Top Leaderboard, Site wide
October 31, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


What Would Republicans Do?




The Thirteenth Turn


Truthdig Bazaar

The Fall: A Novel

By Ryan Quinn
$14.99

more items

 
Report

Nation of Weiners

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jun 17, 2011
AP / Seth Wenig

Anthony Weiner speaks to the media while announcing his resignation from Congress on Thursday in New York.

By Peter Z. Scheer

I pretty much lost it while watching David Gergen, a veteran of the Nixon White House, trying to make sense of sexting. The CNN analyst surely witnessed his share of villainy in that administration and the three others he served in, and he probably has no problem comprehending something like the illegal bombing of Cambodia or welfare reform. But who sends pictures of his penis to strangers?

A lot of people, as it turns out. There is a culture gap in this country, between people who are happy to enjoy what’s left of their privacy and people who just don’t think about it. It’s not that No. 1 NBA draft pick Greg Oden wanted to expose his penis to fans—it just never occurred to him that anybody but his lady friend would get a peek. There are a number of professional athletes—and at least one politician—for whom the previous sentence would work.

There is a generation of Americans that has grown up in a surveillance state, people who have adapted to constant monitoring by going even further and exposing themselves and the minutiae of their personal lives. Of course there’s a difference between broadcasting your reaction to the last episode of “Game of Thrones” and sending someone a testicle close-up, but both seem to inspire the same kind of incredulity in those who can’t imagine the impulse to do either.

This of course doesn’t explain Anthony Weiner, who has his own issues, and it is not meant to excuse his being a shitty husband or a lame older guy on the prowl for young women. It does, however, shed light on the rhetorical acrobatics of one news pundit after another struggling to decipher the moral implications of a “crime”—sexting and its social media equivalent—that for younger viewers has potential to embarrass but is considered common. As one college student recently explained to me, as if I were a cave man unfrozen from a time when word got around on smoke signals, it means “sexy texting.”

The mainstream news media, appealing to their imagined constituency, have given voice to an American puritanism that isn’t always sure of the difference between horniness and criminal depravity. I was at a bar in New York City not far from then-Rep. Weiner’s congressional district when someone compared him to Eliot Spitzer, the former New York governor and state attorney general who got caught paying for sex and as a result was condemned to host a babble show on CNN. “But what Spitzer did was illegal,” I offered, not that it matters.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
On “Left, Right & Center,” a news panel program on KCRW FM, Thomson Reuters Digital editor Chrystia Freeland was asked to speak on behalf of women but couldn’t muster the indignation of her male colleagues on the show: “Is this worse than going to watch a stripper?” she asked. “Is this worse than calling someone up on those phone sex lines? I don’t see that the conduct was actually that dreadful.”

What if Weiner had gone to a strip club? Would he have been forced to resign, as he did Thursday? I don’t think so. Weiner did not garner national ignominy by looking at an exposed stripper; he exposed himself, and was thus deemed a pervert. Can the same be said of the Cleveland Indians’ Grady Sizemore, who has been allowed to continue to play baseball after exposing himself?

Judging by his recent column on Weiner, E.J. Dionne would have something to say about sports references of this kind: “Perhaps it is old-fashioned, but I have been suspicious of politicians tweeting from the moment it became vogue. Do we really need to encourage them to limit their thoughts to 140 characters or make them think we want the same details about their lives that we expect from pop stars and marquee athletes?”

This is a recurring theme among the commentariat, the implication that Weiner was foolish for messing around with this strange Twitter thing in the first place. That’s nonsense. Why should I have less access to the thoughts of my representatives in Congress than I do to those of Snoop Dogg? Would Dionne rather every word pass through a speechwriter? Weiner got in trouble precisely because, unlike many of his colleagues, he insisted on doing the tweeting himself (after all, it would be unseemly to ask an aide to take and then send out pictures of your crotch). It’s a shame some others in public office will now be put off from using Twitter, or will post only carefully parsed talking points.


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Inherit The Wind, June 28, 2011 at 8:55 am Link to this comment

ROFLMAO!

No wonder you buy into this! Your inference is absurd and twisted.

I’m not giving up trying to deny the evidence.  Never.

I AM giving up waiting for you to deliver scientifically valid and verifiable evidence.

Sure, people walk away when they realize that since you can’t dazzle them with brilliance and proof, you instead try to baffle them with bullshit.

Ta-Ta!

Report this

By DaveZx3, June 28, 2011 at 5:44 am Link to this comment

Does that last post of yours mean you have given up trying to deny the evidence? 

It sounds like the typical response that I get when people realize they have no response in the face of overwhelming observational evidence, documented by literally hundreds of legitimate studies.

I have been boring long before this, and will continue to be, but evidencne is evidence is evidence.  That is what science is really all about, not politics, or religion, or wishful thinking.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 28, 2011 at 3:52 am Link to this comment

You’ve gotten boring because you WANT so hard to believe in the Biblical version of creation that you cannot help but corrupt the Scientific Method in your determination to get there.

I suggest you visit that idiotic “Flintstone” museum where the Biblists have dinosaurs co-exiting with humans—despite a 62 million year gap in the fossil record between them.  Just your speed.

Enjoy your ignorance.  ‘Bye!

Report this

By DaveZx3, June 27, 2011 at 5:51 pm Link to this comment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intrinsic_redshift

Go to this Wiki link and scroll down to the little chart which shows peer-reviewed articles with the various terms referring to anomalous redshift.  You can select up to 200 various papers showing conclusions on this subject. 

There is a lot of data here, pro and con, and it is very pertinent.  It shows that these redshift conclusions are significantly held by a lot of different legitimate scientists, as these are listed within the adsabs.harvard.edu family and are published in various scientific journals.

I was trying to find something easier for you to get through, but a lack of time makes me submit it this way, requiring significant digging on your part.

I just got tired of hearing that I was not providing peer reviewed journal published articles.  So here you go.  This will get you started.  And when you finish, let me know, I have a few hundred more to submit.

Also, remember, redshift is not the only thing which is destroying Big Bang.  We can get to those hundreds of articles later. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intrinsic_redshift

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 27, 2011 at 8:50 am Link to this comment

I’ve already proven TWICE that hundreds of people will claim to be scientists to help support a political agenda, first the global warning doubters’ list then your first list.

You just cannot get around the fact that the scientific journals aren’t publishing this stuff because it doesn’t stand up to peer review.

And I go back to the scientist who put it so beautifully: If an attack on the fundamentals of the Big Bang, or Evolution, or even Red Shift could be shown to be valid, they’d be climbing over each others bleeding bodies to be first to publish.

That’s what scientists do.  They haven’t done it for these things BECAUSE THEY DON’T STAND UP TO SCRUTINY!  If they stood up to scrutiny, someone would be in Stockholm!

Now. I’m done. You cannot produce articles in the recognized journals. You can produce the peer review of those articles.  All you can produce are lists of supposed scientists and I’ve shown that they are suspect as to their validity.

So, you go on trying to get around the 900 lb gorilla in the room: that you can’t show legitimate publication and peer review.  Period.

Report this

By DaveZx3, June 27, 2011 at 5:12 am Link to this comment

I have no problem with anything you said, but when pure, unadulterated observation shows absolutely, a high redshift object closely in relation to a low redshift object, one can not continue to keep alive the theory that redshift is due to distance and speed, simply by suppressing that continously and easily repeating observation. 

It is pure science, observed, repeatable, and easily discerned by anyone who cares to observe.  Why does it result in the observers being ostracized and blackballed? 

What do you think the 2004 letter signed by hundreds of competent scientists was all about.  Picking at the specific credentials of each of those scientists who signed it is ridiculous.  It is like saying that if you don’t have a PhD and are not associated with Harvard, your vote doesn’t count.  That is absurd.  The evidence is right out in the open, and hardly denied by anyone who is honest. 

If you are inferring that hundreds of scientists will lie for whatever purpose, then that is a problem unto itself.  But I do not believe you can get upwards of 500 signatures of highly educated people and infer that they all are stupid or liars. 

There is some great disconnect going on here which is itself a systemic problem of sorts, and needs to be addressed sorely.  It was like the Clarence Thomas hearings.  Anita Hill said things under oath that Thomas denied under oath, making one of them a liar under oath.  That is a systemic problem, in that she went on to a distinghished career in academics, and he is sitting on the Supreme Court.  Liars abound, apparently, and it is not considered necessary to route them out, no matter who they are.

So, it is the evidence only that speaks, not the lying that goes on about it.  Plain and simple.  I and many like me are competent to comprehend and evaluate the pure evidence, and that cannot be reduced by any level of lying, no matter from what side.  So it comes down to the Hill/Thommas phenomenon, one side is lying, and it is problematic either way.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 27, 2011 at 3:22 am Link to this comment

Now you are getting ridiculous.
For the last 150 years Science has “accepted” new ideas: By reviewing them and showing that the results are repeatable.  Radical ideas that completely changed the views of the universe have been put forth and accepted as…REPEATABLE.
Darwin’s Evolution
Pasteur’s Microbes
Curies’ Radiation
Maxwell’s Electro-Magnetic Principles.
Boyle’s Laws
Non-Uniqueness of the Sun, as a main-line Yellow Dwarf
Hubble’s Expanding Universe
Einstein’s Photo-Electric Effect
Relativity
Quantum Theory
Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Theory
The “Big Bang”
DNA as the foundation of Life.
DNA Indentification.
Extra-solar planets

And when they are not, rejecting them.  The above list is just a sample FEW of the radical, ground-breaking theories that shattered existing concepts and, in turn, were accepted.

Because THEY all did what you can’t show: When held up to peer review their results were REPEATABLE.

There is a scientific method.  The challenge to Evolution of Creationism and Intelligent Design and the challenge to Global Warming specifically AVOIDS the scientific method and uses propagandistic techniques to try to browbeat their acceptance. 

A similar movement has been going on since the 1970’s.  It’s the Holocaust Denial movement.  On the surface it looks like standard historical and political science until one digs deep—and finds that the core of all the “research” is a book or two put out by the original deniers, full of speculative and unsupported assertions, and with a bibliography FILLED with irrelevant citations to the NYTimes and other media.

Another one is Scientology “The Modern Science of Mental Health”.....right.  They believe in a variation of laying-on of hands called a “touch assist” and that humans were placed on Earth by aliens.  And heaven help the man or woman who challenges them!

Intellectual dishonesty all the way to the bone.  And browbeating and accusations hurled at any critic who dares say it.

Report this

By DaveZx3, June 27, 2011 at 2:25 am Link to this comment

So, it seems your basic argumnent is that new ideas, new evidence, new theories must be approved by the entrenched establishment types before they can be considered.

Evidence is the key.  What do the observations show?
It is not the status of who shows it, but the evidence needs to stand on its own feet.  Taken without regard for who brings it to the table.

I agree that there are a lot of absurd ideas out there, but the evidence for them kills them fast.  It is those ideas which do not die fast but get new adherents every day and grow over the decades which cannot be ignored.

Ignorant people will believe anything, true, but hundreds of highly educated scientists cannot be convinced to believe anything.  They only want representation of their theories which have accumulated massive empirical evidence over the decades.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 26, 2011 at 7:21 pm Link to this comment

Oh yeah. It’s a “religion”. I can send you papers “proving” the CIA murdered JFK, and proving that Mossad did it, and probably that the “Odessa File” group did it too.

Then there are all the papers “proving” those same groups blew up the WTC.

And there’s lots of folks here that buy into it, and find all kinds of internet sources.

I’ve already shown one of your “links” and “proof” to be trash, and the “list of xHundred ‘scientists’ to be more trash.

