Mancow...what a clown..

Anyone watch his idiotic special on Fox? What a mess...

After he has a 911 conspiracy theorist and a NY fireman square off in a "debate"...he apologizes to the fireman and says he was sorry for having the 911 theorist on the show...

Was Mancow unaware of the guests he had booked on his own show? That's basically admitting to having booked the guy for partisan sensationalism and ratings. If you thought it would be so offensive to the fireman, Mancow, why did you invite the conspiracy theorist on the show? And why did you present an extreme "liberal" view on one side and not an extreme conservative view on the other? Had an agenda to carry out? I encourage you to keep being this transparent, however, it works for our side.

What a moron.

Conservative post-election hypocrisy

I like how some conservatives try to explain the recent republican losses by pointing to the right-leaning democrats that won... right, sure... when you could have just gotten right wing politics from the Republicans that were running by electing them....

Yeah, the Dems won because they were more right wing than Republicans like Santorum and Allen...

It also seems to me, that if the Democrats' policies on Terrorism and the war in Iraq were such a danger to this nations' security - as conservative radio and this administration has been drum-beating in to us - conservatives would do everything they could to avoid the Dems from taking control of anything.

Furthermore, by conservative logic, wouldn't it make sense for conservatives to forcibly oppose and remove democrats from office? After all, the democrats are going to allow another 911 and, under them, our country is at serious risk. Conservatives have been screaming the Democrats are for the terrorists. So if that's the case, why aren't conservatives forcibly opposing the democrats and liberals the way they oppose the terrorists?

Natural Vs. Made-Made Competition

With the recent publication of The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins, there has been a lot of debate about the impact the acceptance of Evolution would have on society and human relations. I want to address the common assertion among theists that the world-wide adoption of evolution would lead to an "every man, woman and child for himself" mentality.

Just because survival of the fittest is played out in the animal kingdom, doesn't mean humans have to consciously and intentionally apply it to our social existence. One is assuming a great too many things when one implies that humans will turn into brutes by believing in evolution...as if half of them weren't behaving that way now while believing in religion.

Yes, to a certain degree, humans are at the mercy of Nature, but that doesn't mean we have to recreate Natures' harshness and threats in ourselves. There is a difference between Natural threats to Human and individual survival and Man-Made ones. An animal doesn't know the peril involved in participating in the "game" known as survival of the fittest...an animal doesn't know it could die..a human does...and it is to our benefit and survival to not engage in any competition at all. Here's a simple rule for understanding this:

Competition, in any form, is a danger to the survival of the competitors.

It's one thing for Humans to compete against diseases and bacteria and natural disasters, aggressive animals all sorts of natural-based threats...we can't control those enemies because they can't or won't engage in reason or rational discussion...but it's quite another thing for Humans, who are all capable of seeing the perils of competition in Nature, to impose Man-Made competition on themselves.

In other words, Humans have enough hardship to deal with from the Natural world...it is neither a survival benefit or a proper extension of Darwin and Wallace's theories to intentionally impose competition on ourselves.

Notice that, in order for many species of animals to survive today, it requires a non-competitive approach by humans...one side in a very ancient conflict abstaining from and controlling it's old aggressions.

Humans were able to rise to dominance because they were able to tame their instinct for competitiveness amongst themselves to a greater degree than the lower animals ...not because they were so good at crushing other species...though they no doubt were. The lower animals never mastered their inner-species competitiveness and they are therefore still not as successful, species-wise, as humans, still lower down on the evolutionary scale, and still more competitive without and within their own species.

The fact is, it is the absence of competition and socially aggressive behavior that advances the survival of both the species and the individual. The adoption of evolutionary theory does not imply the introduction of brutality...it implies the opposite since Human evolution was aided by the control and elimination of such behavior..not it's predominance.