Thursday, December 01, 2005

Corruption in every part of the Bush Administration

The Washington post has obtained a Justice Department memo which concluded that the Texas congressional resdistricting plan spearheaded by Tom Delay violated the Voting Rights Act. However senior Justice officials overruled the memo's recommendation that the plan be overturned and then suppressed the memo.

From the Washington Post:

The memo, unanimously endorsed by six lawyers and two analysts in the department's voting section, said the redistricting plan illegally diluted black and Hispanic voting power in two congressional districts. It also said the plan eliminated several other districts in which minorities had a substantial, though not necessarily decisive, influence in elections.
They have no shame.


Blogger curtis said...

It is somewhat perplexing why you seem so eager to link the story to George Bush, who seems to have appointed the sorts of people that ultimately made the correct decision in this matter. DeLay and his Republican cronies seem much more to blame- and the suppression of the memo seems more a tactic designed to protect DeLay (who stood the most to lose from its contents) than Bush, who's Justice Department clearly made the correct decision. The word "Bush" doesn't appear anywhere in the article, and yet you headline with his name. This is a bit of an odd decision, all things considerd.

6:32 PM, December 04, 2005  
Blogger Jim said...

This story is not linked to George Bush personally, but to the Justice Department which is a key part of his administration. Bush is the "CEO" and ultimately responsible.

You are correct in my opinion that Delay and his cronies are more to blame. But the story HERE, again in my opinion, is that Ashcroft, appointed by Bush, lent major support AND COVER to Delay by overriding and covering up the UNANIMOUS decision of his own team of DOJ lawyers in order to allow Texas Republicans to gain political advantage.

9:49 PM, December 04, 2005  
Blogger Jim said...

And glad you're still checking my site. I've been off participating in some other blogs, but I find no reasoned and respectful debate, only "you're stupid" and "all your kind are lunatics." What's the point?

So I'm planning to try and spend time back on my blog and let people come to me. That way I can keep the debate on track instead of letting it devolve into name-calling.

Your new site looks good and I'll start checking there now. Also, I was looking for your response to a question for you I had at Mike's blog:

"But now I want to step back and ask you for some clarification. Regarding the following paragraph:

"Nor would I- or any ID theorist- attempt to undermine this style of inquiry. However, your position relies wholly on the idea that evolution is a proved (and thus provable) fact- the very thing that ID challenges. No one argued that trait passing didn't occur before the advent of modern genetics. As such, the quest was to find how it occured, not if it occured. ID questions whether or not evolution occured as naturalistic darwinism teaches- and in defending it using this analogy, you are attacking them as if naturalistic darwinism was unquestionable fact.

"Are you implying more than one version of the Theory of Evolution? What is 'naturalistic darwinism' as opposed to any other kind of 'darwinism', and what is 'darwinism' itself as it relates to the Theory of Evolution?"

See ya round.

10:00 PM, December 04, 2005  
Blogger curtis said...

The great question in the ID debate is often not about whether evolution occured, but how. ID does not, in and of itself, challenge evolution as a theory, rather, it challenges naturalistic evolution. To answer your question: yes, there are multiple kinds of evolutionary theory: one kind is based on the presupposition that there is only a material/physical world, the otheer that there is a metaphysical world that helped or otherwise worked within evolution. One Christian brand of this theory is that there is a God who helped evolution along. This is called "theistic" evolution.

The point is, ID doesn't endorse theistic evolution any more than it does any other kind of evolutionary theory that posits that naturalistic causes are not the only way evolution occured.

The key thing to remember about ID is that is merely posits that the phyiscal answer doesn't fully account for their asserted evidence of intelligence in the design of the universe.

3:43 PM, December 24, 2005  
Blogger Jim said...

Curtis, I don't understand your last paragraph.

I always thought of the Theory of Evolution as being agnostic. I've never read (and I'm not well-read on this subject) anything that insisted that evolution could not or did not occur without metaphysical "forces", so-to-speak. I don't know of any science that supports the claim that metaphysical forces/input (whatever) was involved, but I don't know of anything that would argue against that belief.

8:47 PM, December 31, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home