Why should I waste MY time when it’s clear you cannot do the ONE THING you need to do: Provide articles published in the recognized professional journals, peer-reviewed by the top people in the field. 

You can’t do it.  You’re done, finished, over, toast.

you just don’t know it and think by continuing to post thousands of words people here will somehow believe you.

So the “6000” year people are a “fringe”...That they are not completely shunned shows your infidelity to true science.

Just how hard do you think it is to prove that the universe MUST be older than that?  Backyard telescope and high school trig and physics are all you need.

Good luck with your fantasies.  Maybe you can get the schools to teach that the earth is flat and the Sun goes around it….

Report this

By DaveZx3, June 26, 2011 at 5:25 pm Link to this comment

Well, I have the feeling that you do not even read these papers, because they include solid science which is destroying the foundations of Big Bang theory.  This science is in most cases direct observation and impossible to refute, except of course by the establishment BB fanatics. 

But that is how it has always been.  The fat cat establishment types protect their territory with a vengeance, and the up-and-comers nibble away until they finally topple them.  And that is what is happening.

Your problem is you actually believe it is a religous thing, not understanding that religion has no problem with Big Bang because it is a creation event with God’s finger on the trigger.  It fits very well with a universe which has to have a beginning (creation) point. 

Only a fringe element buys into the 6000 year old Earth, and even they have reasons to love the Big Bang.  They have Setterfield’s work that the speed of light has slowed down exponentially since the Big Bang, and that lets them believe the Bang and the 6000 years.  Everybody’s happy in that camp. 

But like a lot of religion, it is without solid evidence to back it up, in most cases only mathematics and invented entities, like dark matter.  The Big Bang cannot stand up to the beating it is taking for much longer.  What will replace it is hard to say, but I think the plasma guys have the edge.

I could keep sending papers, probably for weeks, but I know it is a waste of time.  You have enough to get you started if your intention was to actually absorb the information.  If your intention is to refute it at all costs, for whatever reason you have to do that, that is ok too.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 26, 2011 at 3:40 pm Link to this comment

Someone’s getting desperate…...

Report this

By DaveZx3, June 26, 2011 at 12:58 pm Link to this comment

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0406437

- Plasma Redshift, Time Dilation, and Supernovas Ia
- Authors: Ari Brynjolfsson
-
-
- The measurements of the absolute magnitudes and redshifts of supernovas Ia show that conventional physics, which includes plasma redshift, fully explains the observed magnitude-redshift relation of the supernovas. The only parameter that is required is the Hubble constant, which in principle can be measured independently. The contemporary theory of the expansion of the universe (Big Bang) requires in addition to the Hubble constant several adjustable parameters, such as an initial explosion, the dark matter parameter, and a time adjustable dark energy parameter for explaining the supernova Ia data. The contemporary Big Bang theory also requires time dilation of distant events as an inherent premise. The contention is usually that the light curves of distant supernovas show or even prove the time dilation. In the present article, we challenge this assertion. We document and show that the previously reported data in fact indicate that there is no time dilation. The data reported by Riess et al. in the Astrophysical Journal in June 2004 confirm the plasma redshift, the absence of time dilation, dark matter, and dark energy.

Report this

By DaveZx3, June 26, 2011 at 12:41 pm Link to this comment

Quantized Redshifts of Galaxies: Stimulated Raman Scattering in Cold Intergalactic Rydberg Matter

- Author: Holmlid L.1
-
- Source: Astrophysics and Space Science, 2004, vol. 291, no. 2, pp. 98-110(13)
-
- Publisher: Kluwer Academic Publishers
-
- Abstract:
-
- That the redshifts for galaxies in the local supercluster are quantized was recently confirmed by Guthrie and Napier(A&A310; (1996) 353). These redshifts are here proposed to be due to stimulated Stokes Raman processes in intergalactic matter in the form of Rydberg Matter (RM). Rydberg Matter is an electronically excited material, as demonstrated by its use as laser medium in a thermally excited ultra-broadband tunable IR laser (Chem. Phys. Lett. 376 (2003) 812). Its existence in interstellar and intergalactic space is demonstrated by several observational results, notably the unidentified IR bands, that agree well with the emission from Rydberg Matter. A stimulated Raman process will allow the H I 21 cm radiation to proceed without deflection, in agreement with observation. Such redshifts will be additive during the passage through space. The process in Rydberg Matter here proposed to give rise to the Stokes Raman process is excitation of electronic translational modes in the planar clusters forming the matter. The specific cluster sizes found in laboratory experiments give rise to a few differently sized redshift quanta, which is in good agreement with the observed quanta. An excitation level (principal quantum number) of Rydberg Matter in intergalactic space between 175 and 200 gives the correct size of the redshift quanta.

Can’t seem to get a good link for this one, but it was a very good paper.

Report this

By DaveZx3, June 26, 2011 at 12:27 pm Link to this comment

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403353


- Is the low-l microwave background cosmic?
-
- Authors: Dominik J. Schwarz (CERN), Glenn D. Starkman (CERN, Case Western Reserve University), Dragan Huterer (CWRU), Craig J. Copi (CWRU)
-
- Journal-ref: Phys.Rev.Lett. 93 (2004) 221301
-
- The large-angle (low-l) correlations of the Cosmic Microwave Background exhibit several statistically significant anomalies compared to the standard inflationary big-bang model, however no connection has hitherto been drawn between them. Here we show that the quadrupole and octopole are far more correlated (99.97% C.L.) than previously thought

Report this

By DaveZx3, June 26, 2011 at 12:15 pm Link to this comment

BANG THEORY UNDER FIRE 1   by William C. Mitchel    
As Published in Physics Essays Volume 10, Number 2, June 1997)

Abstract
The very old big bang problems (of the singularity, smoothness, horizon, and flatness) and the failed solutions of inflation theory; newer BB problems relating to missing mass (as required for a flat inflationary universe), the age of the universe, radiation from the “decoupling” (“smearing” of black body spectrum), a contrived BB chronology, the abundances of light elements, and red shift anomalies; and problems, newer yet, regarding inconsistencies of red shift interpretation, curved space, inflation theory, the decelerating expansion of a BB universe, and some additional logical inconsistencies of BB theory are presented.

http://nowscape.com/big-ban2.html

Fortunately there long has been an unindoctrinated minority of scientists, both amateur and professional, who continue to discover and present observational evidence and logic that provides reason to doubt the accepted paradigm. Some of better known and most effective of the scientists in this struggle are Halton Arp of the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Germany, Anthony Peratt of the Los Alamos National Laboratories, and Jayant Narlikar of the Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics in India. Other well known astronomers/cosmologists who have long fought for the proper consideration of alternate cosmologies include Geoffrey and Margaret Burbidge, Fred Hoyle, Herman Bondi, Thomas Gold and Eric Lerner.

Due to the efforts of those and other fighters for evenhanded cosmological investigation and, despite the powerful influence of mainstream BB cosmologists, evidence against the BB has been building to the point where the world may soon start to doubt it. Some of that evidence is briefly reviewed in this paper.

http://nowscape.com/big-ban2.htm

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 26, 2011 at 10:19 am Link to this comment

If I ever get my act together, I would deluge you with information regarding what’s happening with big bang theory.  It cant’ have much more time of domination of the field the way things are going.

http://www.chronos.msu.ru/discussions/an_open_letter.html

*****************

I LOVE this! It’s like shooting fish in a barrel!

There are only TWO links to any researchers at ANY major US universities!  Two. One is a geologist, the other an electronics specialist!  The third takes you to the guy’s website, not connected to a university.

If this was a serious scientific enterprise, you’d think you’d have at least ONE American researcher in the field at an American university with an active link.

And your second link? To some site called “metaresearch.org”.  All THIS proves is that you can post anything on the Internet and someone will buy into it. It’s like reading a Fox News forum!  People are still advocating the Steady State, which is like advocating a flat earth. Even its strongest adherent, Fred Hoyle, reluctantly had to admit the Steady State fails in view of the evidence.

There IS a reference to Sky & Telescope….from 1987.  I followed that mag from 1995 to about 2005 and never saw an article questioning the Big Bang on a macro level (as I pointed out there are MANY micro level criticisms of the Big Bang).

Nor have I seen anything like that in Astronomy, which I followed up until this year.

You just keep digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourself.  You claim to be a scientist, an expert on astrophysics and cosmology.

Yet, I, a mere layman, am able to reduce your arguments to an ash heap by simply applying the fundamental rules of science.

Like Rick Santorum stating to Glenn Beck that there is no global warming….Being famous as a politician doesn’t make you RIGHT about earth science.

If it wasn’t so hilarious, it would be just pitiful.

Report this

By DaveZx3, June 26, 2011 at 9:03 am Link to this comment

http://metaresearch.org/msgboard/pop_printer_friendly.asp?TOPIC_ID=784


Try it again.  The review function screwed me by replacing periods with pound signs.

Report this

By DaveZx3, June 26, 2011 at 8:59 am Link to this comment

Summary statement for the pertinent collection of information contained at the website below:. 

“The agressivity of the “big-bangers” is increasing while the arguments against the BB become stronger and stronger# For instance it is not anymore possible to put papers on Doppler-like redshifts on arxiv ###
This increase of agressivity shows that the BB is besiedged fortress# It will fall#”

In the interest of making my job a lot easier, I give the URL below, which I personally refer to regularly#  My intention was to extrapolate the pertinent data, find the original studies and provide links. 

But its Sunday afternoon, and I am heading out for the rest of the day#  You will find a wealth of info regarding a lot of subjects, and an abundance of references to papers, studies, etc, peer reviewed or not, but in a condensed form#  To read originals you have to find them yourself# 

I tested the link with the review function, and it works great.  But I don’t know why all the pound signs appeared instead of periods.  Maybe they will go away when I submit. 

http://metaresearch#org/msgboard/pop_printer_friendly#asp?TOPIC_ID=784

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 26, 2011 at 7:22 am Link to this comment

Well, there’s always Little-Bang Theory.

Report this

By DaveZx3, June 26, 2011 at 6:49 am Link to this comment

Here’s an article I was looking for earlier.  I wanted to scan it and email it to you, but I located the website, and I pretested the link, so I know it will work. 

You know it is not my fault that I am slow to produce this stuff.  I am extremely engaged right now between my work, and various family get togethers.  Very hard to get the time to sit down and go through everything and make sure it works. 

If I ever get my act together, I would deluge you with information regarding what’s happening with big bang theory.  It cant’ have much more time of domination of the field the way things are going. 

http://www.chronos.msu.ru/discussions/an_open_letter.html

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 26, 2011 at 5:21 am Link to this comment

(yawn)

Still haven’t been able to give me ONE good citation.  Using the old GRYM trick that can be defined as: “I’m not going to provide documentation—YOU have to find the documentation to prove me WRONG.”

Can’t prove a negative. Everyone knows that.

No articles, no links (that work), no Nobel prizes.

There’s no threat to knowledge. That’s another straw man put up by the Religious and Corporate Right.

All you gotta do to get those “alternate theories” out is subject them to the rules of scientific inquiry:
Publication, Peer Review, and Duplication (and confirmation) of Results.

But, all those “alternate theories” don’t play by the rules.  They use the MSM, televangelists, Fox and The Wall Street Journal to create a lot of noise and make it sound to the lay person as if there really IS such a “controversy” in the Scientific Community.

There is none. There are the Scientists and the Charlatans.

All you’ve done is prove my point: you can’t prove yours.

Report this

By DaveZx3, June 25, 2011 at 10:47 pm Link to this comment

Yes, I do know that major revisions happen regularly.  But there has been a lot of stagnation in recent years because of the suppression of unpopular, non-mainstream ideas.  Science is becoming way too political.  You should read the book “Virtue of Heresy, Confessions of a Dissident Astronomer”  It is an extremely good read. 

