Ogre's Politics & Views
October 18, 2005
Carnival, carnival!
Time to point out a couple carnivals that include good reading for this week!
First up, a really good carnival that you should commit some time to reading -- and it won't take long at all. This is the
New Blog Carnival Showcase. This carnival is designed to give some exposure to new blogs. Perhaps you remember when you wanted someone, ANYONE to read and comment on your blog?
If you do (heck, even if you don't), this week you can head over to
Everyman Chronicles and see the new entries. The new people really appreciate comments, so just take a minute and say hello!
The second carnival is one that I link to every week, even if I don't have time to submit an entry or even read the whole thing. It's a great carnival that highlights some of the best and worst that's going on in America today concerning freedom.
Of course, I'm talking about the
Carnival of Liberty up this week at Searchlight Crusade (not to be confused with the
Carnival of True Liberties). Both these carnivals highlight the loss (or retention) of various freedoms in this country. Take a look, they're good.
Posted by: Ogre at
04:04 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Yes we didn't have any submissions for the carnival this week which surprised me a bit so I had to do some digging. I found six different blogs each new with some quality content. Go over and check them out.
Posted by: Everyman at October 18, 2005 09:58 PM (A/oHQ)
2
On the bright side, Tag, you're it! http://www.thepiratescove.us/2005/10/aclu_whats_your.html
You will like this meme, it is anti-ACLU
Posted by: William Teach at October 18, 2005 10:00 PM (eSZb/)
3
Hope you don't mind me using your comment section to help publicise my blog Support Enviroman
It is for a good cause, for the good of all of us. Thanks
Support Enviroman, and you support yourself, your children, your grandchildren, your great-grandchildren....
Posted by: Enviroman at October 19, 2005 03:55 AM (dm22t)
4
Sure, go ahead, Environman.
Posted by: Ogre at October 19, 2005 05:59 AM (iJFc9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Supreme Court Morons
Well the Supreme Court has struck again. As happens way too often, they are absolutely and totally wrong. In this case, they have ruled that you have a Constitutional right to fuel, taxpayer money, and the labor of others. So much for freedom.
At issue here are the rights of a prisoner -- convicted of a crime by a jury of her peers and sentenced to jail time. This woman, who is so confident of her rights that she refused to allow her name to be used in the lawsuit, got pregnant. She then decided that she wanted an abortion -- but she was in prison.
The State of Missouri has decided that they do not want to pay for abortions with taxpayer money. Despite being a prisoner, where one has already violated the laws and rules of society where one loses some rights, a federal judge decided that this woman still had, somehow, a Constitutional right to an abortion.
But that's not all. This is not just about abortion. You see, the prison did not have the ability to give her an abortion. Therefore, the federal judge decided that this woman also had the right to gasoline to provide her a ride to the abortion clinic. AND she had a right to the labor of guards to provide her that transport and security on the trip.
That's just wrong in so many ways. I'd love to see a little more civil disobedience when people are ordered to provide their labor for the "rights" of others. Sorry, people, your rights do not supersede my rights -- and I won't let you take them from me while I still live.
If this ruling is applied across the board, I could demand the taxpayers buy me a printing press. I have a right to freedom of speech, right? Therefore, logically, if the taxpayers do not provide me with a printing press and a staff to run my newspaper, my right to freedom of speech is being violated. That is what this judge and the Supreme Court have ruled.
Damn, where's my country?
Posted by: Ogre at
01:06 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
so, you'd rather pay for a lifetime of supporting a child who would have ended up in the foster care system, rather than this? I mean, if you're going to raise hell for some moral reason, that's one thing, but this argument doesn't even make any sense. If you're concerned about your tax dollars, be glad the judge decided this way, rather than the opposite - you get off cheaper this way.
Posted by: Erin Monahan at October 18, 2005 10:23 PM (vtVgw)
2
Erin, I'd just like to point out that your comment does not touch on the issue Ogre has posted about.
The point is that the courts are once again "legislating from the bench" by putting words in the Constitution's "mouth" that are not part of the Constitution and by my read, each of these tamperings with what are and aren't American rights bring us closer and closer to socialism, the antithesis of our extremely successful form of government.
Every time this happens, a legal precedent is set.
Posted by: Seth at October 18, 2005 11:16 PM (+YZMv)
3
Yes, it's not about the money spent, it about the sources of that money -- the judges have determined that other people somehow have a right not only to other's money, but to their labor as well.
Posted by: Ogre at October 19, 2005 05:57 AM (iJFc9)
4
Erin, for me, yes I would rather see a life saved and supported than destroyed and aborted.
This argument you use-- WOULD YOU RATHER PAY FOR A LIFETIME of SUPPORTING A CHILD....is old and lame. It's the expected rhetoric from liberals who have brainwashed people like you into believing this to be fact!
There are other options besides abortion. And the government should not have to pay for this. THAT government is me, you (I'm assuming you work and pay taxes) and everyone else who works for a living.
Posted by: Raven at October 19, 2005 09:19 AM (3kz8d)
5
And in a free country, that wouldn't be an issue because *I* wouldn't be forced to pay for someone else's bad decisions -- THEY would.
Posted by: Ogre at October 19, 2005 09:56 AM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
FEMA Needs to Expand?
Great. Have you seen the recent news regarding FEMA? All the news reports and government reports claim that FEMA didn't have enough -- money, control, power, organization, whatever -- just not enough.
Why? Because they want more.
FEMA has already given hundreds of millions of dollars away, and they're slated to give away BILLIONS in total. Keep in mind that money is being used in strip bars and to provide hotel service for victims. Also keep in mind if you're productive, YOU paid for that money.
There's something that simply isn't said enough, and is never said in the formerly mainstream media:
GOVERNMENT HAS NO MONEY OTHER THAN WHAT THEY TAKE FROM PRODUCTIVE PEOPLE
All these "hearings" and discussions about FEMA are all pre-ordained to have one result and only one result: FEMA needs more money. That's wrong.
FEMA should not provide food, shelter, or medical care for anyone. Who responded first and best in the emergency? People. Churches. Civic organizations. Who responded worst? Government.
It is NOT charity to steal from Peter to give to Paul.
Update: TomSlick provides us with
The Source of FEMA.
Posted by: Ogre at
10:04 AM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
What happens if I become an unproductive member of society then? Well, I gues you'd have to take care of me! I'd like to add a bathroom at my place, your share comes to $ .94
Posted by: oddybobo at October 18, 2005 11:21 AM (6Gm0j)
2
This is worse than you're saying. I don't buy for a minute that FEMA exists to help people in national emargencies. They exist soley to deprive citizens of Constitutionally protected rights under the guise of aid.
A friend of mine grew up in East Grand Forks, Minnesota. When the big floods hit back in 1997, her family was FORCED to leave their home by FEMA. Why? Who knows. They lived miles from the flooding Red River.
Posted by: Echo Zoe at October 18, 2005 11:43 AM (K+h36)
3
Oddy -- sorry, but I'm getting tired of pulling the wagon. I think I'm going to jump in, too. And I want beer. Buy it for me now. It's only 1 cent to you (and everyone else), so that's reasonable, right?
And Echo, yes, FEMA is a bad organization. However, government, as it always does, can only attempt to solve a problem with MORE government. FEMA should be disbanded, NOT expanded. You example is only one I've seen of massive abuses of basic rights by FEMA -- and certainly not the last.
Posted by: Ogre at October 18, 2005 11:56 AM (/k+l4)
4
Ogre, if we both stop pulling the wagon, who'll take over? Therein lies the solution! Everyone stop pulling the wagon. Just stop. I know I can take care of my own so I'll be just dandy.
Posted by: oddybobo at October 18, 2005 12:17 PM (6Gm0j)
5
And one day that might happen. Ever read Atlas Shrugged?
Posted by: Ogre at October 18, 2005 12:56 PM (/k+l4)
6
I think the original thought was good-this FEMA thing. But now it's just aother government program that thinks it should have HUGE funding. We don't need FEMA. If everyone else just did their damn jobs, FEMA would not be around. Too many federal level programs exist just so that other fed programs can exist, I say.
LOL
Posted by: Raven at October 19, 2005 09:23 AM (3kz8d)
7
I'm not convinced the original idea of FEMA was a good idea. What was the original purpose of FEMA, does anyone know?
Posted by: Ogre at October 19, 2005 09:58 AM (/k+l4)
8
You just had to ask that didn't you?
FEMA had one original concept when it was created, to assure the survivability of the United States government in the event of a nuclear attack on this nation.
Interesting and somewhat disturbing article here if you get a chance to read it.
http://www.sonic.net/sentinel/gvcon6.html
Posted by: Tomslick at October 19, 2005 01:28 PM (xNjHI)
9
Man, that's nasty. Just more reasons to completely get rid of the entire concept of FEMA. Then again, this is the US government so there's absolutely no way they will ever shrink in any way, shape, or form.
Posted by: Ogre at October 19, 2005 01:39 PM (/k+l4)
10
That is hard to believe isn't it? I can't vouch for article, I just thought it was a tad bizarre when I read it. Does anyone know anything about this writer? The article did seem like a conspiracy rant and the LA Times vouches for him.
I found this about the writer.
Harry V. Martin
Mr. Martin, a 28-year journalist who has worked throughout the Pacific Basin, is publisher of the Napa Sentinel (a weekly newspaper) and the North American Investigative Journal. He is former publisher of Defense Systems Review and Military Communications, and former Editorial Director of Defense Electronics, International Countermeasures Handbook, Military Electronics and Countermeasures, Microwave Systems News, and Military Science and Technology. He is an elected public official, and has been referred to by the Los Angeles Times as the Thomas Paine of the Patriot Movement.
Posted by: Tomslick at October 19, 2005 01:56 PM (xNjHI)
11
Well, if he's an elected public official, certainly we, the peons, shouldn't be questioning him, now should we?
Posted by: Ogre at October 19, 2005 02:07 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Nazis proven correct
Nazis were planning a rally in Toledo, Ohio to complain about the influence of gangs in the area. The march was because the Nazis were trying to show that the neighborhood had been overtaken by gangs who threatened all the people in the area, including whites. The gangs then proceeded to confirm what the Nazis said.
Large numbers of police were mobilized. Before the march started, gangs materialized and started destroying the neighborhood. Even the mayor admitted that
he couldn't stop the violence.
More than 100 people were arrested. Terrance Anderson, a bar owner, was angry. Oh, and his bar was destroyed -- it is not known if he destroyed it himself in his own fit of rage or if the gangs that were being protested destroyed it because they didn't like him. 12 police officers were arrested.
But it's not anyone's fault. Donna Reid's two sons were arrested on felony charges, but she cannot understand why. Hey Donna -- it's because they participated in a riot!
So, what is being done about this gang problem now that it's been pointed out? The same thing Charlotte does -- simply deny there's a problem and do nothing. No one, from the city "leaders" on down, has placed any blame on the people who actually attacked police, burned cars, and destroyed businesses.
Michele Malkin
has more details.
Posted by: Ogre at
07:05 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Ok, let me be the first to place blame: "Those damn Nazis!"
What? Wrong blame, how about, "Those damn Ogres!"
Posted by: oddybobo at October 18, 2005 09:43 AM (6Gm0j)
2
Those damn beheaded Ogres!
Posted by: Ogre at October 18, 2005 09:49 AM (/k+l4)
3
you read it wrong too! I eat drifters and behead yokels!
Posted by: oddybobo at October 18, 2005 10:36 AM (6Gm0j)
4
Oh, you SO did not have to go there...
Posted by: Ogre at October 18, 2005 10:57 AM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
NC Lottery Ethics
The new chairman of the North Carolina Illegal Legal, but only if the government does it gambling lottery claims he wants the lottery to be "ethical." Greensboro's News and Record gets this one right when the editors say, "He's got his work cut out for him."
