As all of you should know, the good ole’ American tradition of election is coming up in a week. I’m not sure why, but I’ve kept up more with this election than any other. Perhaps it is me maturing, perhaps I’m just bored and need something to occupy my time. The answer, whatever it may be, is irrelevent.

I have added a link on the right side of the page to This website keeps a daily tally of where the national election currently is. It bases its findings off of numerous published, national polls. It includes tons of information if you care to read it all. I usually just check to see how each state has changed from the day before. There is an interactive map of the U.S. that shows the current predicted percentage of the population for each candidate.

Indubitably, you’ve heard that this election will be close, if not the closest in U.S. history. This makes it ever more important to get out and vote. This is especially important for our age demographic: 18-30. I don’t know the exact statistic of how many in this demographic voted last year, but I do know that it wasn’t a whole lot.

If the majority of those in this demographic voted, it very easily could swing the election one way or another, specifically, but not limited to, the good ole state of Kansas. I recall reading some statistic that stated something to the effect of “less than 5% of people in this demographic voted in last years election.” Maybe it was .5%. The point is, it was one of the lowest in the country.

Even if you’re unsure of who to vote for president, there are state elections to vote for as well. Many times people feel the state elections are more important to them as they more directly affect them. This is sometimes true and sometimes not, but I think you get what I’m saying. Take for example the Kansas Board of Education (BOE) this year.

In 1999, the mostly conservative Republican Kansas BOE voted 6-4 to downplay the role of evolution in Kansas schools. In 2001 that vote was reversed by the then majority moderate Democratic BOE. This year, two conservative Republicans won their primaries on August 6th and are running uncontested. One of them is Kathy Martin of Clay Center. She is in favor of, again, down playing evolution and up playing (is that a word? well it is now …) Creationism. Which is insane her perogative. However, I, personally, vehemently disagree and will be casting a write-in vote for Bruce Wyatt, whom Martin beat in the primary. Wyatt, unlike Martin, does not believe evolution needs to be downplayed.

That’s my two-bit rant about evolution in Kansas schools.

The whole point: go vote.

5 Responses to “The Forthcoming Election”

  1. marquez Says:

    Just sent off my absentee ballot monday, and since i dont know what the fuck any of the locals platforms are and shit, i just guessed and pick whoevers name sounded the coolest.

  2. Barrett Says:

    Way to go, Mark. I hate it when someone with a stupid sounding name is in office.

  3. Jeff Croft Says:

    I’m not especially politically-minded, and as such, I’m not registered to vote. That having been said, I do very much disagree with evolution being downplayed in our schools. On the other hand, I don’t really disagree with creationisim (or Intelligest Design, as some are calling it now) being presented in our schools as what is it: a way of reconciling religion and science. However, to set it next to Darwin and other theories that have stood the test of time it pattently absurd. Science textbooks, like most textbooks, are made up of a select subset of all that science is really about. That is to say, not every theory gets to be in a textbook — only those theories that have been proven time and time again over the course of hundreds of years. I guess you could call it survival of the fittest.

    Sorry, creationists, but “new wave” science just doesn’t belong next to Eienstein, Darwin, etc, etc. If the school want to say, “here’s another idea that is new and catching on with some folks,” fine. But to say, “this idea is the equal of Darwinism” is ridiculous.

  4. James Says:

    Over the past year or so, I’ve thought about this subject (God and the creation of the universe) quite heavily. For the longest time I considered myself an agnostic. However, recently I decided that my views coincide exactly with Deism. So in that sense, I do believe in Intelligent Design, however I’d hard consider it intelligent nor design. This view fits just fine with my view of evolution and related ideas.

    Another thing of note that I forgot to metion before is the teachings in college. If you take any science class you will be taught evolution 100% of the time and absolutely nothing like Intelligent Design. Why teach them something that they’ll just be untaught.

    Also, as an aside, see my post later today about the electoral college.

  5. Jeff Croft Says:

    I consider myself to be an agnostic. The definition of “agnostic” varies depending on who you ask, but these are my basic beliefs:

    1. The existience of “god” is unknown.
    2. The existience of “god” is unknowable.
    3. Since the existience of “god” is unknowable, I do not intend to spend my time trying to “figure it all out.”

    The bottom line to me is this: we don’t know, and we never will, so I’ll be damned if I’m going to lose any sleep over it.

    My general feelings towards education is that a rounded education is a good one. Thus, I’m for presenting all sorts of different ideas and letting students think critticaly about what they believe. So, while I am in favor of creationism (or ID) being presented at some level in the classroom, I do not believe this should affect the teching (or not teaching) of evoloution. I guess what I’m saying is this: the fact that creationism might be a big enough deal to warrant some kind of presentation does not mean we have to back off of evoloution. The two are not mutually exclusive. There’s nothing wrong with teaching both — we just have to make sure we present the facts: evoloution is a 200 year old theory that has stood the test of time and is believed by 99.9% of scientists. Creationism is a way to reconcile religion with the science. As long as it’s presented that way, then I have no problem with showing both.

Drop Some Knowledge On Us…