The politicization of science is my major gripe, and why I jumped in at your assertion much earlier in the thread that intelligence cannot be a consideration in the discussion of any origins theory. 

Again, not a God statement, but a science statement.  Intelligence, mind, consciousness, whatever, exists and is a valid subject for scientific inquiry.  It should never be specifically excluded as a factor in any study.  If science bumps into God, I am sure they will let us know about it, otherwise, we are free to entertain our diverse beliefs.

I am fully opposed to any restrictions of open discussions of ideas, unless those ideas become proven wrong and economic considerations arise, or they are significantly dangerous to people and property, or they are subversive to legitimate governments.  Otherwise, let inquiry flourish.

Quantum redshift is only one of the hundreds of problems which have been cropping up with an expanding universe model, but we (you and I) should agree that this is not threatening.  Just another theory biting the dust, if and when that actually happens. 

String theory is another very interesting volume of ideas, which could also blow the lid off of a lot of other theory.  Specifically the nature of a multi-dimensional (more than four) universe.

It is somewhat problematic to many (mostly in physics), that classical observation methods in the study of physics are taking second place to a large degree to abstract mathematical theories. 

With the abstract, the mind is free to conceive of ideas way in advance of the ability to actually test or observe.  As the advancement of science catches up in their ability to actually observe and test the phenomenon, results do not line up necessarily with what the math predicted. 

As space exploration expands, as well as the capability of telescopic observations, there will be numerous revisions of almost everything we think we know.  We will probably learn more in the next 5 years than we learned in the last 100 years.  And we will still only know less than 1% of what there is to know.

I refuse to be threatened by knowledge, wherever it leads me.  But I will always feel a little threatened, but mostly irritated, by those who suppress knowledge for their own sake.

Report this

By DaveZx3, June 25, 2011 at 9:18 pm Link to this comment

Yeah, I know.  My links don’t work.  You will have to go to the library to read the articles.  Or I could scan my copies and email them to you. 

My gut feeling is that you don’t understand the implication for quantum (intrinsic) redshifts anyway.

What this means is that Big Bang theory is severely crippled, if not dead.  This information has nothing to do with ingelligent design, so quit pushing all the religious comments at me. 

There is no part of Big Bang which specifically excludes an intelligence factor.  If there is, please explain that to me. 

There can be little doubt that mind preexisted matter within the context of the four dimensional space/time we consider our universe.  The problems which originate from any other conclusion are so numerous as to make such a conclusion near infinitely improbable.  At least a severe violation of the Law of Economy, (Occam).  This is not a God statement, but a science/philosophy statement.

Why do you consider these ideas improper study for your children?  These ideas threaten nothing.  Ideas should not be considered threatening until they are forced on people, like religion or Big Bang.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 25, 2011 at 8:36 pm Link to this comment

Have fun. Your links don’t work.

Looks like what they found was a lumpy universe…But that’s not news either.

You know as well as I (although you pretend it’s not so) that major revisions in the theories of both cosmology and evolution happen all the time.

They are still trying to figure out the inflation period and how to determine if there is ANY way to prove or disprove the String concept.

Likewise, major revisions have been made in evolutionary theory.

But the main tenets of each stand:
The universe is flying away from itself, expanding.
Species change over time, sometimes eons, sometimes mere years, several times over a human lifetime.

The scientist(s) who shakes either of those loose before October will be in Stockholm by December, receiving the Nobel Prize…and will deserve it more than anyone since Watson and Crick, Einstein and Marie Curie.

Hasn’t happened, though, has it?

Report this

By DaveZx3, June 25, 2011 at 7:51 pm Link to this comment

4 Articles confirming redshift quantization:
I don’t know why I bother. You don’t understand it.
———————————————————
Redshift quantization in compact groups of galaxies (1983) Cocke, W. J.; Tifft, W. G.
URL:  http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1983ApJ…268…56C
Abstract
Radio data (21 cm) on the redshifts of galaxies in small groups are analyzed for the previously reported 72 km s-1 quantization. The redshift differentials definitely clump about multiples of 72 km s-1, at a confidence level of 99.5%. The detailed deviations of the data from exact quantization are discussed in terms of the superposition of redshift states.
—————————————————
Testing for quantized redshifts. I.Theproject
Napier, W. M.; Guthrie, B. N. G.
Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 244, Issue 1-2, pp. 57-63 (Ap&SS; Homepage   03/1996
Abstract
A project intended to examine the long-standing claims that extragalactic redshifts are periodic or ‘quantized’ was initiated some years ago at the Royal Observatory, Edinburgh. The approach taken is outlined, and the main conclusions to date are summarized. The existence of a galactocentric redshift quantization is confirmed at a high confidence level.
————————————————-
Title: Testing for quantized redshifts. II. the local supercluster
Authors: Napier, W. M.; Guthrie, B. N. G.
Affiliation: AA(Armagh Observatory)
Publication:  Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 244, Issue 1-2, pp. 111-126 (Ap&SS; Homepage) Publication Date:
03/1996
Abstract
Samples of 97 and 117 high-precision 21 cm redshifts of spiral galaxies within the Local Supercluster were obtained in order to test claims that extragalactic redshifts are periodic (P˜36 km s-1) when referred to the centre of the Galaxy. The power spectral density of the redshifts, when so referred, exhibits an extremely strong peak at 37.5 km s-1. The signal is seen independently with seven major radio telescopes. Its significance was assessed by comparison with the spectral power distributions of synthetic datasets constructed so as to closely mimic the overall properties of the real datasets employed; it was found to be real rather than due to chance at an extremely high confidence level. The signal was subjected to various tests for robustness such as partitioning of data, increase of strength with precision and size of sample, and stability of the correcting vector. In every respect tested, it behaved like a physically real phenomenon. The periodicity is particularly strong within small groups and associations of galaxies, showing no sign of an intrinsic spread ?3 km s-1.

————————————————————
Space-time distributions of QSO absorption systems
Astronomy and Astrophysics, v.358, p.1-12 (2000)
Abstract
A statistical analysis of the distributions of C IV and Mg II absorption-line systems observed in quasar spectra within the cosmological redshift interval z=0.2-3.2 is presented. The results indicate that the overall z-distribution of absorbing matter is non-uniform: it has statistically significant maxima and minima, but it appears statistically isotropic. The maxima in the z-distribution of absorption systems are found at z_m = 0.44, 0.77, 1.04, 1.30, 1.46, 1.60, 1.78, 1.98, 2.14, 2.45, 2.64, and 2.86 (+/- 0.04). The positions of maxima and minima of the z-distribution turn out to be the same (within the statistical uncertainty) for different celestial hemispheres independently of their orientation. The resulting space-time distribution of absorbing matter resembles successively embedded spheres corresponding to the z_m values indicated. The most probable origin of such a distribution is an alternation of pronounced and depressed epochs in the course of cosmological evolution.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A…358….1K

Report this

By DaveZx3, June 25, 2011 at 6:20 pm Link to this comment

Article #1 on the website hiltonratcliff dot com is a peer review of Anamolous Redshift.

That was what my last post was about.  Have you read it?  Or is it way too deep for you?

When you are finished with that one, I’ll give you the next.  They take a while to absorb.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 25, 2011 at 11:48 am Link to this comment

Natter, natter, yammer, yammer, blather, blather.

Where are the peer-reviewed articles in major journals that attack the fundamental principal of the Big Bang, or of Evolution? 

You write hundreds of words repeatedly but cannot come up with THE fundamental tool of presenting scientific research:  Journal publication for peer review.

So…you are still nowhere in your arguments supporting the religious denial of “uncomfortable” science.

You can’t even name ONE article in a major journal to support your assertion of “hundreds of scientists”....

Remember the list of 100 scientists questioning Global Warming.  Turns out I know one, personally. He was a pro-civil rights anti-Viet Nam War liberal in the 60’s, now he’s a right-wing tea-bagger cheering on Sarah Palin, so he’s biased.

But the clincher is he’s a medical doctor running a dialysis center.  He knows no more about Global Warming than any other layman yet signed that list as one of the 100 Scientists, claiming and asserting an authority, expertise and knowledge of environmental science, climatology, ecology, geology, oceanography, and meteorology he is not entitled to.  All by himself, he invalidated that list of “100 Scientists”.

Betcha 2 cents your list is about as valid.

Report this

By DaveZx3, June 25, 2011 at 7:32 am Link to this comment

Action Denied: Blacklisted Item Found
h…..r….....com


That is the message I got when I attempted to submit the last post with a website address in it. 

A high profile physicist gets blackballed because he writes a book which criticizes a current theory.  I am talking about Mr. Ratcliffe.

So much for America, land of the free and the home of the brave.  Good thing Hilton lives in South Africa. 

What makes you think your kids are going to get any kind of an education in this environment?  They are only going to get the state sponsored propaganda.

Report this

By DaveZx3, June 25, 2011 at 7:22 am Link to this comment

Intrinsic redshift observations negating expanding universe theory is not religious dogma.  How can your kids be knowledgeable about physics if they don’t study what the astrophysicists are doing, even those who are not popular?  Popularity does not determine truth.  You know that.  Popularity comes and goes, but truth is eternal. 

But, anyway, if you prefer popular astrophycists, then try H. R. ( the name and website I listed here is blackballed by Truthdig, and did not go through, so I will put Mr. Ratcliff’s first name down below so as not to link them and get rejected.  His website is his first name and his last name, but not always easy to find, as I guess not popular with everybody.)

A paper he wrote entitled “Anomalous Redshift Measurements”  (or something like that) was very well received by the free thinking astro boys, even though the summary statement included: 

“The signs indicating that the standard redshift/distance relationship model is critically flawed are numerous and varied, and only one piece of evidence speaks in favour: The Hubble Law itself. Whether we continue to pursue the mysteries of the larger-scale cosmos with our eyes wide shut, or instead with due circumspection take notice of the measurable reality surrounding us, time will tell.”

Hilton (his first name) has a book coming out that is going to put a serious big dent in Big Bang, if not destroy it altogether.  HIs first one is worth reading also, called the “Virtue of Heresy”.  He is from South Africa, I think. 

He discovered, along with Oliver Manuel and Michael Mozina, the CNO nuclear fusion cycle of the Sun.  That is where most people would know him from.  I know him from the physics forums, where he comes across as a very down to earth guy, and also from his book, “The Virtue of Heresy”.

I don’t want to burden you by listing all 3000 plus scientists who are members of the various Big Bang dissident groups, so I just give them one at a time, not necessarily in any order.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 25, 2011 at 5:02 am Link to this comment

You can bloviate and obfuscate as much as you like but you cannot get around the fact that Arp has been “black-balled” by the scientific community for the best and only valid reason:

His research does not stand up to scrutiny and peer review.

I don’t want my children taught religious dogma in school as an “alternate theory”. Tenets of religion should be taught at home, in a place of worship, or in a parochial school.

Yes, there are exceptions. For example, you can’t study the development of the state Utah without studying the development of the Church of Latter Day Saints and their belief structure. But that’s not teaching Mormonism as fact, it’s teaching the facts about Mormonism.

Report this

By DaveZx3, June 25, 2011 at 2:40 am Link to this comment

“Why do you want so badly to disprove the Big Bang?”

Perceptions are definitely weird.  I have nothing invested in Big Bang or none Big Bang. 

I have seen very credible evidence which negates redshift as proof of big bang, and that is a foundational theory, so big bang is dead, IMO.  But neither Big Bang nor None Big Bang destroy my overall personal conclusions, nor does most conventional evolutionary theory.  My gripe is with those who think all inquiry is shut off, and intelligence cannot be a causation. 