Keep in mind, the lottery was passed under very suspicious circumstances when one senator who didn't support the lottery was on an expensive honeymoon and another was suddenly absent with an "undisclosed leg injury."
Later it was revealed that the company awarded the Lottery contracts (Scientific Games) had an employee that was a top fund-raiser for Jim Black, Speaker of the House. So yes, Scientific Games LITERALLY bought that contract from Jim Black.
Oh, and Scientific Games WROTE the lottery law -- worded specifically to ensure that Scientific Games would get the lottery contract. And of course, it will only be a matter of time before the additional corruption and misuse of money "earned" by the lottery will be revealed.
Thank you, North Carolina Democrats, for making North Carolina politics even dirtier.
Posted by: Ogre at
04:03 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
October 17, 2005
7 Things
Ah well. It appears that people still haven't learned that you shouldn't tag an Ogre. Tammi at least admits that she's asking for it this time when she sends along this meme called "7 things."
Now, while Tammi did at least make the attempt to help me understand these incredibly silly things with a comment at the very end of her post, she neglected the most important part of the meme and tagging game -- the instructions!
Therefore, according to the official rules of memes, I am allowed and encouraged to make up my own instructions and follow them as I make them. Sorry, Tammi, but them's the rules!
First new rule: the number 7 is not allowed.
Some things I do not want to do before I die:
See Hillary Clinton elected...for anything.
See World Peace -- think of all the unemployed soldiers, defense contractors, and military support people! Do you want all these people to be on welfare? Do you really want the end of the world?
Give Tammi
another dog to train.
Deprive
Harvey of coffee.
Things I can and cannot do:
Really? Seriously? I can do damn near anything I decide that I want to do. It might take me a little while, but it'll get done if I want to do it. Ok, I guess there's a few things I cannot do -- like understand how the mind works of today's Democrat or anyone else who refuses to admit facts are true.
Things I say a lot:
Well, there's not much I have to say. I don't use any more words than necessary, and I have little use of repetition to communicate.
People I feel like bugging:
No one. I'm nice like that.
Posted by: Ogre at
03:01 PM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
You're still here? I thought I devoured you . . .
Posted by: oddybobo at October 17, 2005 04:23 PM (6Gm0j)
2
I love your meme's... I must remember to tag you sometime.
Posted by: vw bug at October 17, 2005 04:48 PM (MNp8q)
3
re: Hillary... I'm so sorry you only have three years left to live
. -joke
Our Dem minds aren't that beyond comprehensions are they? Fiscal discipline, giving a helping hand for those the market's deficiencies leave by the way side, multilateralism in the world, and practical politics at home. This is what I hope the modern Democratic party will stand for in 08.
Posted by: Graham at October 17, 2005 06:53 PM (1AKh4)
4
You read it wrong, Oddy!
VW...beware of what you ask for!
And Graham, I know, I think Hillary may win. I don't see fiscal discipline in ANY elected politician at ANY level ANYWHERE. I like giving a helping hand, but I despite being forced to give a helping hand -- that's my biggest beef with the liberal point of view. Multilateralism I couldn't care less about; and practical and politics haven't been used in the same sentence honestly in 100 years.
Posted by: Ogre at October 17, 2005 08:21 PM (iJFc9)
5
Ogre, nice? I didn't think that was physically possible! Well, miracles never cease, that or he just ripped one and is trying to mask it with a kind gesture. Luckily, I'm in Tx so it will take some time to reach me!
Posted by: Smokey at October 17, 2005 09:24 PM (68YeG)
6
I know nothing about a large green cloud headed southwest across the southern United States...
Posted by: Ogre at October 17, 2005 09:44 PM (iJFc9)
7
I don't think that Hillary has a shot in hell of winning anything other then another term or two in the senate,certainly nothing more important than that.
Posted by: Jack at October 18, 2005 02:00 PM (aFawc)
8
I, very unfortunately, think she's got at least a 50/50 shot at being president.
Posted by: Ogre at October 18, 2005 02:18 PM (/k+l4)
9
I've noticed that Ogre gets all wobbly when pretty girls tag him with memes.
Not so nice with the guys, though...
Oh well, at least my coffee's safe :-)
Posted by: Harvey at October 18, 2005 04:46 PM (ubhj8)
10
Keep that nasty, smelly, bean-juice away from here!
Posted by: Ogre at October 18, 2005 05:29 PM (iJFc9)
11
I tried...honest to goodness - but ya took this one better than I thought you would! ;-)
I swear Ogre - you put a smile on my face. Yes, that you do!!!!!
Thanks for being such a good sport. Well, sorta.
Posted by: Tammi at October 19, 2005 08:45 PM (8FC2f)
12
You know that's why I exist, Tammi!
Posted by: Ogre at October 20, 2005 05:43 AM (iJFc9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Illegals don't commit crimes
Some of you may have heard about the woman in Florida who was violently raped by fourteen men at the beginning of this month. Then again, maybe not. The MSM doesn't want to really touch it. Guess why?
All 14 men were illegal immigrants.
They were originally listed as "White" by the Sheriff's department. I'll
let you be the judge as to whether that was a correct assessment.
After a veritable email smackdown flood by VDare readers, the Sheriff
released a statement. Here's an excerpt:
A Sheriff’s Office inquiry with United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has disclosed that the 14 arrestees are all Guatemalan Nationals and are in the United States illegally. Federal detainers from ICE have been placed on all 14. The federal detainer is in addition to criminal charges in Collier County. For those accused who are sentenced to serve prison time, ICE will begin removal proceedings upon their release from custody.
Due to the grievous nature of this alleged crime and the immigration issues, we have received extraordinary interest and inquiry from people throughout the nation. We will continue to provide factual updates and seek information to complete our investigation and perfect our case. We ask everyone to permit the process to work for a just conclusion and avoid oversimplifying the case, or worse, creating unproductive innuendo and rumor. Anyone with information on this or any crime is asked to contact the Collier County Sheriff's Office immediately at 774-4434. Updates on this case will be posted to our website, www.colliersheriff.org , in an effort to best communicate our position concerning this incident to all interested persons.
Is the MSM picking up the story yet? Of course not. it doesn't fit their pro-illegals agenda. News flash for the clueless: These people are not "undocumented workers". They are, in many cases, criminals. This could have been your daughter. Your sister. Your wife. Your mother. Raped, beaten, and left for dead in the street by a bunch of thugs who aren't even supposed to be here. It
was someone's daughter that this happened to.
The border problem is out of control. We need to demand answers, demand action. We need to continue to demand it until it happens.
This has been a production of the Guard the Borders Blogburst, which takes place every Monday on
Euphoric Reality. The purpose is to keep immigration issues at the forefront and to apply pressure to our elected officials to get the problem fixed. If you’re concerned about the state of our borders, email kit.jarrell at gmail dot com to join.
Blogs Already on Board:
Posted by: Ogre at
11:05 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Undocumented law abiding impaired international guests?
Kind of takes the edge off of dirtbag.
Posted by: Tomslick at October 17, 2005 01:10 PM (xNjHI)
2
I think that about covers it, Tom -- "law abiding impaired." However, is that so high brow that the uneducated will be offended because they don't understand it?
Posted by: Ogre at October 17, 2005 01:17 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Charlotte Observer hates Democracy
The Charlotte Observer still believes that there are people out there who think that you can actually get some news from that newspaper -- worse, I'm sure there's some people who actually DO believe that they print news! Instead, the Observer is a complete opinion piece -- just as this blog is -- but the difference is that I admit I have a bias, while the Observer does not.
In
this hit piece, sold as news, the Observer starts out with this subtext:
Tougher rules still allow for fundraisers when General Assembly is out of session
So the Observer, in a "news" story, is complaining that it is a bad thing that elected officials can raise money when they're not in session. Since the Observer already stands firm with the opinion that they shouldn't raise money when in session, this means that the Observer simply does not like politicians raising money.
That is quite consistent with the Observer's position: you are stupid. The editorial staff at the Observer think that you are too stupid to elect people to represent you and that you should just let them pick for you -- as they try to do every year with their "endorsements." And you shouldn't be able to give any of your money to people running for office -- without checking with the Observer first.
Then again, when I see all the people that vote for "school bonds" when the school board is not accountable for their horrible system, and then people complain about the tax rate (news flash: BONDS COST MONEY), maybe people are too stupid to elect good leaders. Then again, it could be that there's no good people to pick from come election time.
Posted by: Ogre at
08:41 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
So, Ogre, will we see you running for office in NC any time soon?
Posted by: Smokey at October 17, 2005 02:46 PM (68YeG)
2
I'm checking the waters now for a run for the NC House next year.
I still debate often. I can no longer run as a Libertarian, as they're outlawed in North Carolina. Write-ins are even more impractical. So the only real option for me is to run as a Republican (I don't think I can fake being a Democrat).
Now, if I run as a Republican, I could win the local seat -- but I'm almost assured of being in the minority. In addition, when I tell those people I won't trade votes for cash, the leaders (D) will hate me and ensure anything I try to do (bills, etc.) will be immediately crushed.
Then for the next election, some moderate and/or some Democrats can run against me claiming I was "ineffective." And I know I won't get anything good done in such a minority.
So, I don't know. And I'm still strongly considering a move to New Hampshire, where I might be a little more free...
Posted by: Ogre at October 17, 2005 03:07 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
NC and Gas Taxes
The Republicans in North Carolina are screaming for some tax relief from the governor. He continues to refuse to reduce any taxes and instead continues his incessant raising of taxes and incredibly wasteful spending. Please keep this in mind at the next election.
In
this case, the Republicans are asking for a special session to reduce taxes on gasoline and heating oil. After adding the massive state gas taxes of over 27 cents a gallon, which is due to INCREASE around 5 cents in January, North Carolina, depending on the day, has the highest average gas prices in the country (recently at 3.01 to 3.11).
In addition, the high taxes on fuels will cost the average homeowner in North Carolina nearly $100 more for those who heat their home with natural gas -- electric heat may be cheaper for the first time. The Republicans are asking for a chance to lower these taxes.
Of course, the Democrats SCREAM that not a single penny can be saved. As expected, they're completely lying about it as well. The Democrat line is "this money is for roads." That a complete and total lie, and they know it.
Money is stolen EVERY YEAR from the highway trust fund, funded by gas taxes, and thrown in the general fund for Easley, Basnight, and Black to spend through their personal checkbook funds for quite literally any expense they want.
So, as you're paying some of the highest gas taxes in the nation, have huge increases in your heating bills this winter, and driving on some of the worst roads in the country, feel free to thank the North Carolina Democrats.
Posted by: Ogre at
04:05 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
October 16, 2005
New Neighbor #33
Once again, it's time for the weekly New Neighbor feature here at Ogre's Politics and Views. This week's featured neighbor is:
Quite a nice place Tracey has over there -- I invite you to take a peek. The blog appears to have been there for about a year with the
first post having been made on October 1, 2004. Posting seems relatively consistent at a rate of about 1 post every 2 days for the last year (with the exception of March, 2005 -- something about a "medical procedure?")
There's varied topics that you can find at "Worship Naked." Some are quite personal, including the announcement of Tracey's
first book. Others are quite annoying (because of the time they force me to waste time) like the post
about Sudoku (but fun!)
Oh -- and before you head over there looking for more about the "naked" part in the title, I'll warn you -- the site focuses more on the "worship" part than the "naked" part. But I'll
let Tracey explain...
Posted by: Ogre at
03:31 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Ogre -- Thanks for the write up. How nice of you.
