An Intelligently Designed Post

So the New York Times (and much of the rest of the liberal media) predictably screamed when President somewhat (somewhat) endorsed intelligent design. Now, I am in no way in favor of intelligent design and it clearly has no basis in science so it should in not be admitted into the classroom (as an aside, an agnostic amigo told me the first time he came into contact with ID was in his philosophy class - that seems more fitting).

But, I have to admit that I got a certain perverse pleasure from seeing the Left and its talking heads squirm at the thought of something outside of Leftist orthodoxy introduced into the classroom. Maybe they'll finally realize what others think when they force their doctrine - deconstructionism, multiculturalism, relativism into the classroom.

On a related note, scientific principle aside, I think that Bush was right in saying what he did as it would serve to redirect authority from Washington to the local level. Further, with some notable exceptions (namely a nationally mandated and designed civics program), it's arguably correct for municipalities and states to have a greater degree of control over their education curriculum than Washington and decidedly lefty teachers unions (in another aside, I may be totally wrong about this, but I think we've shown that national control and strict guidelines only produces bureaucracy and endemic failure). And if local control's really the issue at stake here, as I suspect it is, then we're going to see ID rising regardless, just check out these numbers. They show 54% of Americans disputing evolution, up from 46% in 1994, though interestingly, the number of people who say that Darwin's theory is proven by the fossil record has actually increased since just last year! Plus apropros to our discussion, it is worth noting that 55% of those surveyed believe that ID, creationism, and evolution should all be taught in school.

More generally, this may be the wave of the future - social conservatives looking to solidify their control and roll back Washington big-government behaviors. We'll see if I'm right - I hope I'm not.

The Annual Vacation Brouhaha

DailyKos and other loony lefties (who I admit I read, though only for the amusement value and the opposite point of view) are once again up to the annual "Bush leaves lets complain" left-fest. Yes, he has spent (thus far, and this according to Kos, so beware), Bush has spent 319 days on vacation. His pere, in contrast, spent 543 days over one term - this while a nuclear armed and existential enemy was coming apart at the seams, and with Saddam Hussein invading Iraq - yet the Kos et al. don't seem to care.

Further, no less a war-time leader than Winston Churchill spent about 1/4 of World War II out of the country and it doesn't seem that he got heavily slammed for it! Now admittedly, Churchill's time off cannot be construed as "vacation" per se, but if we consider how much transporation and technology have evolved since 1941-45, I'd say we're nearly on par in terms of productivity and accessability. Further, let's be honest - Bush doesn't just sit there and chop brush all day. If you consider getting briefed regularly and meeting with world leaders as vacation then I don't know what you consider work. Anyone who wants this vacation should just sign up, I doubt it's much of a vacation at all.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Crawford is the true center of power in this administration. Bush's administration is one that seems highly uncomfortable with formality, as witnessed by the paucity of state dinners he's hosted (far fewer than WJC, I might note); I would suggest that this extends to the White House in general. If you've noticed, he does a lot of politicking out on the ranch, especially with foreign leaders. The man, even