Big Bang does not wholly exclude ID, because it does not answer the question of the preexisting singularity, nor the trigger which exploded it, both of which could have been generated by intgelligence. 

Nor does evolution wholly exclude ID, which is why the Catholic Church is at least partly on board with evolution, if not fully.  The genetic code cannot be justified mathematically as being randomly generated no matter how much faith you have in atoms. 

No doubt the Catholic Church has been pushed to the fringes of “establishment”, but the comparison to Galileo was just to underline the fact that old theories which are deeply imbedded die hard, and new ones are initially met with intense resistance before being accepted.

I am not pushing ID.  My initial comments were against someone who would shut off any inquiry whatsoever.  Science is not about shutting off inquiry, as though everything is settled. 

The blackballing of Arp is a good example.  A very respected astrophysicist should be free to develop ideas contrary to the currently accepted models.  He was pushed out, in spite of the fact that the science is very, very solid.  There are many reputable scientists who acknowledge the validity of “inherent redshift”  It is just a problem for the establishment Big Bangers, so the easiest thing to do is criticize the messenger, which is typical.

The basic contest resides with the “God” or “No God” camps, but I am not of either side.  My attention is devoted to any science which contends to answer the question of, “which came first, mind or matter?”

There is much, much evidence for the idea that “mind” is non corporeal, and not a function of the physical, biological body, nor contained in the body. 

This is my focus.  What is the mind, and where is it located?  If mind is not a function of matter, then where and how did it originate?  What are the ramifications for current experimentation with “collective mind” or “collective consciousness”?

What foolish scientist would claim this inquiry is shut off?  Yet this science, if you can call it science, since it deals with the non physical, has major ramifications for the physical sciences, and definitely on Big Bang and other origin theories.

Only fools think everything is settled regarding origins of anything.  Mankind is like the 5 year old on the block who thinks he knows everything, but will soon find out how little he actually does know. 

So I am not impressed with your foul languages nor intolerant attitudes.  If Michelle Bachman wants to teach intelligent design, I have nothing against that.  I am in favor of teaching everything and anything without any restrictions, but always with disclaimers that theories are only theories, not fact.

It should be evident that when you have to resort to foul language, you probably know you are not in command of the discussion.  In this regard, why should I respect the opinions of your astrophycisist friend, as opposed to Arp, who responds with kind words every single time.  Look at the man’s career. 

Foul language and intolerant attitudes do not make you look very competent, only fearful.  Exactly what you project onto your supposed adversaries.  What else can be said?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 24, 2011 at 9:52 pm Link to this comment

The term “Big Bang Theory” was sardonically created by its leading opponent: Fred Hoyle.  Hoyle’s name carried and still carries a respect today that Arp’s does not.

Hoyle argued for the “Steady State Universe”, but, being an HONEST scientist, when faced with over-whelming evidence of an expanding universe conceded that the Steady State didn’t stand up.

OTOH, Arp has found himself in the position of a flat-earther…despite intense peer scrutiny AND demonstration of fallacies in his argument, he persists.

Galileo knew he was right because there was no scientifically-obtained evidence to prove him wrong, only theological.  Arp has nothing in common with Galileo.

If a modern cosmologist could demonstrate Arp was correct, ANY cosmologist would sell his mother’s soul to get it into publication and peer review as fast as possible.

Hasn’t happened.  ‘nuf ‘ced

Report this
D.R. Zing's avatar

By D.R. Zing, June 24, 2011 at 8:05 pm Link to this comment

Inherit the Wind.  Thanks for the reply. I’ll let Dr. Darkness know. He will be amused, possibly.

DaveZx3,
I cannot apologize for my friend’s rude remarks, but I can offer you my compassion.  You indicated I have some sort of reading comprehension problem because I did not attempt to address your remarks; instead, I went straight to the heart of the matter:  Why do you want so badly to disprove the Big Bang?  You mentioned Intelligent Design, which only has one motivation—people who interpret The Bible literally and want to create a pseudo-scientific theory that correlates with ancient Hebrew creation myths. 

The reason my friend became enraged is that he has spent his entire adult life and much of his childhood contemplating and studying the universe. He would love nothing more than to prove the Big Bang Theory wrong. It would place him one rung above Einstein, which is a good place for an astrophysicist to be.

As to your last comment about Galileo being persecuted by the establishment, you fail to mention which establishment:  The Catholic Church.  Galileo wasn’t just persecuted by the church for disproving the The Copernican Universe; he was attacked for proving that all matter falls at the same rate of speed in a vacuum; for proving the moon was pock marked; for proving the lights around Saturn and Jupiter were not stars but actual moons—all of which was regarded as heresy and blasphemy by the Catholic Church. So, please, don’t kid yourself about which side of the argument you’re on. You’re on the same side that wanted Galileo’s head. 

As Inherit the Wind suggests, much of the anger directed at you stems from the fact that you and many others are advocating, not the teaching of physics and astrophysics in schools, but the teaching of Intelligent Design, which is based on myth not science. You have the right to believe anything you want and to teach your children anything you want, but you and many who believe like you are neutering science in our public schools and cutting off funding to people like my friend who very much need such funding for research. 

Again, I must cut to the heart of the matter and say I feel for you. I know many people like you.  Chances are you were indoctrinated at a very early age to believe specific works of literature are the work of God, and, the most terrible part, chances are you were told that, if what you believe is not true, then nothing is true and there is no right and wrong and life is meaningless.  That is abuse, intolerable intellectual abuse that results in intolerable intellectual conundrums for intelligent people, and you do seem intelligent. 

It is why I mentioned Einstein’s view that the universe is God.  Einstein believed in right and wrong, he believed life to be wonderful, he believed the universe was absolutely fascinating, and he most certainly did not believe in an individual afterlife such as spirits and souls or heaven and hell. 

My point is part of your drive to prove Einstein wrong, even though you have no formal training in the area of astrophysics, is probably driven by a simple realization: If he’s right, if geologists are right, if many other scientists are right, including Galileo, The Holy Bible is simply a book of mythology, a combination of fact, fiction, and history. And that must be terribly disturbing for you. 

Take heart.  Anyone who says: “What I say must be true, and if it’s not then everything else is meaningless” is not someone you want to bet your life on.  I would suggest you go to college and get a degree in either mythology or astrophysics, perhaps both.  Life is precious, mysterious and wonderul, afterlife or not.

Report this

By DaveZx3, June 24, 2011 at 12:22 pm Link to this comment

Most of Halton Arp’s work is listed or published on his website.  Look under “articles”  The ones that were published in scientific journals are shown as such.  There really are links to almost everything you should need to evaluate the science. 

I guess I can dig up some of the other author’s and post them, but it will be a couple of days at least. 
The theory is very much hated by the establishment types, so the information is not always readily available. 

Remember that Galileo was hated by the establishment for saying the earth was not at the center of the universe, but he was right.  Being blacklisted by the establishment is not necessarily a sign of poor science, buy more often of politically incorrect science.

I have always felt that when people start calling you serious names and belittling you, that is a sign that you are probably on to something that threatens them for some reason.  Calling a person a turd or worse just over a theory, even if the science is bad, is very questionable. 

Why do you do it?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 24, 2011 at 10:35 am Link to this comment

No pubs? No articles? No peer review?

You can claim you have that fastest car in the world….but you can’t show it because it doesn’t have any wheels….What a mar-oon as Bugs would say.

Go ahead and bury to your heart’s content. 

“What’s it all mean, Mr. Natural?”
“Don’t mean shit!”

Report this

By DaveZx3, June 24, 2011 at 9:07 am Link to this comment

There is no need to go overboard on this issue. 

The science speaks for itself.  This guy is a Harvard graduate and University of CA graduate.  He has a PhD, and a ton of evidence.  He is not a creationist nor a bible thumber, but a very reputable astrophysicist.

He was very prominent until he released this unpopular study years ago.  Now, as I understand it, he is becoming blackballed in some respects.  I have not kept touch with this case that much, only the science, which is basically irrefutable to most who look at it.

The theory that red shift is caused by galaxies speeding away from each other has been proven wrong, but it was so popular that it will hang on for decades.  Like a lot of science, it is “believed” because it is politically correct to believe it.

If you would like more proof that the name Halton Arp, which should be more than sufficient, I could bury you with it, but what would be the point?  Your mind is made up about everything.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 24, 2011 at 4:41 am Link to this comment

Uh-huh. So your only source is your own book?

Are you fuckin’ putting me on?

You don’t have ONE SINGLE PUBLICATION in a recognized journal to back your assertion.  Not one.  Not even one in a politically or religiously motivated propaganda rag.

You’ve just shown yourself to be, well, there’s just no way to say it nicely:

Totally full of shit. 

Stay away from my kids’ curriculum.

Report this

By DaveZx3, June 23, 2011 at 3:12 pm Link to this comment

Sorry, I spelled that wrong, as usual.  Should be Halton Arp, not Alton Harp.

Report this

By DaveZx3, June 23, 2011 at 2:44 pm Link to this comment

FRANKENCHRIST,

I should have said that differently. 

“Inherent” redshift is quantized.  It has been proven that redshift is caused not only by relative speed differences, but by also by inherent qualities of individual stars, and possibly other factors. 

Images of galaxy NGC 7319 with a measured redshift of .0225 (relatively close) shows a quasar with a measured redshift of 2.11 (very far away) Yet the image shows the quasar between NGC 7319 and Earth, a physical impossibility if red shift is caused only by speed.  Using redshift values, the quasar is ninety times farther away from Earth than is the galaxy in the background.

In short, redshift is not proof that the universe is expanding.  There were 4 or 5 very good sources of this info.  At the moment, I can only come across my book by Alton Harp, who has a website where his work can be verified.  AltonHarp.com

Report this

By FRANKENCHRIST, June 23, 2011 at 11:07 am Link to this comment

“It shows that red shift is more of a quantum effect and not specifically related to speed, as in the doppler effect.”

That’s a lie. I thought Jesus hated liars.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 23, 2011 at 11:01 am Link to this comment

The science has already been published, years ago.  It shows that red shift is more of a quantum effect and not specifically related to speed, as in the doppler effect.  But you don’t expect it to change the political agenda of the science quacks, do you?

************

I see you ignored THIS part….


*************

“The educational system is in tatters.  What can one do? Ask for EVIDENCE published in Nature, Astrophysical Journal or Physical Review.

*************

Can you show where this is published alternatively in Science, Scientific American, Astronomy, or even Sky&Telescope;?

No?  “Publishing” isn’t “The 700 Club” newsletter, or Rupert Murdock rags.

It’s not my business if you want to keep your children ignorant and living in “Flat Earth Land” but it is DEFINITELY my business when you demand the “right” to to inflict that abuse on MY children!

What’s next? The Universe is only 6000 years old?  I can disprove THAT with a back-yard telescope and high school geometry!

Report this

By DaveZx3, June 23, 2011 at 8:51 am Link to this comment

The science has already been published, years ago.  It shows that red shift is more of a quantum effect and not specifically related to speed, as in the doppler effect.  But you don’t expect it to change the political agenda of the science quacks, do you?

But thanks for being so polite.  I can always tell when a comment comes from an astrophycist, they start out calling anyone who questions their theories an ignoramus, then a turd, then a Fox news watcher, not necessarily in that order.

That’s usually when I know they can’t possibly answer with facts.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 23, 2011 at 3:03 am Link to this comment

Turds like this have no idea how science works.  If there was shred of evidence for this we would be crawling over each others bleeding bodies to publish it first!”
*************

Zing, your friend’s BRILLIANT statement of the obvious had me in what my teen calls a “facepalm” moment! Of all the logical and rational arguments I have made or seen in defense of Science and the scientific method, NOTHING compares to this:
If you can be the one to disprove the accepted theory, you’d sell your soul or your mother’s soul to be the first to publish!

