Dumb newspaper

In recent months there has been a ruckus around town about the local paper, the Kennebec Journal. Some conservative guy bought it and has been printing the sort of editorials you might expect. Okay, whatever. I willingly listen to Howie Carr. I don’t mind hearing a conservative voice. Hell, they usually make for some good laughs. I guess dumbness can do that.

But there’s a different problem with this paper now. It isn’t that this guy has dumb views and prints dumb editorials. It’s that he is organizing the paper in a downright stupid way.

Obama made his speech to congress on health care on Wednesday night. This was no surprise. It had been mentioned countless times in the preceding days. Everyone was focused on it. It only makes sense that any good newspaper would have made it front page news. But the Kennebec Journal? Nah. It got pushed back to the third page or so. And what was on the front, you ask?


This was put out with what amounted to an advertisement for the event – ticket information, time, who to contact for more information. Other front page news had to do with an advisory concerning a virus (not swine flu) and an article about state revenue. These may be worthy of the front page, but the rally is not huge news. It’s a local political campaign. Obama’s speech has to do with issues that concern the nation. What’s more, this paper has had several stories discussing Republican ‘concern’ over the bill as well as various editorials. Clearly, the Kennebec Journal has an extensive interest in the topic, just like most people. Hell, just this week they had an article saying Obama needed to clarify his positions. Yet they go and pull this crap.

I don’t mind the conservative editorials, poorly reasoned as they may be. But I really rather not see straight-up stupid decisions about what constitutes a lead story.

No, science only has a bias toward reality.

Apparently, some people think science can be either conservative or liberal. Well, it can’t. So why do the nuts over at Conservapedia think otherwise? What’s more, why do they think creationists tend to win debates with ‘evolutionists’?

Morris also said regarding the creation scientist Duane Gish (who had over 300 formal debates): “At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.”

You may be wondering, who the fuck is that guy? Well, that’s Henry Morris, one of the founders of the Institute for Creation Research – an organization which does nothing but undermine science. Apparently, Conservapedians believes if they cite the opinion of a creationist on the issue of debating evolution that they have an air-tight case that creationists tend to defeat those EVILutionists in debates. This is about as valuable as those text polls FOX News took after the presidential debates where McCain apparently destroyed Obama, winning roughly 90% of the votes. What’s more, the fact that even if there were some empirical way to measure debate winningness*, it wouldn’t matter since, just as Hitler has no bearing on the truth value of evolution, the random opinions of anti-science mooks is rather irrelevant.

*Creationist would likely reject such a measure were it possible since they believe science to only be science when it gives them results they already like.