Posted by: tracey at October 16, 2005 10:52 PM (aFFUW)
Posted by: Ogre at October 17, 2005 05:29 AM (iJFc9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
ACLU Loves Suicide
That headline might sound like it's a typical Formerly Mainstream Media (FMSM) line designed to get you to read the article that really has nothing to do with the headline. I wish that were the case. In this case, it's pretty much just factual.
You see, the ACLU is now threatening to sue (that's their most favorite tactic -- in other businesses and industries, it's called extortion) a school system (again, their favorite target because they have very limited funds to fight back) because the school DARED to tell their children that
suicide is not a good idea.
You see, in the communistic world of the ACLU, they want all sorts of death accepted, including suicide. But the Maryland schools had a comedy team in the schools that did a show that had an anti-suicide and anti-drug message. And that's annoyed the ACLU to no end.
The ACLU claims the team is sending a religious message -- but then again, I'm still waiting for the ACLU to claim that murder shouldn't be a crime because it's mentioned in the Bible.
Folks, the ACLU have long outlived any useful function. They have a goal, and that goal is completely anti-American. If you like America, freedom, freedom of religion, or are Christian, the ACLU HATES YOU. The more people understand that, the better chance we will have to defeat one of the enemies of America, the ACLU.
(Linked to
ACLU Open Trackbacks).
Posted by: Ogre at
08:45 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I don't think they were necessarily pro-suicide this time. They are just afraid of any exposure to anything that could be considered religious. Remember boys and girls Christianity is very contagious, if you sneeze and someone says “bless you” you might be contaminated.
Posted by: Mindflame at October 16, 2005 03:23 PM (yAjnB)
2
Excellent comparison! Yes, according to the ACLU, Christianity must be avoided at ALL costs!
Posted by: Ogre at October 16, 2005 06:56 PM (iJFc9)
3
"You see, in the communistic world of the ACLU, they want all sorts of death accepted, including suicide."
Actually, I don't think that's so in at least one case: the death penalty. If you commit a series of brutal murders, and you do the day before your 18th birthday, well, you won't have to worry about facing the death penalty, thanks to the ACLU.
Later,
Posted by: Cicero at October 17, 2005 01:30 PM (S35wq)
4
I've wondered about that one, myself, Cicero, and I think I've got it. The ACLU wants to punish only the innocent and NEVER punish the guilty. So if you're an innocent, they want you to commit suicide, but if you're a mass murderer, they don't want you to die.
Thanks for stopping by!
Posted by: Ogre at October 17, 2005 02:54 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 15, 2005
Ogre's Not Here
Ogre's not home. I'm at the Carolina Renaissance Festival. Well, wouldn't you EXPECT an Ogre to be at such places? It's loads of fun. Come on by if you're near!
Posted by: Ogre at
11:21 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The Renaissance Festival I went to in Orlando was great. I want to go to the Vegas one next year. BYOM (Bring your own minstrels)
Posted by: SeanS at October 15, 2005 10:54 PM (cEjQ0)
2
I'm absolutely having a blast -- this year I went ahead and got the season tickets, so I'm there pretty much every weekend that I'm not somewhere else!
Posted by: Ogre at October 16, 2005 08:30 AM (iJFc9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 14, 2005
Quizzy Quiz Quiz
Hat tip to Beth on this one (with the same result):
You Should Get a JD (Juris Doctor)
|
You're logical, driven, and ruthless.
You'd make a mighty fine lawyer.
|
You know, I've considered it -- but I'd only do it so I could become a judge and really fix things in that corrupt system. Right now I'm still working on my Ph.D. in Information Systems Security, so I'm not starting over...
Posted by: Ogre at
02:05 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Hmm...I got the same thing.
I am willing to bet 85% of the people who read your blog will also be deemed clever arguers.
Which is what attracted us here in the first place!
Posted by: Peter Porcupine at October 14, 2005 11:35 PM (72c2/)
2
Why thank you for the very kind words!
Posted by: Ogre at October 15, 2005 11:28 AM (iJFc9)
3
You Should Get a MBA (Masters of Business Administration)
Pretty much dead on. :-)
Posted by: Tammi at October 15, 2005 12:47 PM (mL9hT)
4
I can SO see that, Tammi!!
Posted by: Ogre at October 15, 2005 06:37 PM (iJFc9)
5
Ogre, you might want that JD later, because I'm going to sue you for my lost time due to each one of these you find that I just CAN NOT RESIST TAKING! BTW - As if you didn't know, I got the same thing.
And I had my tattoo finished today, expect pictures soon on my blog, but not until after the swelling goes down and the scabbing is over. DANG THAT HURTS AND NOW IT ITCHES, AND I CAN'T SCRATCH! I need a gun, and a small country to invade for their oil, being a republican and all, you know, just to relax, HA HA HA!
Posted by: Smoke Eater at October 15, 2005 09:26 PM (K7uqT)
6
Well Smokey, you're the reason I take this -- to continue to provide you your fix in slow, measured doses!
Posted by: Ogre at October 16, 2005 08:29 AM (iJFc9)
7
Hmmm, I got the same thing, imagine that
P.S. I have another fun quiz over at my place
Posted by: oddybobo at October 17, 2005 10:57 AM (6Gm0j)
8
I think you did it wrong, Oddy -- everyone else is coming up with something different than what they actually do...except Bou...
Posted by: Ogre at October 17, 2005 10:58 AM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
ACLU needs cash
The ACLU, whose primary purpose for existing is to take money from people so they can have more money to use to take more money from people, so that they can get enough money to force communism on Americans, is apparently tired of suing governments for cash.
They've decided they need to
sue the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. So, you might be wondering what the Bucs are doing to annoy the ACLU. Are they discriminating against blacks? No. Are they refusing to let women play quarterback? Nope. Maybe they're attempting to crush the Bucs' players from being able to have sex parties on boats? Not even that.
What are they doing? Well, nothing, but they have a lot of cash, so the ACLU targets them. The ACLU claims that they are suing because they don't like being searched for explosives when entering the stadium.
This just goes to show you, once again, how bad the ACLU has become. If the owners of a stadium, in compliance with the rules of a private organization (the NFL) cannot search you when you enter their private property, then you MUST have a "Constitutional Right" to enter private property with explosives.
No, really, that's what the ACLU is attempting to argue! Keep in mind, this isn't random searches, or even targeted searches -- this is EVERYONE -- EVEN THE PLAYERS. The ACLU says there is a "constitutional freedom to be free from a pat-down search without probable cause or even any individualized suspicion."
Yes, that's correct. IF THIS WERE GOVERNMENT! This is a private company. You are not required to enter the stadium if you don't like the damn search. Today the ACLU is NOT interested in civil rights AT ALL. I wish I were the judge in this case -- I'd fine the ACLU and this moron Gordon Johnston large amounts of money for wasting the court's time.
(Hat tip to
Stop the ACLU).
Posted by: Ogre at
12:05 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Nice Vikings referrence there. What a damned disgrace!!
Joe Soucheray, a local talk radio host, has been trying to get people to boycott the next home game (which happens to be against the Packers - the biggest home game of the year) in response to their latest recreational activity debacle. Man, I wish he could make it happen.
As for the ACLU and the Bucs, have you forgotten that Communists don't believe in Private Property?
Posted by: Echo Zoe at October 14, 2005 01:59 PM (K+h36)
2
I would be willing to be large amounts of cash that absolutely NOTHING comes about because of the Vikings' activity. ZERO. The fans won't care, the media won't care, the teams won't care -- no one cares.
And I've searched for the actual legal filing in this case online, and I haven't found it yet. I'd like to see how the ACLU is going to argue that this person has a Constitutional Right to enter private property.
Posted by: Ogre at October 14, 2005 02:05 PM (/k+l4)
3
I can think of hudreds of thousands of people around the world who hate hope the tampa bay bucks lose they are all manchester united fans who hate malcom glazer, so go aclu keep up the fight
Posted by: angry sam at October 16, 2005 06:33 AM (1EpFj)
4
Well, Angry Sam, one of the problems with this setup is that whenever people try to punish government or businesses through these money-grabbing lawsuits is that the money is actually paid by PEOPLE! If the Bucs lose, they'll just raise prices for ads or tickets and everyone else will end up paying the money. It's nonsense.
Posted by: Ogre at October 16, 2005 08:31 AM (iJFc9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Meet and Greet
So, I was wandering around Algore's internet and I remembered Michele. I used to stop by there daily, and I'm glad I bookmarked it so I could find it again. Michele has a blog that will give you ideas, make you think a little (not too much), and is just plain fun.
Each day she also picks a site of the day. Everyone who visits Michele's blog is supposed to go to that blog and say "Hello." It's just neat and good fun.
Yesterday the blog of the day was
Trying to Catch Up.
I'm betting that the vast majority of my readers can completely relate with that concept -- I know I can. I, along with 35+ others, headed over and said "Hello." It's a nice blog, a personal blog, with neat stuff...then I scrolled down. As
the picture scrolled up my screen, I had to stop. Then I knew this was not just a nice blog, it was a GOOD blog. What picture, you ask?
This one:
If you don't know who that is, just go on with your life and stop reading. Anyone who can remember that great Yankee is alright with me. Head on over and see what else Barbara has to say!
Oh, and if you want to meet and greet other bloggers, the
weekend meet and greet to visit others is posted and lots of fun!
Posted by: Ogre at
10:02 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Thanks for recommending my blog! Guess you recognized thurman right off the bat too!
Posted by: Barbara at October 16, 2005 12:48 PM (MGlN4)
2
Absolutely... and YES!!!
Posted by: Ogre at October 16, 2005 06:55 PM (iJFc9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
No one needs insurance
Can someone PLEASE explain to me why I have insurance? Why do I pay lots of money every year for flood insurance, homeowner's insurance, automobile insurance, life insurance, and medical insurance? I clearly have NO need to do so because the federal government will give me money if there's an accident.
"Uninsured losses would be covered by this assessment process," said Kenneth Horak, of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. "We would note that. And that would potentially lead to federal assistance."
This one is in reference to the
New Hampshire floods, but the result is always the same. The government will, apparently, always come to the rescue -- but at MY EXPENSE! *I* am the one that gives government that money! I'm sick of it. I want my money back.
There is no longer any need for insurance in this country because the government will provide you with all your needs. Crap like this makes me want to just stop working and join the lazy bastards that sit around and demand government feed, clothe, and shelter them.
It's just plain wrong.
Posted by: Ogre at
08:03 AM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Indeed, when viewed in that light, the only thing that keeps any of us working and self-reliant is pride. There seems to be a pride shortage developing, though.
Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at October 14, 2005 09:39 AM (PzL/5)
2
And it's rather difficult -- as jealousy increases, the incentive to be productive decreases!
Posted by: Ogre at October 14, 2005 09:57 AM (/k+l4)
3
We were talking about the very same thing recently here. This is getting sickening. The gubment seems to be stating, we will cover you for any natural disaster. I guess if a tree falls on your house, the feds will handle that bill now right? Tighten your belt Ogre, we have some basements to pump out in New Hampshire now.
Posted by: tomslick at October 14, 2005 10:07 AM (xNjHI)
4
Hey -- there's a 4mph wind at my house and my dog fell over. I demand government assistance!
Posted by: Ogre at October 14, 2005 10:57 AM (/k+l4)
5
I don't mind feeding the hungry, providing assistance to those in need etc . . . See, a bit of compassion sneaking out, but when the government steps in during a natural disaster and says don't worry, we will finance you, I get angry. No one has stepped in for me when I couldn't pay my bills or didn't eat anything but Ramen noodles and 6 for $1.00 generic macaroni and cheese for four years. If I knew all I'd have to do was build a home in a flood plain or hurricane alley to get everything for free, daggonit I would have! Now, though, I don't have enough money to pay for my heating bill this winter so I'll have to build that flood prone home later!