Report this
D.R. Zing's avatar

By D.R. Zing, June 22, 2011 at 11:43 pm Link to this comment

Oh Mother of God, DaveZx3, thank you for giving me my hardest laugh of the day. This quote of yours is awesome, just awesome!  “But I do appreciate your politeness, and I do not mean to be unpolite, if I seem to be at times.”

So here’s to being impolite. I sent your quote about the Big Bang to a friend who is an astrophysicist hoping he would visit TruthDig and let you have it.  He did not deign to grace us with his brilliance.  But he did send me s reply via e-mail. Your quote is first. His is next.

DaveZx3:
“evidence over the past decade or more has shown that the Doppler effect (red shift) from distant galaxies thought to show that the universe is expanding from the “big bang” is not credible.  I won’t go into the details because you probably wouldn’t understand it anyway, but the “big bang” theory is all but dead in the water also.  Believe me.” 

Reply from an astrophysicist:
“The educational system is in tatters.  What can one do? Ask for EVIDENCE published in Nature, Astrophysical Journal or Physical Review.

“Insane, or a FOX news fucker, or both, and DEFINITELY an ignoramus. Turds like this have no idea how science works.  If there was shred of evidence for this we would be crawling over each others bleeding bodies to publish it first!”

I’m laughing so hard at the moment I can barely type. Forgive me.

Report this

By reynolds, June 22, 2011 at 9:13 am Link to this comment

waving it on “twitter” is as good (bad) as whipping it
out in public. yes, i’m slipping, but with your help i
can beat this.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 21, 2011 at 2:53 pm Link to this comment

reynolds—In the Weiner story which I have heard, Weiner did not intentionally wave anything in public.  I confess, though, that I am not a fan, much less a thorough student of Weiner, so perhaps I have missed something.

I hope your remark isn’t evidence that you are slipping back into taking me seriously.

Report this

By gregorylkruse, June 21, 2011 at 12:04 pm Link to this comment

Weiner was convicted by a jury of his peers. He showed himself to be a narcissist, a masochist, a pervert, and a sociopath all in less that two weeks.  The reason they closed him is because he was a window into the behavior of the US Congress.*

*not meant to be a factual statement

Report this

By reynolds, June 21, 2011 at 11:47 am Link to this comment

“‘Conventional’ and ‘trivial’ are neither synonyms
nor antonyms.”

i didn’t know what you were talking about when i
first read that.
i didn’t mean to suggest they were either. the
connection between the two words is that you used
them.
pardon my inference, but i thought it condescending
of you to dismiss gayness as ‘unconventional’, and
even more so when you referred to the exhibitionist
as ‘trivial’. the fact that every man has one is
trivial, that they wave it in public is not- to me,
anyway.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 20, 2011 at 8:26 pm Link to this comment

Well, I DO understand that the fanatical religious can’t stand the idea the we exist by dumb luck, so they attack evolutionary theory with variations on the same theme going back to the “Monkey Trial”.

You’re not arguing science, but setting up straw men about evolutionary theory that you think you can knock down.

And yet…the biblists (can’t even call ‘em creationists) are forced to keep backing up…First they denied ALL evolution.  Now they deny “Macro evolution”.  Why? Because it’s been proven 100 times over that viruses and bacteria evolve right in front of our noses.

We can SEE the DNA change, and they can’t deny it.  But when shown the DNA changing from lemurs to primates, to orangutangs, to gorillas, to chimpanzees and then to humans, they can’t see that.

“I ain’t descended from monkeys!” was the cry in Dayton, Tennessee 85 years ago. Now, DNA shows us that not only is the Chimp our closest living relative, but we are the Chimp’s as well…evolved along separate paths about 6 million years ago (“Lucy”, Australopithicus, was halfway way between our common ancestor and us—3 million years ago).

Even on a medium scale the 3 major races have evolved over the last 20-30,000 years, not nearly far enough by a a quarter-million years to make us anything other than variations of the same specie, yet DNA CAN trace your genetic heritage back to the races and even tribes that comprise you.

This has TERRIFIED the racists and the religious for different reasons, and sometimes the same….

When does the moldy old “Pocket watch in the field” analogy make its limping entrance????

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 20, 2011 at 8:07 pm Link to this comment

DaveZx3, June 20 at 4:10 pm:
’... I am all for science, but when you try to tell me that the genetic code and the reproductive system it directs came out of the blue, randomly without purpose, and without intelligence, then I just want to know what the evidence is for that, what were the scientific methods which generated that conclusion?

The computer guy who put the genome map together, Myers, stated that intelligence is written all over the genetic code.  He is a code guy, he should know intelligence when he sees it. ...’

If you’re going to use ‘intelligence’ to prove something scientifically, you’re going to have to define it in material, physical, measurable terms.  For example, if I give you two kinds of bacteria, you should be able to give some sort of ‘intelligence factor’ for each.  Note that we are not talking about mere information content.

Once you have the intelligence factor defined and measured, it might be possible to show that it could not have arisen in the generally accepted version of Evolution.  Or not.

Scientific accomplishment does not seem to require common sense, so I am not impressed by Myers.  There are geologists who are young-earth creationists in spite of everything.  I don’t know how they manage it, but they do.

Report this

By FRANKENCHRIST, June 20, 2011 at 7:38 pm Link to this comment

@FRTothus

Santorum is frothy. Are you?

Report this

By FRTothus, June 20, 2011 at 7:34 pm Link to this comment

@DaveZx3

Much Respect.

Report this

By DaveZx3, June 20, 2011 at 4:10 pm Link to this comment

FRTothus,

Thank you.

My personal major gripe, which I never can seem to get across, is that I am really complaining about the perversion of science which is taking place.  I insist on talking scientific methods, evidence, test results, etc. and you can’t get anyone to get to that level.  I assume they have the intelligence, but not the desire for some reason.

It may have something to do with Gould’s advice to evolutionists not to debate the subject, because it will do more harm than good.  So they do not debate, they just call you names.  You ask a simple question and you get called “troll” “jesus freak”  “right wing fanatic”, etc etc.

R.H. Brady in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society around 1982: 

“What is at stake is not the validity of the Darwinian theory itself, but of the approach to science that it has come to represent. The peculiar form of consensus the theory wields has produced a premature closure of inquiry in several branches of biology, and even if this is to be expected in `normal science,’ such a dogmatic approach does not appear healthy.”

The total domination of Darwinism/evolutionary theory perverts science because observations and evidence are evaluated as to how they fit the theory, and if they don’t fit they are suppressed.  Pressure to produce evidence results in collosal fakery, and fear of career stagnation causes a serious lack of dissent.  That is what passes for science.

I am all for science, but when you try to tell me that the genetic code and the reproductive system it directs came out of the blue, randomly without purpose, and without intelligence, then I just want to know what the evidence is for that, what were the scientific methods which generated that conclusion?

The computer guy who put the genome map together, Myers, stated that intelligence is written all over the genetic code.  He is a code guy, he should know intelligence when he sees it. 

By intelligence, I am not referring to an invisible supernatural being necessarily, but anything possessing intelligence.  Thinking like a real scientist, I do not close the door to anything unless the proof is overwhelming for the theory at hand. 

Science has taken everything off the table when it comes to origins, but when you ask for the evidence to support that, it is extremely flimsy, if any.  To the point that the average guy, like me can easily shoot it down with queries about the methods used.

They have perverted their own discipline.  That is my complaint. They are brainwashing students with their methods by ridiculing and labeling anyone who asks a question.  It is more creepy and unnatural than Wieners wiener exposure. 

And unfortunately for others, I never get tired of complaining about this situation, but I will try to give it a rest on this thread.

Thanks for your comments.

Report this
Blueboy1938's avatar

By Blueboy1938, June 20, 2011 at 3:47 pm Link to this comment

Wiener was a) Inconvenient, and b) Expendable (unlike Sen. David Vitter, La., to the GOP, because the governor at the time was a Democrat).  Those two factors were enough to justify his party’s leadership throwing him under the bus.  His
“episode” did solve one problem:  Which congressional district will be eliminated
in order to meet the requirement forced by the 2010 census that the State of New
York lose one.

Report this

By FRTothus, June 20, 2011 at 2:12 pm Link to this comment

@DaveZx3
ITW just loves his Straw Men, and it seems he cannot help but ridicule all that he does not understand, or any that might disagree with him.

Report this

By NABNYC, June 20, 2011 at 1:15 pm Link to this comment

I struggled with this “scandal.”  For everyone who supports Weiner and says this is all silly, I just ask you to imagine the public’s response if it turned out that Nancy Pelosi sent crotch-shots of herself to strange men online.  Same response?

My initial response to the Weiner story was that his conduct was creepy.  To me, it’s creepy.  But probably much of other people’s sexual conduct would seem creepy if we had to look at the pictures.

As long as the people involved are consenting adults, it’s really not our business.  Naked photos, dirty talk, who cares.

However, once Weiner sent naked photos of his private parts to strange women, he knew or should have known that if this became public, he would lose his supporters, friends, maybe his wife, and humiliated his parents if they are still living.  In fact, I bet the secret nature, the fact that it is somewhat prohibited conduct, is part of what made it so arousing to him.  Look what a bad boy I am.  There also is the puzzling if not bizarre fixation that some grown men continue to have with their penises, which seems like immaturity and a distorted view of the role of the individual in the world.  If Weiner has so much free time on his hands that he obsesses over his own body, wouldn’t you think he should devote some of his time out helping others, instead of masturbating for photos?  In any event, you rarely find women obsessed with their vaginas or clitoris, at least after they reach around the age of 20.  Before that yes, it’s exciting and interesting.  Then you grow up.

Weiner knew the likely consequences if his behavior became publicly known.  He sent pictures which could easily be transmitted electronically and spread around the world.  He knew the risks, he knew the likely consequences, so I decided ultimately he should bear those consequences. 

If his job mattered to him, if his family did, he probably could have found other sexual outlets that were legal and could be handled in private, so to speak.  He took the risk, he bears the consequences. 

As far as the comments about Spitzer, I always thought that was completely his own business.  He had sex with women other than his wife.  I know it was illegal, but he paid well, the women were apparently consenting adults, so it falls into my category of private conduct.  He did not send photos online.  The only reason he was caught is because Wall Street hated him for his successful prosecutions of Wall Street, and bush-cheney turned the government over to the control of Wall Street.  He was set up, no doubt.

Report this

By DaveZx3, June 20, 2011 at 1:07 pm Link to this comment

By Inherit The Wind, June 20 at 9:31 am Link to this comment
“You are talking nonsense.  Much of evolutionary theory has been tested, and what has failed has forced re-definitions of it.  One of the earliest failures was that environment could FORCE changes.  It doesn’t, so new mechanisms had to be theorized for how change occurs.”
——————————————————-

This statement above is absolute double speak.  No new mechanisms have been shown to be credible.  This statement is not evidence for scientific method, verifiability, or repeatability.  What does this statement really say?  Nothing!!  There is no science, at all, connected to this statement. 
——————————————————————————

Your follow on statement: 
By Inherit The Wind, June 20 at 9:31 am Link to this comment
“One of the major tests of evolutionary theory has been DNA testing, testing that’s good enough to decide guilt or innocence, if someone should be executed or freed, good enough to prove parentage, and lines of descent.  Much of Jefferson’s White descendants refused to accept his Black descendants.  DNA ended that!”
—————————————————————————

Please read this statement above with a clear mind.  What does it say?  It says that DNA exists, PERIOD!!!!!  Yes, it can be used for testing of human individuality and who begat who.  BIG F—-ing DEAL.  What does that say about where DNA came from and how?  What does that say about where DNA came from and how?  What does that say about where DNA came from and how?  GET THE POINT?  That is where evolutionary science comes in, where did it come from and how.  That is the science I am asking for. 

