army regulations, the Presidential Unit Citation is awarded to units “for extraordinary heroism in action against an armed enemy” and is the premier unit award the Army bestows.

Not to mention - in the case of the Marines - everyone is a rifleman, from cooks to recon.

Speaking as a retired member of the Chair Force, we need to get you around more GIs, Bill.

Ok Bill, let's posit that Hackett, who is returning by the way to Iraq in 2006, [*] is in fact a staff puke. This in no way mitigates the overarching fact that Limbaugh is an assh*le.

Let's also assume for sake of argument that there is enough discussion of ID in the class room that it would benefit the students to hear a discussion of what amounts to a metaphysical argument. In this case, there is a natural niche for ID in schools: Not biology as Bush frankly never suggested, but rather in social studies.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the roots of ID go all the way back to the Greeks, and it raises some important questions about the lines between religion and science. I'm not saying this as a hypothetical. With all of the hyperbole about ID from religious and non/anti-religious groups, it would be a reasonable topic. Hell I could pull off teaching it in a science class as a foil for science, since it could teach students some important lessons that the Commisar has been harping on, like "unfalsifiable".

[*] And doesn't that show Rush as the pompous ass we know him to be.

Jeff G:

And of the two, only one is answerable to the scientific method

I don't know for a fact that this is true. First we really don't know that the existence of God cannot be proven... because question of the existence of God is (go Commisar!) not a falsifiable hypothesis.

Thus, I would argue that the question of the existence of God can only be potentially answered if He exists. (What would it mean to exist but be unobservable?) Contrawise, the absence of God can only be disproven, never proven.

Secondly, the main tenet of ID (as I understand it, please feel free to correct as necessary) is that the Universe is too complex to have occurred by accident. As I pointed out on another blog:

I could conceptually entertain the notion of writing a simulation of the universe (or a “tiny” subset like the Earth) and evolve it forward in time using the observed natural laws. If you could show that the present Earth could not be explained (or required a series of extremely improbable events) using the known “initial state” of the Earth via such a simulation, then that would constitute a type of proof, depending on how much validity we placed on the initial state information. Obviously we are very far away, technologically speaking, from being able to do such a thing.

By the same token, you couldn't disprove ID if your simulation returned an answer of "evolution without multiple highly improbable events," but it certainly would kill it via Occam's razor.

Speaking as a retired member of the Chair Force, we need to get you around more GIs, Bill.

Mebbe.

I've just read a lot about the work civil affairs officers are doing in Iraq, and it doesn't seem like fixing the fax machine, that's for sure.

See the Commissar's first comment for my response on "how to answer the question."

I'm not so much angry with the President as I am at the continuous stream of blogospheric yahoos arguing against evolution, when their understanding of the subject apparently stopped with a fifth grade textbook from a 1910 class for the learning disabled (with bad teeth, no less!).

It's like trying to convince a crowd of pre-teen girls that, no, kids, your favorite pop star really does suck.

There, that should piss someone off.

Gee, we kinda went into the whole 'first moments' possibilities... in third grade. Devine intervention in the Big Bang and pathways of evolution was brought up as a considered philisophical position, along with a disclaimer that no one had ever gotten scientific proof, or even a good note from The Management in 8 foot tall flaming letters, that such a thing existed. We then heard about the fossil record, and tried to make our own using shells and plaster of paris.
I loved third grade.

Bill:
Thank you yet again demonstrating your knowledge of the military. I can't wait for you to go down to the Legion Hall and tell the combat arms vets there about the valor of public affairs officers. Now tell us about what per centage of the total casualties that have been public affairs officers, sir.

The Legion vets didn't work in Iraq.

Obviously Marines assaulting along the Syrian border and Fallujah have taken the brunt of the casualties, but considering that there is no FRONT LINE, and civil affairs officers specifically mingle with the local population and don't sit secured in air conditioned bases, I'd venture to say that you don't know what teh HELL you're talking about.

Next you'll tell me that MP's are just whistle swivelling "traffic cops:"

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2005/03/after_action_re.html

Ass.

PS - That asterisk is supposed to represent the letter "o", btw.

And I thought the '*' was supposed to represent an asshole!