Posted by: oddybobo at October 14, 2005 10:59 AM (6Gm0j)
6
No money for your heating bill? No problem. I'm sure that qualifies for government aid, too.
And I've lived off Ramen noodles, too. Good stuff, isn't it?
Posted by: Ogre at October 14, 2005 11:02 AM (/k+l4)
7
Nope, I "make" too much money! Ha! there is no such thing as too much money!
Posted by: oddybobo at October 14, 2005 11:16 AM (6Gm0j)
8
Well it goes even deeper than that. You see sometimes the government will pay if you have insurance sometimes it wont. However, there is not such thing as flood insurance. It is just not cost effective. Places flood (especially flood prone places) and lots of houses are destroyed, no insurance company is going to bet against a certainty. So the government created National Flood Insurance where people pay a fee to live somewhere stupid and then FEMA rebuilds there house again and again. That is not insurance (it is called insurance) but it is not because the government looses massive amounts of money on it. Real insurance would be at least self sustaining.
Posted by: Mindflame at October 14, 2005 11:24 AM (yAjnB)
9
You make too much, Oddy? Then you MUST give some to me. And if you don't, I'll send goons to take that money from you.
Well said, Mindflame, and you're dead right. No person in their right mind would provide insurance for beachfront property in south Florida...and that's why the government does.
What would happen if government didn't provide it? Gee, people would either build and learn to not build there, or they'd just not build there at all! And what's wrong with that?
Posted by: Ogre at October 14, 2005 11:57 AM (/k+l4)
10
Your goons can try but I have a .45 that says they won't succeed! Anyway, the gubment says I make too much, I didn't. In fact, they take most of it so in the end I make bubkiss!
Posted by: oddybobo at October 14, 2005 01:12 PM (6Gm0j)
11
My goons will be wearing badges of the US Gubment, so they get to take it...
And your check sounds like mine. I once got a signing bonus of $10,000. Know how much I took home? Less than $5,000.
Posted by: Ogre at October 14, 2005 01:22 PM (/k+l4)
12
Ugh. I lost what I typed and not going to do it again. Where was FEMA and "the" government when I needed some assistance last year? Ohh... yes, I didn't qualify except for their 'loan assistance' which was more expensive than getting a line of credit on my house. Sigh. And let's not talk about the generator reimbursement. Ugh.
Posted by: vw bug at October 14, 2005 04:24 PM (MNp8q)
13
I'm glad to know my tax dollars are being used so effectively in the government bureaucracy.
Posted by: Ogre at October 14, 2005 05:26 PM (iJFc9)
14
Mmmm... Ramen noodles.
Anyway, I recall that Andrew Carnegie once listed the insurance industry as one of the greatest things about America - the fact that they offered protection against risk.
If Gov't programs were eliminated, insurance companies would take up a lot of the slack.
What they wouldn't take up, though, is stupidity - like that flood insurance you mentioned.
Posted by: Harvey at October 15, 2005 06:37 PM (ubhj8)
15
Harvey, stop trying to insert common sense into this discussion. Common sense is the opposite of government programs...
Posted by: Ogre at October 15, 2005 06:41 PM (iJFc9)
16
I can't believe it, my co-worker just bought a car for $50223. Isn't that crazy!
Posted by: Betsy Markum at November 14, 2005 08:14 PM (9A38S)
Posted by: Ogre at November 14, 2005 10:06 PM (7PCNv)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The French
There's always things going on with the French. Quite often I've heard them referred to as "frogs." Does anyone know where that one comes from? Frogs (the amphibians) don't know anything about white flags, cheese, wine (and whine), nor surrendering...
But
Mike's America has a few things to say. It started with the moronic complaining about
Subway's advertising campaign. Come on, "France and Chicken?" That's some marketing genius, if you ask me.
When complaints were received, Mike continued with "
Let them Eat Cake," where the silly French defending continued. Finally, there was
The French and Soap. Oh, this IS getting ugly...
Feel free to join in!
Posted by: Ogre at
07:10 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
This sucks. The only thing more spineless than a Frenchman is someone who surrenders to the French. I'll not be eating at Subway again until they BRING BACK the ad campaign.
Let them eat cake indeed!
Posted by: Echo Zoe at October 14, 2005 11:17 AM (K+h36)
2
I like it!
It's time to boycott Subway until they DO advertise French = chicken! Yay, boycott!
Posted by: Ogre at October 14, 2005 11:58 AM (/k+l4)
3
You know, I'm open to a challenge, but I would not even TRY to surrender to a Frenchman -- I'm not at all invigorated at the thought of having sex with other men, but in the surrender argument, the Frenchman might offer up his throat or booty in desperation to be the one to surrender, and I have no use for either.
Posted by: Seth at October 14, 2005 12:48 PM (87zsL)
4
I can't even imagine trying to surrender to the French. How would that go?
"I surrender."
"No, *I* surrender."
"I surrendered first."
"By *I* surrendered unconditionally."
Posted by: Ogre at October 14, 2005 12:56 PM (/k+l4)
5
It started out as 'frog eater' because of the frog's legs and laer became just 'frogs'.
The Brits liked it as a variant of 'toad eater', one who toadies, which is a French characteristic.
Posted by: Peter Porcupine at October 14, 2005 11:30 PM (72c2/)
6
Aha! I didn't know that, Peter, thanks for the info!
Posted by: Ogre at October 15, 2005 11:28 AM (iJFc9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Congressman in Jail
And no, as Teach notes, it's NOT Tom Delay. In this case, it's a Democrat Congressman who embezzled and stole taxpayer money. He's gone to jail for 4 years.
He's also been told to "give back" over $200,000 "to the taxpayers." That will likely just drop into the "special" personal check-writing funds of legislators.
Now what this person did was take taxpayer money and place it into a "foundation" that he controlled, and then he spent the money however he wanted. What did he do wrong? He put the money in the foundation instead of spending it directly!
Seriously! The "leaders" of the North Carolina General Assembly have personal checkbooks that they can use to write checks of any amount for any purpose, with literally millions of dollars in those accounts. They aren't voted on by anyone, the money is just spent wherever they want to spend it.
Now tell me how it's illegal when funneled through a foundation, but not illegal to do EXACTLY the same thing without using a foundation? Oh wait -- the one who got caught was using federal funds, while the other guys are using North Carolina funds. I see. Do you?
(Linked to
Cao's Open Trackbacks)
Posted by: Ogre at
04:01 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I pulled this story out on some 'Progressives" on a forum the other night, and they had no problem, saying, in effect "was he the leader of the House?"
Posted by: William Teach at October 14, 2005 07:08 PM (eSZb/)
2
Progressively stupid, apparently.
Posted by: Ogre at October 14, 2005 07:28 PM (iJFc9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 13, 2005
Libertarians Still Running
One of my blogads on my post pages (follow the Permanent Link below) linked to this fellow, running for Ohio governor on the Libertarian ticket. It's nice to see a choice, ANY choice in elections today.
There doesn't appear to be much difference between Republicans and Democrats these days, especially at the national level. I guess your options are "moderate" and "liberal" with no choices for "conservative."
Heck, in North Carolina, AFTER
a libertarian candidate registered to run for mayor, the state decided that you're not allowed to be a Libertarian in North Carolina.
Now who thinks Mr. Peirce, no matter how qualified, nor how good his intentions are, will win governor? You see, this is just one of the reasons that I think the only real hope for freedom in this country is
The Free State Project. Seriously.
Posted by: Ogre at
02:04 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I totally respect your views, and ascribe to a lot of libetarian philosophies, but I'm surprised you don't see much difference between Republicans and Dems. Sure maybe in 2000, but looking ahead the differences couldn't be more stark in every branch of gov't.
Great blog, btw
.
Posted by: Graham at October 14, 2005 12:35 AM (cmoS1)
2
Well, the big example is spending, especially at the federal level. Both Republicans and Democrats continue to spend more and more. Both parties massively expand government at all costs. Democrats love abortion, Republicans just don't care about it. Democrats support gay marriage, Republicans sometimes do, sometimes don't. Where's the difference?
Posted by: Ogre at October 14, 2005 05:41 AM (iJFc9)
3
And thanks for stopping by!
Posted by: Ogre at October 14, 2005 05:42 AM (iJFc9)
4
There is less and less difference between the two major parties...it's all about WHAT each of them wants to spend the BIG BUCKS on-thats the only difference. They both SPEND, SPEND.
Posted by: Raven at October 14, 2005 05:58 AM (sfJOm)
5
And grow government! And crush freedom.
Posted by: Ogre at October 14, 2005 06:40 AM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
ACLU Supports Censorship
I just read a very interesting article that shows how inconsistent the American Communist Liar's Union really is:
In 1925, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) came to the defense of Dayton, Tenn., teacher John Scopes, calling prohibitions on the teaching of evolution unconstitutional. On Sept. 26, ACLU lawyers lined up on the opposite side of free speech, arguing against the Dover, Pa., school board in a lawsuit set to outlaw classroom discussion of intelligent design (ID).
For those who are not up on the case Kitzmiller v. Dover, it's a rather simple case. The school system decided to have their classes read a statement in class. Keep in mind, these are ELECTED officials, so a MAJORITY of PEOPLE in this area WANT this to be done (not that the ACLU gives a damn about anyone but communists and themselves).
The school system wanted to teach evolution. The school system never wanted to, intended to, nor required anyone to teach intelligent design. In fact, the way the curriculum is worded, the schools CANNOT teach intelligent design. Sorry, that's not good enough for the ACLU.
Posted by: Ogre at
12:02 PM
| Comments (72)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Nice summary, Ogre and I'd agree with the broad push of where you're going with it.
I would raise a couple of points however. Just because officials are elected, it doesn't necessarily mean that a majority even of the people who voted for those officials agree with every decision they make. For that to always be true, every decision would have to be confirmed by public referendum.
In the prepared statement, there's an implicit categorisation of Intelligent Design as a theory. An idea can only be called a theory if it predicts certain events or consequences of actions, and those predictions are open to testing (although the capability to test the predictions may come decades later, as in the theory of relativity).
As I understand it, Intelligent Design proponents hold the mechanism for the creation of life to be ineffable - forever beyond our understanding and therefore impossible to question.
Its all wordgames to me - I think the statement is perfectly reasonable, but I can see where the ACLU managed to get a hook in it to attempt to pull it down.
"To believe nothing is as foolish as believing everything - both remove the need for reflection".
Posted by: GeekBrit at October 13, 2005 01:47 PM (Oi3lh)
2
No, it doesn't mean the majority of the people support the action, but then again, the majority of the people support it when they DON'T vote. We've got a representative republic, so people can only be represented by their electors.
All I see in that statement is the idea that Darwin's theory might not be perfect. In this case the ACLU is clearly engaging the censorship -- it's not religion vs. science, it's the ACLU attempting to stop any debate about evolution.
Thanks for stopping by again!
Posted by: Ogre at October 13, 2005 01:59 PM (/k+l4)
3
Great job! Didn't know these little details.
Posted by: Jay at October 13, 2005 04:26 PM (2FcUc)
4
Sorry to have to inform you of more of their garbage.
Posted by: Ogre at October 13, 2005 04:31 PM (/k+l4)
5
Why can't the people who religiously support evolution stand the questioning? If evolution is a fact, what's wrong with asking questions?
They're knee-jerk reacting to relentless attacks from creationists that never stop.
This gives them their own form of zealotry that leads to the willful denial of any and all plausible science that might get mixed in with fanatically motivated bs.
Posted by: island at October 17, 2005 02:00 PM (MAEna)
6
And isn't it interesting, Island, that they defend their alleged non-religion with such a religious fervor?
Posted by: Ogre at October 17, 2005 02:55 PM (/k+l4)
7
More important to science, I think, is the fact that they are willfully blind to the existence of their own religous fevor... to the point that one of their own most respected members is impressed enough by this mentality to call them "neodarwinian bullies".