There must have been some scientific testing done to determine how DNA could have been spontaneously generated naturally, along with the system it represents, which is to ensure FUTURE biological outcomes.  Where is the scientific methodology which gives evidence for this?  No one wants to talk about it. 

I get double speak, such as the above statements, everytime I ask the simple question, where is the scientific evidence for macro evolution? 

I have asked this question hundreds, if not thousands of times, and have not had an answer with any scientific credibility.  Just bullshit!!

It doesn’t matter if I am a troll.  It doesn’t matter if I am right wing?  It doesn’t matter if I am a religious fundamentalist.  The issue is what is the scientific evidence for macro evolution. 

Answer the question relative to sound scientific methodology, not double speak, and quit worrying about who or what I am, because who I am is not at all relative to the question. 

WHO I AM IS NOT RELATIVE TO THE QUESTION!!!

Report this
JohannG's avatar

By JohannG, June 20, 2011 at 12:57 pm Link to this comment

I did not like Weiner very much due to his uncritical
and unquestioning support for Israel. The fact that he
tried to weasel and lie his way out of this affair
instead of immediately fessing up did nothing to
elevate his character. However, as this piece points
out, Weiner did nothing unlawful and only in the
Puritanical sinkhole called the U.S.A. is such lawful
private behavior reason for resignation. Agree with the
tenor of this piece: Americans need to grow up and pay
attention to the things that matter. Fat chance.

Report this

By cherilyn, June 20, 2011 at 11:26 am Link to this comment

“... it is outrageous that Weiner’s Twitter foul cost him his job when we take rampant corruption in Washington for granted.”

Absolutely. Sure, Weiner was stupid, and his lack of awareness of the potential impact of his actions tells us something about him. But isn’t the puritan uproar a distraction from the genuinely criminal activity and hugely impactful stupidity (think banking crisis, etc.) that does happen? If we as a nation put as much energy into addressing real problems, we’d be much better off.

Report this

By Lew Ciefer, June 20, 2011 at 11:06 am Link to this comment

I understand how topics can drift but an opinion piece about an arrogant, self-absorbed, democrat buffoon and how it relates to national hypocrisy morphing into an argument about not too intelligent design… Go figure!

That’s been argued to the Nth degree on YouTube and the Creationists and IDers lost.

@ IDers and Creationists:

Go to YouTube and watch the 30+ videos by Thunderfoot on why people laugh at creationists and the many AronRa vids. There’s more and better science in those videos than 4 years of high school in the U.S.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 20, 2011 at 9:31 am Link to this comment

I understand very well scientific methodology.  But you have not given any evidence for how and when evolution was tested as a theory.  What are the verifiable, repeatable tests that confirm evolution as a theory?  I have never found them. 
********

You are talking nonsense.  Much of evolutionary theory has been tested, and what has failed has forced re-definitions of it.  One of the earliest failures was that environment could FORCE changes.  It doesn’t, so new mechanisms had to be theorized for how change occurs.

One of the major tests of evolutionary theory has been DNA testing, testing that’s good enough to decide guilt or innocence, if someone should be executed or freed, good enough to prove parentage, and lines of descent.  Much of Jefferson’s White descendants refused to accept his Black descendants.  DNA ended that!

DNA has BEEN the acid test of evolutionary theory, and the answers haven’t been binary. Surprises cropped up and various portions of the theory had to be revised.

But why am I bothering?  EVERY person I’ve ever come across who challenged Evolutionary Theory was always a religious believe who HATED that “God Created Man In His Image” was fundamentally challenged by Evolution.  That we are here by pure dumb luck and not “God’s Will” is deeply anathema to the religious.

So I simply do not believe:
1) that you are not a religious person, probably fundamentalist Christian.
2) that you don’t endorse ID.
3) that you are not a Teabagger.
4) that you are not a troll.

Report this

By reynolds, June 20, 2011 at 8:18 am Link to this comment

i suppose it is both trivial and conventional to use
the word ‘tweet’ as a verb if, as waving one’s wand,
unseemly to do it publicly.
i give, already. haven’t we agreed that i take you too
seriously?

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 20, 2011 at 6:50 am Link to this comment

There’s a great deal of difference between ‘conventional’ and ‘trivial’.  For instance, it’s conventional for our national politicians and boss media to be war criminals or support them, but it’s not trivial; whereas it is (as yet) unconventional (I think) for the same set to email or tweet photos of their genitalia around, but it’s trivial.

Report this
thecrow's avatar

By thecrow, June 20, 2011 at 4:44 am Link to this comment

“House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi promised Wednesday that when her party takes over, the new majority will not attempt to remove President Bush from office. . . . “I have said it before and I will say it again: Impeachment is off the table,” Pelosi, D-Calif., said during a news conference.”

“President-elect Barack Obama signaled in an interview broadcast Sunday that he was unlikely to authorize a broad inquiry into Bush administration programs like domestic eavesdropping or the treatment of terrorism suspects. . . . Mr. Obama added that he also had ‘a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.’”

———————————

“Pressure on Mr. Weiner to leave the House has been building for days, with top House Democrats, including Ms. Pelosi, the minority leader, coming forward over the weekend . . . . That pressure intensified earlier this week when President Obama publicly suggested that Mr. Weiner should step down and Ms. Pelosi told reporters that she was prepared to strip Mr. Weiner of his committee assignments if he did not leave.”

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2011/06/17/indecent/

Report this

By DaveZx3, June 20, 2011 at 2:26 am Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind, June 19 at 5:58 pm

“If you can’t test it, it’s not a theory.  That’s not an opinion, that’s how scientists determine what is possible…and what is crap.”
——————————————————————————-

I understand very well scientific methodology.  But you have not given any evidence for how and when evolution was tested as a theory.  What are the verifiable, repeatable tests that confirm evolution as a theory?  I have never found them. 

That is why they are totally confused by the evidence, such as the Cambrian explosion.  The evidence does not conform to the “theory”  and bone fragments, isolated chunks of carbon dated befuddlement, do not a theory make. 

Where is the science in evolution, I ask repeatedly, over and over for years. 

Remember, leave ID out of it.  It is not what is being discussed here.

Report this

By reynolds, June 20, 2011 at 12:01 am Link to this comment

orthogonal. i like that. that’ me, all sevens.
both words are dismissive. i think the broadcast of a
naked congressman oh, just this much (i’m sqeezing my
thumb and index finger together til they smart) less
conventional that samesexuals. i’m trivial that way.
you sorted my problem succinctly, right after asking
what it is. was.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 19, 2011 at 7:06 pm Link to this comment

reynolds, June 19 at 10:03 am:

“His known offenses were trivial”

perhaps, but certainly exhibitionist and, in the case
of his teenage correspondent, problematic.
you once characterized homosexuality as
“unconventional”. are weiner’s indiscretions trivial
because he is heterosexual?

No, I would say exactly the same thing if Weiner had been texting sexy pictures to men (again, assuming they were consenting adults).  Maybe he was, in fact.  It doesn’t matter.  It isn’t our business.

‘Conventional’ and ‘trivial’ are neither synonyms nor antonyms.  People with a jones for math metaphors might say they were ‘orthogonal’.

What’s your problem, anyway?  Here you’re remembering something I wrote months ago, and most Truthdiggers don’t even read my screeds the first time, much less remember them.

Report this

By Michael Cavlan RN, June 19, 2011 at 6:55 pm Link to this comment

HOLY CRAP

So the thing about these spam bots are. they are programs put in place to distract from real discussion. Please note the generic ‘discussion” between two or more of them.

the point of course is to bury and real discussion.

Like for example

Lesser Of Two evils? Still evil
Join the NPA New Progressive Alliance
newprogs.org

I wonder if the good folks at Truthdig know about this?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 19, 2011 at 5:58 pm Link to this comment

I stand by my statement: NO serious scientist who is a researcher into genetics is an advocate of Intelligent Design.

If you are not a religious fanatic, or a troll with an agenda, then you are a dupe.  And it’s just that simple.

Plus, Intelligent Design doesn’t get the right to be called a “Theory” because it lacks the acid test of any scientific theory: What is called “falsifiability” namely that it can be tested and the test can confirm the theory or challenge it. (called the Null Hypothesis). 

If you can’t test it, it’s not a theory.  That’s not an opinion, that’s how scientists determine what is possible…and what is crap.

Since ID isn’t testable, it’s automatically…CRAP!

Report this

By DaveZx3, June 19, 2011 at 5:48 pm Link to this comment

By Inherit The Wind, June 19 at 8:44 am Link to this comment

No, there aren’t. This is bullshit propaganda put out by the far Right.

There is not one reputable genetic researcher who advocates “Intelligent Design”....  NOBODY in the field takes ID seriously.
——————————————————————————-

Read my posts a little more carefully.  I am not advocating “intelligent design”, I am merely stating what most honest evolutionists admit, based on the books sitting right here on my library shelf, that there is hardly a shred of evidence for macro-evolution. 

Huxley himself admitted evolution is merely the anti God religion.  It is a belief system for which no empirical evidence or scientific methodology needs to apply.  Which is convenient, since there is no scientific evidence and no methodology, just a couple of old bone fragments and a bunch of fakery and convoluted imaginations.

Regarding genetic researchers, they believe in magic also, as they can never explain to me how such a complex code, could have originated naturally, concurrent with the corresponding capability to actually read and use the code for the purpose it was intended.  This is a real dilemma for the darwinian, as it busts the boundaries of logic and probability that such a complex system could have evolved intact with all its systems ready to go.  The probability of such an event occuring randomly is simply beyond chance. 

And even if it did happen, a reproduction system had to have been generated at the same time, or the first miracle cell would have died off, and that once in a billion year miracle would have been wasted.  All these systems just popped out of the blue, ready to go.

Of course to a sane man, a code is something which is to be read and deciphered.  Why would nature create a code randomly?  Wouldn’t there have to be some consciousness of the concept of the future reading of the code?  If there was consciousness of the purpose of the complex code, then there was intelligence. 

But I am not advocating intelligence, just very surprised at how you can deny intelligence when a code is created for a future purpose. 

If there is any scientific evidence at all that this could have actually happened by some process I am not aware of, please let me know what it is.  I have been reading and searching for the definitive scientific evidence for over 30 years.  I could give you a list of the books on evolution that I have read over that time period.  Maybe I just missed the one book which actually had some scientific evidence in it. 

And don’t keep calling me a Far-right Jesus whatever.  It is not about politics or Jesus, it is about scientific evidence and scientific methodology.  It is either there or it is not, otherwise it is not science, but only ideology. I have a BSEE, and have worked with very complex fiber optic communications systems, so I can handle the details.

Report this
monkeymind's avatar

By monkeymind, June 19, 2011 at 5:07 pm Link to this comment

@clearwaters.,

my brother, sister… too right!

Report this

By clearwaters, June 19, 2011 at 5:03 pm Link to this comment

Monkeymind, surely you ment “tweeter totter.”

Report this

By Michael Cavlan RN, June 19, 2011 at 4:37 pm Link to this comment

Another thing about spam bots. They are set up in response to certain criteria,but respond with very generic messages. usually unrelated to the subject matter.

This is a test

Report this
Egomet Bonmot's avatar

By Egomet Bonmot, June 19, 2011 at 1:23 pm Link to this comment

RayLan writes:

“What’s important about the Weiner-gate is what it exposes about US culture. This kind of cyber-scandal would not have reached these proportions in any other country, except in the tabloids. Well it turns out the distinction between professional and tabloid journalism is rapidly being blurred.”

I beg to differ RayLan—that just ain’t so.  I can’t think of any other country in the world that would have passed this story by.  What’s unique to this country is the mock righteousness that attends all debate over sex and scandal, as if we should always be discussing more elevated subjects like unemployment and our overseas wars. 

By “any other country in the world” I’m sure you mean France.  Are you aware that the DSK scandal *and* Weinergate have dominated their dailies’ headlines for weeks now?  I mean Le Fig and Le Monde, not the tabloids.  The BBC has been on both stories like a blanket too.

Scandals are a part of the culture too.  They become “American” when purse-lipped schoolmarms start looking over our shoulders as we read and talk about them.

Report this
Egomet Bonmot's avatar

By Egomet Bonmot, June 19, 2011 at 1:00 pm Link to this comment

Inherit the Wind keeps fighting the good fight.  It’s endlessly wearying to waste time on these crypto-Jesus pseudoscholars.

Reminds me btw of their creationist theory of gravity, “Intelligent Falling”.

Report this

By FRANKENCHRIST, June 19, 2011 at 12:33 pm Link to this comment

Michele Bachman is a psychotic Nazi degenerate who wants to occupy the White House so she can impose Old Testament law upon America.

Yes, I realize her entire candidacy is a joke and a fund-raising gimmick but she is still a raving criminal lunatic who should be institutionalized.

Weiner is a sick pervert, too. A pox on them both.

Report this

By Light, June 19, 2011 at 10:34 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To all senators, congressmen, talk show hosts and anyone else who has condemned Anthony Weiner: Your condemnation will be valid the moment you turn over to the media your computer hard drives for public review. I want to see your Search history for the last ten years.


The recent crop of DC “deviants” includes Anthony Weiner, John Ensign, John Edwards, David Vitter, Larry Craig, Mark Foley and many more. This dust-up is akin to the collapse of the credibility of the Catholic Church. Among the powerful, sexual hypocrisy runs rampant. The DC Democratic and Republican legislators may well be just two more sex cults.


Anthony Weiner wants to get “treatment.” Treatment? C’mon, Tony. Just admit that sexting has become your masturbation style. Everyone has a masturbation style, the things we do to set the table, the supplemental visual images, the sex toys, the person or persons we hold in our mind’s eye as we work our way toward orgasm. Weiner got caught masturbating. Treatment? There is no cure for masturbation, except maybe old age.

Report this

By Michael Cavlan RN, June 19, 2011 at 10:22 am Link to this comment

As an aside, I also notice that when there is talk of Ron Paul supporters and Ralph Nader supporters getting together, that there is an explosion of attack posts that develop.

Almost like one would suspect that the corporate elite are terrified of the idea. So they send out their attack bloggers.

Just a thought.

Report this

By Michael Cavlan RN, June 19, 2011 at 10:15 am Link to this comment

Blah Blah Blah.. Nonsensical talk

Union Solidarity. This is a test..

Report this

By reynolds, June 19, 2011 at 10:03 am Link to this comment

“His known offenses were trivial”

perhaps, but certainly exhibitionist and, in the case
of his teenage correspondent, problematic.
you once characterized homosexuality as
“unconventional”. are weiner’s indiscretions trivial
because he is heterosexual?

Report this

By reynolds, June 19, 2011 at 9:44 am Link to this comment

“He should have stuck it out” 

he did stick it out, repeatedly.

Report this
D.R. Zing's avatar

By D.R. Zing, June 19, 2011 at 8:50 am Link to this comment

Damn! Inherit the Wind. Remind me never to piss you off. 

Well said.

Report this

By Michael Cavlan RN, June 19, 2011 at 8:48 am Link to this comment

If you are tired of being lied to.
Then remember

Lesser Of Two Evil?-Still Evil
Join New Progressive Alliance
newprogs.org

Report this

By Michael Cavlan RN, June 19, 2011 at 8:45 am Link to this comment

In the Wisconsin case, there was one of those live feed events. Also people could chat while watching it.

Then one of the young, techie labor activists noticed a pattern. Every time the word Union or solidarity would appear, a random right wing scribe would instantly appear. We talked about it, tried experiments. Did not use the trigger word for a while. Then use it and voila

Spam bot right wing response would appear.
Then we had fun.  We would post a literal blah blah blah nonsensical talk but then Union Solidarity

Ding. Right wing canned response.

They have the technology folks.

Just a heads up.

Now let us see if I am right…..............

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 19, 2011 at 8:44 am Link to this comment

There are far too many reputable, secular scientists
from major universities who are coming out against
Darwinism. 

**********

No, there aren’t. This is bullshit propaganda put out by the far Right.

There is not one reputable genetic researcher who advocates “Intelligent Design”. A close relative of mine IS one of the top world-class genetic researchers, running a major research institute at a major, renowned large university, a fervently religious man, and HE describes ID as BS, and says every scientist he knows shares that view. NOBODY in the field takes ID seriously.

Just like there is not one reputable researcher who challenges man-made global climate change.

Bachmann is a fruitcake who like the rest of the teabaggers will turn America into corporate-run feudal fascist state, claiming “freedom” while it robs ordinary and poor Americans—and then claims it’s THEIR fault they are poor.

As much of a scumbag as Wiener is, I’d trust him more with the nation’s safety and liberty than Bachmann.

Report this

By Michael Cavlan RN, June 19, 2011 at 8:38 am Link to this comment

Pretty much what I expected.

Post something about actual organizing against the pro-war, corporate corrupted two party system and suddenly

Voila. All this nonsensical fluff conversation to bury the talk of organizing. The only real question is, is it paid political hacks, corporate hacks or perhaps spam bot machines to generate this fluff.

I seen computer generated spambot conversations during a live feed of events in Wisconsin.

Report this

By SoTexGuy, June 19, 2011 at 8:24 am Link to this comment

Spooky.. I’m with you on all that for sure. He should be criticized for what he’s admitted doing. It’s good overall a guy doing that stuff (or a gal) is no longer a sitting Congressman.. yet some of Weiner’s politics will be missed.

I’m just uncomfortable with the idea of a mob of hecklers in another state ganging up, with the help of the cheering media, to ultimately oust my Congressman. Same as it rubs me wrong when powerful interests from outside my area dumps money and influence into our elections to get their man in .. I won’t go as far as to say real crooks and criminals should be in office if they
have the support of their community.. but a little more representative democracy, even if in the form of a couple of nutcakes, might be good!

Anyway, Weiner got off light.. now that he has so gracefully agreed to leave he likely won’t face any charges or humiliation in the next election. And will keep his status as a retired (not defeated) Congressman. He’ll be a celeb once he’s out of ‘rehab’.

Thanks for reading my comments.

Adios!

Report this
D.R. Zing's avatar

By D.R. Zing, June 19, 2011 at 8:18 am Link to this comment

Dear monkeymind:

I have rarely if ever encountered a more apt moniker grin 

I really like your comments. Excellent points. 

Never overlook the possibility that some of us may suffer from attention surplus disorder and are quite capable of following, appreciating, and even changing our minds when encountering a well-reasoned argument. 

Kudos, sir or madam.

May your monkeymind thrive.

Zing

Report this

By Ben Donahower, June 19, 2011 at 8:15 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Thinking about this, “A campaign operative once told
me that in 20 years or so we’ll be less fixated on a
candidate’s private life,” a little more, I agree.

There are two forces at play here.  One, think before
you tweet, update your status, whatever.  Just
remember that your constituent and your mother are
watching!  While people expect anonymity less and
less they are likewise going to change the way they
use social media.

The other is that there is a tremendous amount of
information that is going online about peoples’ day
to day life- good, bad, and ugly.  It won’t be too
long before virtually all candidates, unfortunately,
will have something embarrassing online. 

We are at an odd stage where the lack of privacy,
ease of communication, and the documentation of
communication are colliding.

Report this
RayLan's avatar

By RayLan, June 19, 2011 at 8:14 am Link to this comment

What’s important about the Weiner-gate is what it exposes about US culture. This kind of cyber-scandal would not have reached these proportions in any other country, except in the tabloids. Well it turns out the distinction between professional and tabloid journalism is rapidly being blurred. The US with its sallacious reality shows is a voyeuristic scandalmonging thoroughly hypocritical nation on the subject of sexual morality - whereas the imperialist atrocities committed in the ME under the rubric of democracy promotion are winked at.

Report this

By c-post, June 19, 2011 at 8:11 am Link to this comment

Kissinger said it. Power is an aphrodisiac—not to men, but to women. When women smell power and money in a man, that man becomes a target of seduction, married or not.

The REAL question is: WHO in newsrooms chooses to devote all the coverage to such an unimportant, tabloid story? Even the Daily Show has let me down on this one. There are dozens and dozens of more important stories that deserve the daily drubbing Congressman Weiner has been getting. I’d like to see the media cover the Citizens United decision with the same kind of fervor and cynicism. I’d like to see the media cover the human population explosion (the denial of it—the silence is deafening!) and the pivotal role it plays in resource and environment depletion covered with the same kind of daily drumbeat.

In short, the people who choose the news stories in New York and Washington are nuts. The people in Congress are nuts. This country is governed behind the scenes and out of public view by little slips of paper that regulate perceptions as to what is important and what is not. In this way, we are just as corrupt as Mexico or Myanmar or China. We’re just better at hiding that corruption from ourselves, at sweeping it under the rug and ignoring it.

The Congressman Weiner story is one of the tabloid distractions that makes this possible. Focusing on a goddamn penis is dangerously irrelevant in the Huxleyan tradition.

Report this

By Michael Cavlan RN, June 19, 2011 at 8:11 am Link to this comment

As an aside, speaking of the Netroots Nation event. Now I was there and as I stated, it was spectacular.. Sure all the SPEAKERS were Obama/Dem apologists (including Russ Feingold and Van Jones, go figure that out) but the VAST majority of people there were not. In fact Obama’s press guy was booed at it.

Common Dreams had an article about Netroots but I am unable to comment about it.

So, an observation here and a question. Just as Netroots Nation had Obama apologists speakers, even though most people there were not, why does Common Dreams and virtually all the other “progressive blogs” have almost all articles Obama apologists? People like John Nichols of the Nation. Even though many people that post comments there are not. Even Truthdig it must be said.

Is this a case of the progressive golden microphone?

If you have the gold or speak for those who have the gold, you get the “golden microphone.”

Not very “progressive” now, is it? Or are we being played?

Firedoglake on the other hand and the New Progressive Alliance, well that is a very different thing.

Report this
Samson's avatar

By Samson, June 19, 2011 at 7:43 am Link to this comment

Make Love, Not War.

Our nation and the world would be a whole lot better
off if we took the time and money we spent going
around the world to kill people and instead used it
to take pictures of our sexual organs and sent them
to each other in the hopes that maybe we might get
lucky.

I think the rest of the world would appreciate the
‘sexting’ America a whole lot more than the murderous
killing America.

Make Love, Not War.

Report this
Spooky-43's avatar

By Spooky-43, June 19, 2011 at 6:38 am Link to this comment

TO:  SoTexGuy, June 19 at 5:36 am

Yeah, but…......

Just becuase congressman are elected from a certain district does not mean they do not represent the whole nation in certain matters, such as sitting in or chairing certain very powerful committees, who vote on very serious issues, among other things.

I think all citizens have a right to comment critically and influence outcomes regarding issues showing lack of good judgement or honesty when it comes to those in any national office, from their district, or not. 