The problem with neo-Darwinism is that Random changes in DNA alone do not lead to speciation. It was like confessing a murder when I discovered I was not a neo-Darwinist. I am definitely a Darwinist though. I think we are missing important information about the origins of variation. I differ from the neo-Darwinian bullies on this point.
-Lynn Margulis
That's not a normal disagreement among peers... it's a clear shot at fanaticism.
Posted by: island at October 17, 2005 03:18 PM (MAEna)
8
You can see that also every time a defender of Darwin starts with "science is science and religion is religion." Often when I ask questions about evolution and Darwin, I don't say one word about religion -- I just ask questions about the science -- and I get accused of being a religious nut. It is, as you have accurately pointed out, blind fanaticism that refuses to accept any challenges.
Posted by: Ogre at October 17, 2005 03:32 PM (/k+l4)
9
Yup... but "intelligent" intervention is still too distantly plausible to merrit the kind of consideration that IDists expect.
You can't prove intelligent intervention with evidence for purposeful design in nature, even if neodarwinists did manage to get over it and admit that such evidence even exists.
It's the refusal by both sides to interpret evidence honestly that hurts us all.
Posted by: island at October 17, 2005 03:41 PM (MAEna)
10
I usually approach it with the idea of "What if evolution is wrong?" I'm not trying to foist anything on anyone, just trying to get them to see facts as facts and ignore belief systems. I'm not saying evolution IS wrong -- I'm just asking questions about it that don't make sense -- and for that I'm attacked.
I don't have much experience on the other side, as I can't effectively argue in support of evolution -- I've observed and learned too much and don't have the rigid faith required to accept evolution.
Posted by: Ogre at October 17, 2005 03:45 PM (/k+l4)
11
I believe that I have a mountain of evidence that indicates that the anthropic principle is true for good logical physics reasons.
As a result, I've been called a creationist more times than Dembski... and denied it more times than Judas.
Luv,
Constantine
Posted by: island at October 17, 2005 03:51 PM (MAEna)
12
I was reading that info on the site you linked, and I liked it -- I might have to use some samples of that in a future post if you don't mind.
Posted by: Ogre at October 17, 2005 03:55 PM (/k+l4)
13
Then you've got to read this, but you'll have to remove the space after www.g... because your spam moniter is censoring it.
www.g eocit ies.com/naturescience/TalkOriginsArchive.html
Sure... it's there for that purpose if nothing else, but remeber that selective exclusion is willful ignorance.
Kinda like anthrax in Florida... nobody ever discusses the fact that this points to terrorists in posession of WMD's... that WE gave Iraq!
Terrorists trying to acqire crop dusters doesn't help anybody's argument... so we'll buy into the hype that a disgrutled scientist that will never be indicted... did it...
uh huh...
Posted by: island at October 17, 2005 04:06 PM (MAEna)
14
"Often when I ask questions about evolution and Darwin, I don't say one word about religion -- I just ask questions about the science -- and I get accused of being a religious nut. It is, as you have accurately pointed out, blind fanaticism that refuses to accept any challenges."
So posit a legitimate challenge to evolution. The ID creationists haven't, which is why they're being treated with due scorn. Whether or not one chooses to describe the reaction to ID creationists from scientists as "religious fervor" is entirely irreleant and smacks only of desperation - "nyah nyah nyah, EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION TOOOOOOOOO!!!" Sorry, but not only is this dumb -- nothing about evolutionary theory rests in "revealed knowledge" or any of the other hokum that festers within the minds of religiously motivated evolution opponents, rendering scientists' attitudes moot -- but it's beside the point, which is that ID has failed to marshal any semblance of support for its own supposed position.
You also don't have any grasp of the particulars of Kitzmiler vs. Dover. At the very heart of it is that teachers WERE being forced to teach ID creationism. Maybe you should read the transcripts. Failing that, you can pay heed to the testimony of Carol Brown, a ten-year member of the Dover school board who resigned in protest of the new ID policy.
"[Brown] testified to the repeated statements of Bill Buckingham, chair of the curriculum committee, and Alan Bonsell, chair of the school board, that they were seeking equal time for creationism in science classrooms. She detailed a year’s worth of proselytizing by members of the school board, their outspoken opposition to the separation of church and state, and much more. She testified that the search for an ID textbook began because several members of the board objected to the biology textbook (Ken Miller’s textbook, Biology) on the grounds that it did not give equal time to creationism or mention God. This follows on the heels of almost identical testimony from other former board members and teachers, including Bryan Rehm and Barrie Callahan."
Lynn "Random changes in DNA alone do not lead to speciation" Margulis apparently does not understand contemporary issues in evolution, and somehow I doubt you do either. But if you're so certain that the ACLU is trying to stifle legitimate scientific alternatives to evolution, feel free to enumerate if not expand on these.
Posted by: Beaming Visionary at October 17, 2005 05:15 PM (/f2f8)
15
A few addenda. First of all, the ACLU didn't initiate this, they're merely the legal counsel for the plaintiffs, which consist of a group of concerned area parents. You wrote:
"Keep in mind, these are ELECTED officials, so a MAJORITY of PEOPLE in this area WANT this to be done"
One: Are you really shallow-minded enough to think that just because someone is elected to a given office means that everything he or she subsequently does reflects the desires of his or her constituency? What about candidates who run on a no-new-tax platform and then raise taxes?
Two: Even if a majority of people want something, this doesn't impart it with scientific validity. Science isn't about popular opinions. I'm sure you can find counties brimming with uneducated morons in the American South in which 90% of residents believe that Noah's Flood actually happened as recounted in the Bible. That doesn't mean geoscience should hew to these benighted vews.
"The school system wanted to teach evolution. The school system never wanted to, intended to, nor required anyone to teach intelligent design."
As I noted before, the Dover Area School Board DEMANDED that ID be taught. I am amazed that you could be bothered to comment on something you have not investigated in the least. It's though whenever you hear of the ACLU's involvement in something, you proceed to shoot from the hip...nah, that can't be it.
Posted by: Beaming Visionary at October 17, 2005 05:24 PM (/f2f8)
16
Lynn "Random changes in DNA alone do not lead to speciation" Margulis apparently does not understand contemporary issues in evolution
It's too easy to tell when there's a fanatic on the line... the moron doesn't even know that Lynn was the honored key-note speaker at the last evolution conference.
Nah... she don't no nuffin bout no issues... LOL
Posted by: island at October 17, 2005 05:29 PM (MAEna)
17
"the moron doesn't even know that Lynn was the honored key-note speaker at the last evolution conference"
True, I don't know the last time she was at a conference, but I was attempting to be ironic. Margulis has been studying evolution for about 80 years. Part of my post was clipped (human error, it appears).
Margulis does have issues with standard "neo-Darwinian" evolutionary views, but more importantly for purposes of this discussion Margulis is a frequent victim of quote-mining by ID creationists, as I'm sure you are aware.
BV
Posted by: Beaming Visionary at October 17, 2005 06:30 PM (/f2f8)
18
Yeah... Contrary to your previous impications, I'm am quite aware of what both sides do, like neodarwinists like to disallow quoted statements, which creationists DO often abuse, but just calling it quote-mining doesn't rationalize it away as insignificant without the evidence that backs up that claim.
FYI: Lynn used to be married to Carl Sagan and their son, Dorion Sagan, recently co-authored the book that's reccommended on the first page of my website that you must assume proves that I don't know anything about the issues without bothering to actually find out.
Posted by: island at October 17, 2005 06:49 PM (MAEna)
19
BV, welcome to the word of blind obedience and selective reading/hearing yourself. You clearly open with an outright hostility to religion, so that is already coloring your views. I do not open that way. I have studied earth's history, rocks, geology, and other earth sciences at the graduate level of college instruction -- supposedly some of the best that there is to offer. I've weighed the options, seen the evidence, and I have committed heresy to the naturalistic religion -- I've questioned what I've found.
You complain about the statements of the curriculum committee -- but what was said on the committee is completely, 100% irrelavent to this lawsuit -- the lawsuit very specifically is about that single statement that is to be read -- there are NO changes to the actual curriculum -- all students are still being taught 100% evolution without another word about intelligent design -- not one word.
As for my challenge to evolution, how about something basic: uniformitarianism.
The ACLU DID initiate this challenge. They are ambulance-chasers, and I'd even be willing to bet they placed an ad in the local newspaper seeking people to challenge the lawsuit.
In this country, we are supposed to have a representative republic. That means that the people should be able to decide for themselves what they want taught to their own children, no matter what the ACLU thinks. If they wanted to teach Gaia, Hindu, Naturalist, or the Christian view of how the world was created, and the majority wanted that, I'd have no problem with that, either.
Show me where in written policies and the curriculum that intelligent design was being forced upon anyone. Just because it was suggested in a meeting is meaningless. If that makes it so, I can go to a county council meeting and suggest we murder all people over 65 and the fact that I mentioned it means that the council supported it. Just because it's discussed, does not make it so. And in this case, it's utterly irrelevant.
Posted by: Ogre at October 17, 2005 08:56 PM (iJFc9)
20
"Show me where in written policies and the curriculum that intelligent design was being forced upon anyone."
The reading of the ID creationism statement to 9th-graders was written into curriculum policy. But because this laughable affront to science evidently isn't enough for you, are you doubting Brown's damning testimony? Or are you asserting that issues broached at school board meetings and actions takes therein are somehow irrelevant? Remember, the lawsuit here is the direct result of actions taken by the school board, which in enacting certain ad hoc pro-creation changes blatantly flaunted district policy. For details, read this:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05273/580258.stm).
Here's a copy of the original plaintiffs' complaint.
http://www.aclu.org/evolution/legal/complaint.pdf
Note that it was brought by a number of Dover-area parents, not the ACLU. But that doesn't really matter if the lawsuit is valid, now does it?
What went on at Dover School Board meetings, exactly? Let's add it up just for you, Oags.
* A school board member's wife quoted scripture from the Old Testament and said the district students would be cheated if they couldn't learn about biblical creation.
* School board member Bonsell began "snorting through his nostrils" and said students should not be exposed to [a student-crafted mural depicting evolution] because "this is not where we came from." (Later, a creationist janitor burned the mural.)
* Bonsell also said that prayer and faith should be reintroduced to schools and told board members he wanted "fair and balanced" treatment of creationism alongside the theory of evolution.
* Board member William Buckingham spurred a movement against purchasing biology textbooks because they were "laced with Darwinism" and claimed he would only vote for buying it if the district also bought the intelligent design "textbook" "Of Pandas and People."
As the link reveals, there's quite a bit more.
So, to you, does the entire controversy still amount to nothing more than the reading of a (stupid, dishonest) statement? It upsets you that lawyers are getting involved when idiot custiodians are setting fire to to things that offend their religious sensibilities? I'm almost envious of your capacity for raucous self-deception.
These are summed up here: http://www.yorkdispatch.com/local/ci_3075731
I could even link to the court transcripts, but you don't care. All you know is that the ACLU is involved and that there is clearly evil afoot as a result. But Dover is getting its ass kicked -- so one-sidedly, in fact, that I doubt the DI or anyone else will want to see this one appealed to higher courts because of the embarrassing publicity that would rain down as a result. Soon ID creationism will be a dead issue and the fundagelicals will have to come up with a "new" form of creationism with which to batter the 21st century.
Posted by: Beaming Visionary at October 17, 2005 11:50 PM (/f2f8)
21
BV, you're still arguing about what happened at the board meetings, which is not the same as arguing about the board's actions. While I'm sure they introduced all of those quotes as testimony in the case, they show that the board acted rather passively to the creationists ideas at the meetings. The suit is over the board-ordered reading of the statement, and nothing more.
Posted by: Christopher K. Leavitt at October 18, 2005 02:06 AM (Kvxj3)
22
As Christopher said, you're missing the point. You cannot sue over discussions at a board meeting -- or maybe that's what bothers you even more -- the idea that people of faith even participate in government and actually talk about their own faith.
THERE IS NO POLICY TO TEACH CREATIONISM. NO TEACHER WAS DIRECTED TO TEACH CREATIONISM. ALL SCHOOLS WERE TO SPEND WEEKS AND WEEKS TEACHING EVOLUTION AND ZERO WEEKS TEACHING CREATIONISM.
Posted by: Ogre at October 18, 2005 05:33 AM (iJFc9)
23
heh... you wouldn't be teaching creationism even if you did "teach" ID... whatever that means, the only thing that you could teach is that scientists try to identify patterns that indicate purpose in a given mechanism.
Then they'd claim that this was evidence for intelligent design, even though that's wrong.
It isn't like finding an arrowhead on Mars, or a ancient and empty spaceship on Venus, patterns in nature that indicate purposeful design, don't indicate intelligent design without the asymmetries that put intelligently motivated actions at the top of the physical hierarchy of nature.
For example, the arrowhead is fashioned by a means that runs contrary to the normal dissipative process in the environment, sentience was required to add the "point" to the erosive process... so to speak.
The logical flaw that's made by both sides occurs when we disassociate ourselves from the process, to think that human design can be motivated by anything greater or less than that which motivates fungi to make "fairy-rings". Humans are, pound-for-pound, about as "erosive" it gets in our universe, and this puts us at or near the top of the heap of dissipative structures, but we are still just contributing members of our ecosystem. We can't just assume that we are anything greater than an integral player in the normal process of the ecobalance that we belong to.
How arrogant are we humans that we would detatch ourselves from the hierarchy of nature, just because we're at the top of a heap of stuff that does the same thing as us, only not quite as efficiently.
Posted by: island at October 18, 2005 06:30 AM (8zUGC)
24
Help me out here I remember evolution from high school but the only thing I know about ID is the statement that a designer guided the creation of life. What I haven’t been able to find is were ID came from, who’s idea was it originally, how did they come up with the idea, did they really conduct some kind of experiment that that hints at the presents of a designer?
Posted by: CHARON at October 18, 2005 10:32 AM (AhRgG)
25
You know, I'm not sure who was the first in modern times to propose intelligent design. I know much of the support for it comes from asking questions about evolution and pointing out errors with the evolutionary theory -- so many proponents of ID simply offer it as a theory that works better than evolution.
Posted by: Ogre at October 18, 2005 10:57 AM (/k+l4)
26
"THERE IS NO POLICY TO TEACH CREATIONISM. NO TEACHER WAS DIRECTED TO TEACH CREATIONISM. ALL SCHOOLS WERE TO SPEND WEEKS AND WEEKS TEACHING EVOLUTION AND ZERO WEEKS TEACHING CREATIONISM."
Type in all caps if it helps convince you you're right, Ogre, but here's the deal.
1. The reading of that school-board mandated phrase *is* a curriculum change, and if you can successfully argue that it isn't grounded in religious superstition (this is where the ardent anti-Darwin outcries from Bonsell, Buckingham and the other medieval mushbrains come in, not to mention the well-known "Wedge document") doesn't undermine the concurrent teaching of evolution, you should be legally representing the DASD in this case, because frankly they're getting their asses kicked (as they should be) and could use the help.
You probably don't even know the contents of the ID statement teachers are now obligated to read. Here it is:
"The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
"Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
"Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available in the library along with other resources for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.
"With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments."
This, for reasons clear to most, has no place in contemporary science classrooms. I'm aware that the ignorant easily turn the other cheek when it comes to the evidence for evolution, but that's a discussion for another time and place.
Ordering copies of the creationist book "Of Pandas and People" (and it is a creationist book, as shown here: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/09/why_didnt_they.html) and not agreeing to order biology textbooks unless copies of OPAP were also purchased is not "discussion." It's action, with measurable results.
Of course, this is why there's a trial -- because people like you believe that what the DASD has done in trying to usher creationism into its schools is innocent and justified, just hunky-dory in light of the Establishment Clause, while others know better. And this time, justice should actually prevail.
I understand that unconditional Jesus supporters who think evolution and theism are incompatible aren't going to give an inch here regardless of the evidence, but I admit I find it interesting to watch them try when their brains seem otherwise functional enough.
From Ogre:
"You know, I'm not sure who was the first in modern times to propose intelligent design."
Phil Johnson, the senile "HIV-doesn't-exist" lawyer, is typically "credited" with introducing the term. By adding the clause "in modern times," you show that you at least understand that ID is simply another name for creationism, with or without an old earth.
"I know much of the support for it comes from asking questions about evolution and pointing out errors with the evolutionary theory"
Wrong. If you believe there are such errors, list them. Links should be easy enough to find, given how active the DI is.
"...so many proponents of ID simply offer it as a theory that works better than evolution."
Wrong again. ID is distinctly not a theory. It offers nothing that can be tested and actually little that can't. If you believe this is untrue, again, provide evidence. You have done nothing but swallow the DI's campaign of lies, proving that if nothing else they are good at PR (especially when aiming it at people who are already religiously corrupted).
Charon, ID merely posits that evolution is wrong and that a Creator did it, and that's it. All of the DI's efforts are aimed not at constructing a body of knowledge or publishing anything, but at attacking evolution. It is a bona fide hunk of religiously driven propagandist bunk.
Ogre, I thought you'd made at least a token effort to remain up to speed, but you may well be as clueless as Jay at the ACLU.
Posted by: Beaming Visionary at October 18, 2005 11:21 AM (/f2f8)
27
BV, you're showing your incredible pre-determined bias -- that quote you posted is in the original post above. Neither your version nor mine forced anyone to teach anything. And you're ignoring the idea that 2 seconds after the quote is read, the students start spending a long period of time ONLY learning evolution.
You also complain about schools ordering books. What other books do you want banned from the school library? That is exactly the point of this whole post -- the ACLU has taken the side of censorship and wants opposing viewpoints WITHELD from students.
And I assure you, BV, as you would know if you read rather than commented before reading, I am completely "up to speed." You can go down the road of discussing exactly what a "theory" is if you'd like. That will continue to support the view that people should be allowed to challenge evolution.
I've had a number of other posts that answer your other various questions, but trying to stay on topic here, this post is firm evidence and discussion about the idea that the ACLU refuses to allow dissenting opinions. Why is that? Why are schools not even allowed to discuss that evolution might not be perfect? Why do you and the ACLU want to only allow books in libraries that YOU approve? Most scientists want full and open discussion of ideas -- why do you and the ACLU want only your ideas heard?
Posted by: Ogre at October 18, 2005 12:02 PM (/k+l4)
28
The burden of proof will always rest with the evolutionist because as a Christian, I hold to the idea that "we walk by faith, not by sight" as the Bible puts it. I think this is true of most modern religions.
When I examine evolution as a theory I find too many holes in it's logic. Therefore I have concluded that it takes more faith to believe this nonsense.
Posted by: Ken Long at October 18, 2005 12:25 PM (7FRaw)
29
"Therefore I have concluded that it takes more faith to believe this nonsense... "
Than to believe what, that goddidit?
No, natural cause is the default position since we already know that every other effect in nature has a natural cause. You'd be making an unfounded leap of faith that isn't justified by any evidence.
Posted by: island at October 18, 2005 12:43 PM (k+0ul)
30
But then, island, explain Uniformitarianism.
Posted by: Ogre at October 18, 2005 12:57 PM (/k+l4)
31
"What I haven’t been able to find is were ID came from, who’s idea was it originally, how did they come up with the idea, did they really conduct some kind of experiment that that hints at the presents of a designer?"
The teleological observation goes back to Hericlitus, the ancient greek sophist.
The erroneous assumption that this indicates that god is the mechanism behind the design goes back to about five minutes after that...
Dembski has made attempts to produce a method of detecting algorithms for intelligent design in nature, and many ID "scientists" are working on using the idea to produce viable scientific papers.
But again... the best that they'll be able to do is to give evidence that we're not here by accident, which does not indicate intelligent design without proof.
Still... ID is necessary and important to science as long as fanatically motivated airheads willfully deny evidence for the existence purpose in nature.
Politically if not rationally... purpose in nature is important to science and IDists are the only ones to recognize it.
In your face neodarwinists...
Posted by: island at October 18, 2005 01:00 PM (k+0ul)
32
Ogre... I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you speaking in context with local geological evolution or the universe as a whole?
Are you talking about causality?
Posted by: island at October 18, 2005 01:06 PM (k+0ul)
33
Why is natural cause the default position? As I see it, that's the argument for uniformitarianism, which has no possible basis in fact, only 100% belief.
Posted by: Ogre at October 18, 2005 01:12 PM (/k+l4)
34
No... there is plenty of evidence that natural cause is the cause of every action in nature. There is no evidence that un-natural cause is the cause for anything.
Posted by: island at October 18, 2005 01:18 PM (k+0ul)
35
When viewed as current processes, I agree. My problem is when that idea is proposed to be infinite without evidence just because it's possible/probable/likely.
Posted by: Ogre at October 18, 2005 01:32 PM (/k+l4)
36
Watch it... my motto is "DON'T PROJECT"...
I don't believe in infinity... and there's no emprical evidence that this is anything more than a mathematical idealization that's been taken quite too literally.
Ergo the question of causality... if the universe is finite, then how did it start?
Again... there's no evidence that nothing can exist... no evidence for an absolute cosmic singularity... and you don't need inflationary theory if the universe has volume when a big bang occurs.
Don't assume that the structure of the universe isn't perpetually inherent to the energy... in other words, there is an extremely conservative cosmological model that allows for this, because the universe perpetually evolves in this model via a series of big bangs... ever closer to the impossible *idealized goal* of absolute thermal equilibrium... or perfect symmetry, it's the inherent asymmetry or imbalance in the energy that causes the effort toward equilibrium that can never be resolved.
That's why the universe isn't perfectly flat.
That's what the anthropic principle is all about.
Posted by: island at October 18, 2005 02:18 PM (k+0ul)
37
Now that's a very interesting way to put that principle -- I've not heard it said quite that way before...which could raise other interesting questions, perhaps way out on the philosophical scale -- if there's no such thing as infinite, and no such thing as nothing existing, then the universe has to have always existed, but only for a finite period of time...before which didn't exist -- which implies and ending of time which would not result in nothing.
Posted by: Ogre at October 18, 2005 02:25 PM (/k+l4)
38
I knew that I forgot to cover something...
Time restarts every time that you have a big bang.
I don't make the rules.
Posted by: island at October 18, 2005 02:28 PM (k+0ul)
39
Well...that makes sense... in a really, really philosophical sort of way.
Hey, it's pretty logical. Give me awhile, I'll see if I can poke some holes in that theory, too...
Posted by: Ogre at October 18, 2005 02:38 PM (/k+l4)
40
Ya gotta have at least one good paradox or it's just not a good theory... ha!
The physics is justified here in this series of four short articles that I wrote to the physicist moderated research group. It apparently vindicates Einstein because he could have rejected arguments for an infinite universe if he would have simply noted that matter generation in a "quasi"-static version of his finitite model causes the expansion that he **thought** did his model in.
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2005-06/msg0069755.html
I say that this "apparently" vindicates him... somebody better than me still has to validate it with the quantum vacuum in the manner described in about the second article, but the point remains that the ball is NOT in Einsten's court...
He is STILL right... until somebody proves him wrong, because there's nothing wrong with using this argument back in 1917 and so we still live in a finite closed universe that has a telic connection to every other object in it.
Science hits philosophy and the "why" question like a brick square in the face... the rules of science change dramatically if the most accurate cosmological principle in a finite closed universe is anthropic in nature.
Surprise.
Posted by: island at October 18, 2005 02:51 PM (k+0ul)
41
Ken, I hope for your sake that your post was an attempt at parodying Bible inerrantists.
"The burden of proof will always rest with the evolutionist because as a Christian, I hold to the idea that "we walk by faith, not by sight" as the Bible puts it."
So you believe that although facts and observations have led modern scientists to irrefutable conclusions about the development of life as we know it, they can't be correct because an ancient book of faery tales doesn't mesh with these data?
"When I examine evolution as a theory I find too many holes in it's logic."
Name one. Just one will suffice.
"Therefore I have concluded that it takes more faith to believe this nonsense."
No, you concluded a long time ago that creationism was valid because it was drilled into your head, and since then you, like other victims of the religious byrus, have been struggling like hell to keep facts at bay so as to avoid cognitive dissonanance. You need to read "Idiot America" in the latest issue of Esquire Magazine -- you don't know it, but you're one of the unnamed stars of the story.
Posted by: Beaming Visionary at October 18, 2005 02:58 PM (/f2f8)
42
Quantum vacuum? Now you're talking!
But hey, you're daring to question evolution, so you're a religious nut...or so I'm told.
It's amazing the possibilities when one considers just tiny variations in theories that simply cannot be proven, isn't it?
Posted by: Ogre at October 18, 2005 03:02 PM (/k+l4)
43
Oh yeah... I forgot to include this recent observational stuff that appears with like 99.9% confidence to disprove the infinite universe, while disproving inflationary theory as a side benefit.
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0508047/
These are excellent pictures of observational evidence against the copernican cosmological principle and for something more "biocentric" in nature... given a thermodynamic need for intelligent life and the weak anthropic principle... then we can expect life to be as prevalent accross the universe as the need for it dictates.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rmforall/18135101/in/set-435988/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rmforall/18135102/in/set-435988/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rmforall/sets/435988/
Posted by: island at October 18, 2005 03:08 PM (k+0ul)
44
Quantum vacuum? Now you're talking!
Isn't it interesting how many differentideas can be considered when one has an open mind to the possibilities?
Posted by: Ogre at October 18, 2005 03:10 PM (/k+l4)
45
Ken, I hope for your sake that your post was an attempt at parodying Bible inerrantists.
"The burden of proof will always rest with the evolutionist because as a Christian, I hold to the idea that "we walk by faith, not by sight" as the Bible puts it."
So you believe that although facts and observations have led modern scientists to irrefutable conclusions about the development of life as we know it, they can't be correct because an ancient book of faery tales doesn't mesh with these data?
"When I examine evolution as a theory I find too many holes in it's logic."
Name one. Just one will suffice.
"Therefore I have concluded that it takes more faith to believe this nonsense."
No, you concluded a long time ago that creationism was valid because it was drilled into your head, and since then you, like other victims of the religious byrus, have been struggling like hell to keep facts at bay so as to avoid cognitive dissonanance. You need to read "Idiot America" in the latest issue of Esquire Magazine -- you don't know it, but you're one of the unnamed stars of the story.
Posted by: Beaming Visionary at October 18, 2005 03:12 PM (JDT/E)
46
"It's amazing the possibilities when one considers just tiny variations in theories that simply cannot be proven, isn't it?"
Yeah... especially since they love to claim that it can't be done...
And yes, again, but you end up with the same model if you don't project beyond the observed universe, so empiricism and occam rule origins science in this matter.
It's win/win for me too, so I'm not complaining... the point is that my logic should be dead on the money if I'm right... and I may be biased, but I'd say that I make a LOT of sense...
Posted by: island at October 18, 2005 03:13 PM (k+0ul)
47
BV, it's just as valid for me to say: "BV, you concluded a long time ago that evolution was valid because it was drilled into your head, and since then you, like other victims of the scientific byrus, have been struggling like hell to keep facts at bay so as to avoid cognitive dissonanance. You need to read 'Idiot America' in the latest issue of Esquire Magazine -- you don't know it, but you're one of the unnamed stars of the story."
I think I understand why supporters of evolution are so quick to make personal attacks on individuals who support ANY other view than evolution, but I'm not going to project other meanings on other people. I do notice, that BV, in your defense of evolution, you waited three whole sentences before you started calling people names.
Posted by: Ogre at October 18, 2005 03:16 PM (/k+l4)
48
"it's just as valid for me to say: 'BV, you concluded a long time ago that evolution was valid because it was drilled into your head, and since then you, like other victims of the scientific byrus, have been struggling like hell to keep facts at bay so as to avoid cognitive dissonanance.'"
Sorry, but you don't get to just regurgitate others' sentences after substituting a few words.
Your assertion is plainly wrong for several reasons. One, your statement would only be "valid" if you could demonstrate that the body of evidence for Biblical creation is as extensive and established as the body of knowledge for evolution. Even you're probably not so far gone that you'd make this claim -- after all, if there were evidence for creation, there'd be no need for the term "faith."
Two, the process by which religion most often takes root in people is one of simple indoctrination early in life. No one I know has ever grown up without exposure to Christianity, had a gander around the world, made a series of critical judgments, and decided that a god who just happened to resemble the fictitious protagonist in the Bible is responsible for what we see in the natural world. Science is different; in a better world the basics of biology, chemistry and geology would, in fact, be introduced to more children at a young age, but instead it's something people need to seek out for themselves - what's presented in schools barely scratches the surface.
Three, science has no inherent investment in denying gods. Christianity is a crock of something warm and brown, but if it weren't, I could happily accept this and still maintain my beliefs in matters scientific (as do many believers). However, creationists by definition do not have this freedom. To admit biologists are correct would be a step toward burning in Hell. So again, the playing field is not level.
You don't have to like my words or my attitude, but a person of your intelligence cannot with a straight face deny the truth any of the above statements I have made. Remember, this topic isn't about whether people should get to harbor religious beliefs, it's about whether these should be forced onto schoolkids. It's plain that the Dover creationists are in the wrong, and this is one instance in which the efforts of the ACLU are well-directed (many of their machinations are not).
Posted by: Beaming Visionary at October 18, 2005 04:45 PM (/f2f8)
49
BV, you're filled with an outright and obvious hatred of all things religious -- you admit so yourself. Why could anyone expect you to look at anything objectively when you have already determined that you know the answer and facts don't matter?
There's plenty of evidence for creation, but that's not the point. My viewpoint is that the evidence for evolution is flawed. I'm not claiming to have the answers, I'm just pointing out that evolution isn't it. But you won't allow me to do that in your world because YOU are the one that defends your viewpoints with a religious fervor.
Your point two is a nice straw man argument.
Point three is just outright wrong. Those who proposed and initially defended Darwin's theory did so to deny God. That was their stated purpose-- they started with "There is no God," and went forward from there. If there is a God, all of evolution is wrong so supporters of evolution have a very strong interest in making sure they deny God.
And to reiterate again, because you don't seem to see it -- this is about exposing people to different points of view. The ACLU does not want people exposed to anything remotely related to Intelligent Design, the Anthropic Principle, Christianity, or anything that conflicts with their narrow goals.
This IS the ACLU supporting censorship, plain and simple.
Posted by: Ogre at October 18, 2005 05:26 PM (iJFc9)
50
There are numerous scientific papers that use anthropic reasoning to make real testable predictions, and I can do this myself, but the principle gains significantly more strength if the following is true, because it rules out multiverses and any other possible universal configuration.
Judge for yourself:
The Big Bang produced numerous principles and laws that have yet to be broken in spite of a lot of projections and theoretical speculation about the eventual and final fate of the usable energy of our expanding universe.
The inevitable heat death of the universe is one of the more obvious projections of an expanding "entropic" universe, but this conclusion doesn't completely justify the fact that the extremely small positive value of the cosmological constant means the big bang actually resulted in a near perfect balance between runaway expansion and gravitational recollapse, which actually puts the universe about as far away from the tendency toward heat death as you can possibly get, and yet still be heading in that direction.
The principle of least action says that it is no coincidence that this near-perfectly symmetrical configuration is also the most energy-efficient means for dissipating energy, because this means that tendency toward "heat-death" is most economically restricted to the most-even distribution of energy possible.
The universe actually expresses a grand scale natural preference toward the most economical form of energy dissipation, so if the second law of thermodynamics is telling us that the entropy of our expanding universe increases with every action, then the anthropic principle is telling us that this will occur by the most energy efficient means possible, since the flatness of the universe is one of the many coincidentally ecobalanced requirements of the principle.
If the second law of thermodynamics points the arrow of time, then the anthropic principle determines that time is maximized.
What need for humans?
From the above falls an empirically supported hypothesis that an "entropic" Anthropic Cosmolgical Principle is 'most-natural' in an expanding universe for self-explanatory reasons, but is there enough justifying evidence that the predominant expansive inclination of our universe also represents the reason that the forces are "tuned" in a manner that produces "sites" where intelligent life can arise and evolve?
Well, let's see...
A ) Is there evidence that human actions serve to satisfy the second law of thermodynamics? Yes of course there is, since all action accomplishes this, but...
B ) Is there evidence that humans can somehow make a more significant contribution to the entropy of the universe than say, a rock resting on the ground... or maybe even a "Dung Beetle"... or what about a, uh, a monkey...? Of course there is evidence for this too, but that's still not enough "specialness" to justify the kind of entropic favoritism that'll get a cosmolgical scale thermodynamic principle named in our honor, so...
C ) Is there evidence that humans are capable of some higher-level contribution to the process that is relatively uncommon, or "unique" and significant enough in our universe to justify an Entropic Anthropic Cosmological Principle?
Once, again, the answer is yes, if "good practical reason for it" makes it a biocentric principle, becauses humans are by far the most energy-efficient mechanism of only three known sources for isolating the release of enough energy to make real particles from the negative energy of the quantum vacuum, which directly affects the balance of the universe, so it is less probably a coincidence that the "flatness" of the universe is also the most apparently significant of all of the "anthropic coincidences".
The evidence most certainly does support a valid hypothesis for design in nature... in terms of thermodynamic structuring that enables and requires human creation as a means to satisfy a very practical physical need. Empiricism elevates the hypothesis to the status of "theory", since it projects a reproducibly accurate representation of nature that makes verifiable predictions. The entropic interpretation clarifies and completes the anthropic princple with good physical reason for an anthropic constraint on the forces, and this makes the principle more universally applicable. So, the thermodynamic connection justifies our seemingly insignificant human contribution, since the cumulative affect makes the need biocentric requiring that intelligent life be as common in our universe as the cosmological scale need for it demands.
Posted by: island at October 18, 2005 05:46 PM (k+0ul)
51
"There's plenty of evidence for creation, but that's not the point."
No there isn't, and as pertains to the Dover case it's *precisely* the point. For something to be taught as science, it needs to be grounded in observations and evidence. What is the evidence for creation? Considering how many religious fanatics there are in America, they must have made this scientific evidence readily available. A simple link or other valid reference will suffice.
"My viewpoint is that the evidence for evolution is flawed."
That this is your "viewpoint" means nothing. Science relies not on opinions and preferences but on...well, I think I've been over this already.
"I'm not claiming to have the answers, I'm just pointing out that evolution isn't it."
So to you ID creationism is a great gap-plugger, eh? You're not satisfied with evolution, therefore creation (for which you say there is ample evidence) is correct and evolution is all wrong. You don't know what the right answers are, yet you have some standard by which to judge evolution wrong. Tat standard wouldn't be the Bible, would it? Good show.
"But you won't allow me to do that in your world because YOU are the one that defends your viewpoints with a religious fervor."
I don't care how you characterize my "defense" or whether you think I detest all things religious. Let's assume that I'm the wild-eyed founding member of an atheist church who runs around setting fire to Bibles and stealing crosses from little Christian children. This would have a bearing on my willingness to enter into dialogue with intractable parties, but no bearing on the validity of my statements. My perceived persona is just a convenient excuse for you to avoid my questions.
If you were equipped with means of refuting what I am writing, you would have eagerly done so. Instead, you just complain that I wouldn't listen anyway, so why bother. Sorry, but this is more transparent than you realize.
"Your point two is a nice straw man argument."
No it isn't. I know of virtually no one raised in an agnostic environment that decided upon reaching adulthood that the god of Christianity is a useful concept (senile old folks and the clinically insane excepted). From what source and at what age did you get your religious beliefs, Ogre? Be truthful, please.
"Point three is just outright wrong. Those who proposed and initially defended Darwin's theory did so to deny God. That was their stated purpose-- they started with "There is no God," and went forward from there."
It's fitting that you saved this spectacular outburst of ignorance for last, because it is laughably, incontrovertibly incorrect. Charles Darwin was himself a declared Christian and was troubled by the possible implications of his findings, but felt obligated as a scientist to pursue the truth. Would that more religious folks were like him.
"If there is a God, all of evolution is wrong so supporters of evolution have a very strong interest in making sure they deny God."
Theistic evolutionists would take issue with this, and don't pretend they don't exist in great numbers (they're wrong, but that clearly isn't the point).
"And to reiterate again, because you don't seem to see it -- this is about exposing people to different points of view. The ACLU does not want people exposed to anything remotely related to Intelligent Design, the Anthropic Principle, Christianity, or anything that conflicts with their narrow goals."
To reiterate again, science does not and should not admit of bogus ad hoc fables cloaked in scientific rhetoric. The day the ID gang publishes something, or hell, simply comes up with a single testable hypothesis, ID will be on its way to acceptance. If you can't or won't see that ID is creationism and that creationism doesn't belong in biology classrooms, then you're part of the problem.
Posted by: Beaming Visionary at October 18, 2005 08:34 PM (/f2f8)
52
I'm sorry that you refuse to even admit the facts of this case are true. I can no longer tell if you refuse to admit facts because you don't like them or because you just want another made-up excuse to attempt to personally attack any who disagree with your gospel.
I really don't see any point in continuing this discussion when you adamantly insist that 1 plus 1 equals 374.9.
Posted by: Ogre at October 18, 2005 08:38 PM (iJFc9)
53
Well, Ogre, I don't blame you for ignoring my direct questions and focusing instead on my supposed refusal to admit facts. At the least you could admit you were dead wrong about Darwin and atheism, but you're too small for that.
Oh well. This isn't the kind of place where I would expect anyone to listen anyway, but the psychological sideshow, though troubling on a grader scale, is actually kind of funny.
Posted by: Beaming Visionary at October 18, 2005 09:21 PM (/f2f8)
54
"troubling on a grader scale"
*ahem*..."grander."
Posted by: Beaming Visionary at October 18, 2005 09:23 PM (/f2f8)
55
The point of the entire post was to talk about the ACLU supporting censorship, but you refuse to admit that's what's going on and instead want to attack me personally based on your perceptions on my beliefs rather than actual facts.
Posted by: Ogre at October 18, 2005 09:57 PM (iJFc9)
56
"If you can't or won't see that ID is creationism... "
Wrong, ID cannot be creationism, regardless of whatever motives or plausibility underlies the claim, which essentially proves Ogre's point, since you insist on claiming something that cannot be true without a leap of faith. ID is a hypothetical scientific idea, albeit unrealistically implausible and equally unproven. Neo-darwinists don't want to give an inch because the know what's behind it, so that makes liars out of them.
Ergo, science needs ID to counterbalance the ensuing fanatical fallout that tramples all innocent scientific bystanders.
In your face, neodarwinists... *whoa... deja-vous*
Posted by: island at October 19, 2005 05:52 AM (A8qaU)
57
"Keep in mind, these are ELECTED officials, so a MAJORITY of PEOPLE in this area WANT this to be done (not that the ACLU gives a damn about anyone but communists and themselves)."
And if all of these ELECTED officials were overt pedophiles...???
Posted by: Bill from Dover at October 19, 2005 09:29 PM (6DMH9)
58
And if all of these ELECTED officials were overt pedophiles...???
Dude... get a grip... all elected officials are sick in the head, but does that stop you from voting?
Politically if not rationally, you can't fool mother nature, the system works in spite of either side, diametrically opposing tendencies/ideologies are what makes up all ecobalances. Don't assume that anybody can screw anything up... cuz they can't.
Posted by: island at October 20, 2005 05:44 AM (JwIvr)
59
Unless they're government -- government can screw anything up.
Posted by: Ogre at October 20, 2005 05:45 AM (iJFc9)
60
"ID cannot be creationism," island? Why is it so difficult for you people to actually read about issues you address?
Here are drafts of the ID version of the Bible, Of Pandas and People, introduced in the court case so far.
---
Creation Biology (1983)
Biology and Creation (1986)
Biology and Origins (1987)
Of Pandas and People (1987, version 1, creationist version)
Of Pandas and People (1987, version 2, “intelligent design” version)
Of Pandas and People (1989, published 1st edition)
Of Pandas and People (1993, published 2nd edition)
---
Here is how one passage has, well, "evolved" over the years:
---
Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact—fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Biology and Creation 1986, FTE 3014-3015, pp. 2-13, 2-14)
Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent Creator with their distinctive features already intact—fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Biology and Origins 1987, FTE 3235, 3237, p. 2-13, 2-14)
Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent Creator with their distinctive features already intact—fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Pandas 1987, creationist version, FTE 4996-4997, pp. 2-14, 2-15)
Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact—fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Pandas 1987, intelligent design version, FTE 4666-4667, pp. 2-14, 2-15)
Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Pandas 1989, 1st edition, published, pp. 99-100)
Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Pandas 1993, 2nd edition, published, pp. 99-100)
---
Anyone arguing that ID is not synonymous with special creation in the eyes of the very people behind the ID movement would obviously have to be either ignorant of the facts or a garden-variety idiot.
Posted by: Beaming Visionary at October 20, 2005 10:01 AM (/f2f8)
61
But you know, this post is about the ACLU supporting censorship.
Posted by: Ogre at October 20, 2005 10:02 AM (/k+l4)
62
Um... Dear, "Lack of sight"
Why is it that you can't read and respond to what I wrote for the reasons that I said?
ID CANNOT be creationism for the reasons that I gave... REGARDLESS OF MOTIVATION OR PLAUSIBILITY.
It can be disallowed for this reason, however, since educational materials can't be religously motived.
BV... can you read... and do you know ANY of the rules of science?
Posted by: island at October 20, 2005 10:56 AM (xuqGB)
63
"But you know, this post is about the ACLU supporting censorship."
It's funny that you only started harping on this after your own non-censorship-related ideas (e.g., "Darwinism" is synonymous with militant atheism; your claim that the evidence for evolution is flawed; your incorrect notions about ID itself) were shown to be badly in error. Only then did you retreat into "Well, this is all about quashing free speech" mode.
Also, try assembling the pieces here. There aren't many and they fit together easily. If ID can shown to be nothing more than creationism (which is exactly what's happening in Dover), then it is, without question, *unconstitutional* to teach it in science class, and has been since 1987.
Are you saying you would just as soon flaunt the Constitution because your religious beliefs should take precedence over law? With so many carrying this attitude, is it really a surprise that we need armies of lawyers to keep such idiocy at bay?
I hate to break this to you, but science curricula are not forums in which everyone gets a chance to be right, or be heard, simply by screaming loudly enough. If the IDers had a legitimate theory instead of a religious agenda, ID would have its say in America's classrooms. As it is, the reading of the Dover disclaimer is nothing more than a religious gripe about the facts of evolution, and on that basis doesn't belong in the public sphere. If religious twits want to tell their kids at home that evolution is wrong, so be it -- there's no law against willfull stupidity, and the ACLU will even fight for your right to express it.
The plaintiffs in Kitzmiller are right. The Godidiots, as usual, are wrong. Please learn to accept this.
Posted by: Beaming Visionary at October 20, 2005 11:03 AM (/f2f8)
64
Well, island, if you're saying that ID cannot intrinsically be equivalent to creation, that's one thing. If you're claiming that for purposes of the Dover lawsuit (which is, as Ogre keeps reminding us, the topic of this thread) they are not one and the same, you're wrong -- but I think you understand the difference.
Please do not fault my reading comprehension or my understanding of science. You have to bear in mind that your writing style can most generously be described as cryptic. "Sloppy" is more accurate.
Posted by: Beaming Visionary at October 20, 2005 11:49 AM (/f2f8)
65
That's a classic quote, I'm going to have to keep it.
According to BV: "Unconstitutional since 1987." Just classic.
Posted by: Ogre at October 20, 2005 11:59 AM (/k+l4)
66
"According to BV: 'Unconstitutional since 1987.' Just classic."
The 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision. You've not heard of it? "Just classic" indeed.
-----
On June 19, 1987 the Supreme Court, in a majority opinion written by Justice William J. Brennan, ruled that [teaching creationism in public schools] constituted an unconstitutional infringement on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, based on the three-pronged Lemon test, which is:
- The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
- The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
- The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.
---
You can admit you're clueless any time now.
Posted by: Beaming Visionary at October 20, 2005 02:13 PM (/f2f8)
67
You're right -- in the fantasy land in which you live, I'm clueless. Sorry, I like the real world. Tolkien's lands are fun, and so are a few other authors I read, but I tend to end up back in the real world once I stop reading those stories.
Posted by: Ogre at October 20, 2005 02:21 PM (/k+l4)
68
BV wrote:
"Well, island, if you're saying that ID cannot intrinsically be equivalent to creation, that's one thing. If you're claiming that for purposes of the Dover lawsuit (which is, as Ogre keeps reminding us, the topic of this thread) they are not one and the same, you're wrong -- but I think you understand the difference."
Nope, supernatural creationism becomes distantly plausible science when the terminolgy gets changed, and it doesn't matter who is making the changes. It's the distance of the plausibility that kills it, and not the fact that ID is not *plausible* science.
If a creationist says that god causes gravity, then they're making an unfounded leap of faith that spells religion.
If said creationist then alters their statement to read that curved space causes gravity, then they are doing science, even if they, ("not-so secretly"), believe that god is actually the one that's pulling the strings to bend space.
As I said, this does not matter from a legal standpoint if they can prove that the hypothesis was religously motivated, why I don't know, because it's not okay to walk all over science in order to protect yourselves from the creationist movement. The law seems to stipulate that the end justifies the means, but that's wrong, especially when science suffers from this kind of mentalility, as is the case in this case, since evidence is interpreted with preconceived bias.
BV wrote:
"Please do not fault my reading comprehension or my understanding of science."
Excuse me?... you were the clown that decided to accuse me of not knowing what I was talking about... as if you understood... RATHER than to ask for clarification... uh huh... your actions indicate that you knew what I meant and now you're trying to rationalize.
BV wrote:
"You have to bear in mind that your writing style can most generously be described as cryptic. "Sloppy" is more accurate."
Really?... I often hear just the opposite, and I only hear that from people that are so warped to one extreme that they can't/won't see the forest for the trees, so they don't even understand how distorted their lense is.
Posted by: island at October 20, 2005 04:45 PM (HMqV5)
69
und diese Zugehörigkeit zu ausländischen Souveränen (wenn auch aus der Dynastie der Kapetinger)
Posted by: www.gang bang at November 14, 2005 09:32 AM (AqDGi)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 137 >>
Processing 0.11, elapsed 0.1424 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.1151 seconds, 187 records returned.
Page size 159 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