The fact that he was forced from office by apparently his peers is a justifiable act on their part given the current poor public confidence in congressional performance in general.  I don’t think his fellow congress members are stiffing his constituents when they ask him to resign for the sake of the body as a whole. 

Of course, he was not found guilty of any crime, since it is apparently not a crime to lie in public office, except possibly if you are under oath.  All other times, it is normal and expected that these people are lying, as far as I am concerned, and his sexting is just bad judgement. 

He could have stuck it out and Pelosi’s call for an investigation probably would have added insult to injury to his weak case, so knowing he was considered expendable, he took the best course.  He probably knew what a full blown investigation might have entailed, and he was smart enough to avoid it.  I bet his wife had a lot to say about it.  I don’t think she wanted any part of this. 

It is as simple as that, really.  The man committed a stupid but forgivable act, compounded it exponentially by lying without remorse, (his real problem), and was wise enough to take his peers advice and resign.

Pretty much how a democracy should react to fools, in my opinion.  A lot of countries would take you out back and shoot you.  It’s just too bad we can’t learn to wrap it up in a day or two, instead of a month or two.

Report this

By SoTexGuy, June 19, 2011 at 5:36 am Link to this comment

Weiner is plainly guilty of ‘conduct unbecoming’ of a Congressman.. Not simply the ‘sexting’ but his denials and more. He should not be able to just say sorry and move on. Should he have been forced from office? That issue properly lies with his constituents IMO. That the whole thing so quickly dominated national news and politics strongly suggests he was in fact targeted for ouster.. (that for the conspiracy theorists)..

It’s easy for us to say ‘out with him’! Lacking any clear proof of criminal behavior on his part we really shouldn’t be in the decision of whether or not he should go unless we can vote in his district. There’s precedent for this.. was it Marion Barry who was caught on tape using narcotics in a room full of hookers? and later was reelected?! The results of that poll may say some unpleasant things of his constituency.. but again, it was their decision.

How about looking at it this way.. we already have a limited choice for candidates, especially for national office. So much so that it hardly seems we have a democracy, our potential next President as an example, already being chosen for us a year or more in advance. How does this pre-screening exacerbate the problem of a narrow list of candidates?

A candidate must, among other things; look good in a three-piece suit, play golf, your wife mustn’t look overweight, know how to use a shotgun, been in the military or support our troops loudly enough.. and so on.

Basically if you don’t like guys in suits, think golf is stupid and have an a-hole cousin who is in the military and abandoned his wife and three kids.. maybe you even like plus-sized women? YOU don’t even have a candidate..

I say Weiner is a weiner! So what.. let those people in his district decide.. Of course he just might lose his pensions and perks!

Adios.

Report this

By Tony Vodvarka, June 19, 2011 at 5:19 am Link to this comment

Excellent article!  Rachael Maddow took much the same line on an MSNBC broadcast a couple of days ago.

Report this
monkeymind's avatar

By monkeymind, June 19, 2011 at 4:58 am Link to this comment

...pay no attention to the man behind the curtain….”

this thread done been hijacked by xenophobes and (un)pure-tan-ickles…

ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, can y’all get back on topic? Just a wee bit more at stake here than the questionable path of knuckle walking (maybe) ancestors evolving into John Lobb wearing hedge fund managers vs. the ID crowd. Right? We’re talking about truth. We’re talking about fidelity. We’re talking about taking back the public space before it is all neatly barcoded for a more thrifty transfer to a private domain normal folks can’t get access to without coughing up a sizable sum, or maybe a kidney.

Smoke and mirrors. ID, Darwin, evolution… sports figures twitting private parts, GE / Comcast lobbyist turned corp exec.,it’s all smoke and mirrors. Peter Z, we’re not a nation of Weiners. We don’t all cock twit anymore than we open our London Fogs to little boys and girls doing the up and down on the teeter totter.

Don’t we have the right, the duty to fidelity perhaps, to expect more, better even, from our elected? From ourselves? Not some holier than the next guy kind of better but a better better that provides a foundation on which we can stand tall enough to be heard over the clamorous clowns who distractingly pit us against each other so they can pick our pockets like sideshow hawkers covering for criminal carnies?

“I suppose it’s asking a lot of the same Congress that keeps us in multiple pointless wars and puts our children into debt on behalf of Citigroup to get its priorities straight, and it’s too much to ask America’s cable news networks to stop living for this kind of garbage. But can’t we at least expect more of ourselves?” our author writes.

Huh. You’re ain’t asking much young PZS. Kinda lowered the ethical bar a bit. Kinda got a ‘no child left behind’ version of ‘do the right thing’. (at least you’re asking which is a start and more than most folks do). Reframe the question. Ask again. We can expect more from ourselves (YES WE CAN, I can still hear that phrase echo through the trees of that beautiful Chicago Park). We can cocksurely declare that Weiner’s actions do matter - ‘cause they do, and you know they do too - and then, with that bit of sideshow fun house flimflam gone bye bye we can refocus the same cultural ethic toward the tyranny ripping our country - our world - to shreds.

If we can’t then we are too gone. Just as well trade the rest of what we have left on our pocket full of credit cards for some more tickets and saunter on back down the midway. I hear the bearded lady is particularly hairy this year. I’ll get the corn dogs. You get the Cokes.

Report this
monkeymind's avatar

By monkeymind, June 19, 2011 at 4:55 am Link to this comment

...pay no attention to the man behind the curtain….”

this thread done been hijacked by xenophobes and (un)pure-tan-ickles…

ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, can y’all get back on topic? Just a wee bit more at stake here than the questionable path of knuckle walking (maybe) ancestors evolving into John Lobb wearing hedge fund managers vs. the ID crowd. Right? We’re talking about truth. We’re talking about fidelity. We’re talking about taking back the public space before it is all neatly barcoded for a more thrifty transfer to a private domain normal folks can’t get access to without coughing up a sizable sum, or maybe a kidney.

Smoke and mirrors. ID, Darwin, evolution… sports figures twitting private parts, GE / Comcast lobbyist turned corp exec.,it’s all smoke and mirrors. Peter Z, we’re not a nation of Weiners. We don’t all cock twit anymore than we open our London Fogs to little boys and girls doing the up and down on the teeter totter.

Don’t we have the right, the duty to fidelity perhaps, to expect more, better even, from our elected? From ourselves? Not some holier than the next guy kind of better but a better better that provides a foundation on which we can stand tall enough to be heard over the clamorous clowns who distractingly pit us against each other so they can pick our pockets like sideshow hawkers covering for criminal carnies?

“I suppose it’s asking a lot of the same Congress that keeps us in multiple pointless wars and puts our children into debt on behalf of Citigroup to get its priorities straight, and it’s too much to ask America’s cable news networks to stop living for this kind of garbage. But can’t we at least expect more of ourselves?” our author writes.

Huh. You’re ain’t asking much young PZS. Kinda lowered the ethical bar a bit. Kinda got a ‘no child left behind’ version of ‘do the right thing’. (at least you’re asking which is a start and more than most folks do). Reframe the question. Ask again. We can expect more from ourselves (YES WE CAN, I can still hear that phrase echo through the trees of that beautiful Chicago Park). We can cocksurely declare that Weiner’s actions do matter - ‘cause they do, and you know they do too - and then, with that bit of sideshow fun house flimflam gone bye bye we can refocus the same cultural ethic toward the tyranny ripping our country - our world - to shreds.

If can’t then we are too gone. Just as well trade the rest of what we have left on our pocket full of credit card for some more tickets and saunter on back down the midway. I hear the bearded lady is particularly hairy this year. I’ll get the corn dogs. You get the Cokes.

Report this

By DaveZx3, June 19, 2011 at 2:43 am Link to this comment

By D.R. Zing, June 19 at 2:11 am

You misread my post completely.  I am not writing concerning any validity of biblical creation.  Forget biblical creation, it is not a real concern regarding my post. 

I am writing concerning the abandonment of darwinism by a large chunk of respectable secular scientists due to a complete lack of credible evidence in their professional opinion.  You do understand that some scientists are impartial, evaluating theories solely on the evidence, don’t you?  Some are not afraid of saying that the quality of evidence for natural selection is putrid at best. 

It comes down to pure science and credible evidence, and what real scientists say about it, not what I think or don’t think about anything.  It’s not about what I think or about what you think.  I only want to talk about pure evidence, for and against, as recognized by credible, secular scientists.

The comments came as a response to a poster who compared that lying sack of shit called anthony wiener with a mother of 23 who says they ought to teach “intelligent design” in schools.  Did she say anything about the bible?  NO.  Did I?  No.  You imagine it.  Intelligent design could refer to a race of aliens whoh grew life in a test tube and genetically engineered humanity to the state it is now.  Intelligence does not refer to God, it refers to intelligence, period. 

Don’t dilute my posts with your imagination and poor reading comprehension. 

But I do appreciate your politeness, and I do not mean to be unpolite, if I seem to be at times.

Report this
D.R. Zing's avatar

By D.R. Zing, June 19, 2011 at 2:11 am Link to this comment

To DaveZx3:

The problem with intelligent design is its source is a book of Hebrew mythology known as The Old Testament.  As such it relies on the superstitions of ancient peoples and promotes such superstitions as the words of a deity. 

As for teaching in schools and as your post demonstrates, there is a desperate need for comparative religion classes in public schools as well as a critical need for classes that teach Hebrew and Christian mythology, how they borrowed from other religions, how in the case of the Hebrews the laws served to civilize what was at the time a barbaric people, how in the Christian case The Jesus Incident and its subsequent imaginative embellishments served to solidify the political power of the nascent Catholic Church. 

Reading a book and believing it is the words of a deity mean you don’t understand what you’re reading.  Christianity, particularly the brand that resembles fascism, is replete with examples of Christianity censoring information and killing or ostracizing people who disproved Christian beliefs.

For example, after Galileo invented the telescope and discovered craters on the moon, he encountered fierce resistance from Christian scholars who, based on their Bible studies, believed the moon was part of heaven and therefore perfect in every way.  And so it goes today.

It’s not that you have a problem with evolution; it’s that you have a problem with all science that contradicts your beliefs that the universe was whipped into shape six thousand years ago by a deity. 

Another example of Christian censorship are the metaphysical beliefs of Albert Einstein, who frequently referred to God with a capital G and certainly believed in God.  Only he did not believe in heaven or hell or souls or any kind of individual afterlife. He believed the universe itself was God and understanding the universe entailed understanding the will of God.  Think that one through and it’s pretty interesting. It would validate some the ancient Hebrew laws, such as not committing murder. It would also validate some enlightened views of twenty-first century thinkers, for example, that living in a state of perpetual war against your own species is a recipe for extinction. We need to be teaching Albert Einstein’s metaphysical beliefs as well as his scientific theories in public schools. But fundamentalist Christians simply won’t allow it. 

I feel for you. I really do. It is a form of intellectual abuse to teach children to believe a piece of literature is the work of deity.  And it is terrible that so many children are never exposed to the Bible or any other type of mythology and therefore when they first read the Bible as adults they are befuddled into believing it is something more than a book describing the laws, history, myths, superstitions and quests for power of ancient peoples. 

Think about it please.  You can read The Odyssey by Homer and use its accurate descriptions of geography to map out the landmarks and coast lines of ancient Greece.  But that does not mean the monsters he describes ever existed.  He was creating myth, a mixture of fact and fiction, the product of his ancient imagination.  The Holy Bible does the same thing.

So, by all means, challenge the Theory of Evolution if you feel so compelled.  But base your thoughts on facts and all the new information that has come to light in the last several thousand years—not on the superstitions of ancient peoples. I wish you peace and hope that you can help guide Christianity towards benevolence and enlightenment and away from malevolence and ignorance.

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook