RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 >   
  Topic: A Convenient Untruth< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2007,15:05   

Reading Vanity Fair yesterday, I came across an article about Myron Ebell, an Exxon flunkie paid to muddy the fact of global warming. Halfway through, I was shocked at how the guy was using the same tactics as the ID Creationists, most noticeably the Gish Gallop. So I had a guy scan it to a pdf. Anybody wants to read it, email me, and I'll send it to you. Also, could someone host it somewhere so I can link to it?

   
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 18 2007,07:58   

Something similar

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climate....00.html

The denial industry


For years, a network of fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies has been claiming that science of global warming is inconclusive. They set back action on climate change by a decade. But who funded them? Exxon's involvement is well known, but not the strange role of Big Tobacco. In the first of three extracts from his new book, George Monbiot tells a bizarre and shocking new story

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 18 2007,10:23   

In the UK there has recently been a program called 'The Great Global Warming Swindle', which real climate and some of the sciencebloggers have talked about. The main thesis was that solar activity was resposible for warming, but the data used to show the correlation was outdated and false. When a scientist sent an email to the programs creator to tell him this he responed with:
Quote
You’re a big daft cock
and
Quote
Go and fuck yourself
Obviously a scholar of the highest caliber.

  
nuytsia



Posts: 131
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2007,03:05   

Steve,
pdf is up.
It's here!

   
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2007,09:49   

I believe Mooney's book, The Republican War on Science had quite a bit to say about Mr. Ebell and his tactics.  You've read that, right Steve?

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2007,16:23   

Quote (GCT @ April 20 2007,10:49)
I believe Mooney's book, The Republican War on Science had quite a bit to say about Mr. Ebell and his tactics.  You've read that, right Steve?

Haven't read it. I've read a lot of blog, NYT, and magazine articles covering similar ground, but not that book.

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2007,17:07   

and this has what to do with evolution?

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2007,17:12   

Quote (skeptic @ April 20 2007,18:07)
and this has what to do with evolution?

Read the OP.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2007,17:46   

It's really interesting how similar these two kinds of science denial are:

1 Spokesmen who have no science training
2 citing unpublished studies from each other
3 flat out lying about what research says
4 Gish Galloping from argument to argument in rapid fire
5 while actual scientists say things like 'that's absolutely wrong'

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2007,18:00   

Quote (stevestory @ April 20 2007,16:23)
Quote (GCT @ April 20 2007,10:49)
I believe Mooney's book, The Republican War on Science had quite a bit to say about Mr. Ebell and his tactics.  You've read that, right Steve?

Haven't read it. I've read a lot of blog, NYT, and magazine articles covering similar ground, but not that book.

Run, don't walk, to the nearest bookstore and buy a copy.

Buy TWO copies, and give one to your local library.

It is very very very good.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2007,18:06   

Quote (skeptic @ April 20 2007,17:07)
and this has what to do with evolution?

Quite a bit, actually.  As Moody illustrates so well in his book, the Republicrat Party is indeed, like the IDers, waging a war on science.  The global-warming-deniers, the evolution-deniers, the anti-regulation folks, the "wise use" anti-environmentalists, the anti-FDA-ers, all have the same tactics, the same methodology, the same funding patterns, and the same political connections to the same Republicrat apparatchiks.

They are simply different facets of the same movement -- a movement that centers firmly in the Bush Administration and its high-level extremist ideologues.


I know, I know, Skeptic --- it's all just a big liberal conspiracy theory.  Like, ya know, Iraqi WMD's and torturing prisoners in Cuba.

Don't worry your little head about it.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2007,18:19   

Quote (stevestory @ April 20 2007,17:46)
It's really interesting how similar these two kinds of science denial are:

1 Spokesmen who have no science training
2 citing unpublished studies from each other
3 flat out lying about what research says
4 Gish Galloping from argument to argument in rapid fire
5 while actual scientists say things like 'that's absolutely wrong'

Well, their basic tactic is quite simple:  political influence trumps science.

Alas, once again I see lots of the new people here who are missing the point entirely about ID.  People here are still arguing with the IDers over "science" and whether ID is or isn't "science".

But this fight simply isn't ABOUT science.   The ID/creationists are not concerned in the slightest about scientific questions, or about correctly interpreting data, or about forming better explanations and understanding of the natural world. Instead, creationism/ID is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the fundamentalist Religious Right—ID is a theocratic political movement, not a scientific one, and its goals are entirely religious and political, not scientific. The ID/creationists are a part of a larger political movement with radical theocratic aims, and their anti-evolution and anti-science efforts are, as they themselves declare, simply the “wedge issue” which they have chosen in order to gain entry for their wider anti-democratic theocratic political agenda.

They do not want to DO science --- they want to have political influence REPLACE science.

That is why all the "science arguments" with ID/creationists (or global warming deniers, or people who are against FDA regulations, or people who want to weaken or repeal the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act and other environmental regulations) do no good whatsoever.  "Science" is simply irrelevant to the real fight.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2007,20:36   

Lenny, I always find it amusing when I listen to your rant because in my world the threat to personal freedoms and individual autonomy comes from the lunatic left.  How ironic.

And, for the record, the problem I have with the global warming movement is the hysteria and the utter lack of perspective.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2007,21:05   

Quote (skeptic @ April 20 2007,20:36)
Lenny, I always find it amusing when I listen to your rant because in my world the threat to personal freedoms and individual autonomy comes from the lunatic left.  How ironic.

And, for the record, the problem I have with the global warming movement is the hysteria and the utter lack of perspective.

Just what "Lunatic left" do you see?

I am correct in saying you come from the US, yes?

If this is incorrect I do appologise, but if it IS correct may I inform you there IS no left in the US at all. Just varying shades of the right wing and a few centralists who get branded as "Left" because everything else is so skewed.

Sure, there's one or two leftists in the legislature, and a small number within the electorate, but they have sod all voice, because anything even SLIGHTLY approaching REAL left wing politics is shouted down as being communistic. As a student of international politics I've studied US policy in detail, and the closest thing you EVER had to a left winger since the second world war was JFK, and he got shot.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2007,22:29   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ April 20 2007,21:05)
Quote (skeptic @ April 20 2007,20:36)
Lenny, I always find it amusing when I listen to your rant because in my world the threat to personal freedoms and individual autonomy comes from the lunatic left.  How ironic.

And, for the record, the problem I have with the global warming movement is the hysteria and the utter lack of perspective.

Just what "Lunatic left" do you see?

I am correct in saying you come from the US, yes?

If this is incorrect I do appologise, but if it IS correct may I inform you there IS no left in the US at all. Just varying shades of the right wing and a few centralists who get branded as "Left" because everything else is so skewed.

Sure, there's one or two leftists in the legislature, and a small number within the electorate, but they have sod all voice, because anything even SLIGHTLY approaching REAL left wing politics is shouted down as being communistic. As a student of international politics I've studied US policy in detail, and the closest thing you EVER had to a left winger since the second world war was JFK, and he got shot.

You and Lenny should have a wonderful conversation.  Just to be clear, though, today JFK would be a centrist republican not a lefty.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2007,04:26   

Quote (skeptic @ April 20 2007,22:29)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ April 20 2007,21:05)
Quote (skeptic @ April 20 2007,20:36)
Lenny, I always find it amusing when I listen to your rant because in my world the threat to personal freedoms and individual autonomy comes from the lunatic left.  How ironic.

And, for the record, the problem I have with the global warming movement is the hysteria and the utter lack of perspective.

Just what "Lunatic left" do you see?

I am correct in saying you come from the US, yes?

If this is incorrect I do appologise, but if it IS correct may I inform you there IS no left in the US at all. Just varying shades of the right wing and a few centralists who get branded as "Left" because everything else is so skewed.

Sure, there's one or two leftists in the legislature, and a small number within the electorate, but they have sod all voice, because anything even SLIGHTLY approaching REAL left wing politics is shouted down as being communistic. As a student of international politics I've studied US policy in detail, and the closest thing you EVER had to a left winger since the second world war was JFK, and he got shot.

You and Lenny should have a wonderful conversation.  Just to be clear, though, today JFK would be a centrist republican not a lefty.

That's my point exactly.

Anyway, tell me how many years you've taken to studying American politics, please. I'm fascinated to hear it.

In the UK we have a political philosophy called Socialism. I spoke to a fair few of my friends across the pond about this and virtually all of them said it was just communism under another name. ####, one person I spoke to said the NHS was communistic. Anything even remotely left is considered "Liberal" even though thats a severe abuse of the word, and the politicians who say they are liberal are mostly fence sitters, or come from places where the right wing is really, really weak.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2007,05:00   

Ian, I doubt you can call yourself a liberal commie in your sig- the two positions are mutually exclusive.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2007,05:00   

Quote (skeptic @ April 20 2007,20:36)
Lenny, I always find it amusing when I listen to your rant because in my world the threat to personal freedoms and individual autonomy comes from the lunatic left.  

All five of them huh.

(snicker)  (giggle)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2007,05:04   

Quote (skeptic @ April 20 2007,20:36)
Lenny, I always find it amusing when I listen to your rant because in my world the threat to personal freedoms and individual autonomy comes from the lunatic left.  How ironic.

Just a quick question for you, "Skeptic":

To the nearest one hundred, how many people have the, uh, "lunatic left" in the US imprisoned indefinitely without charges, without habeus corpus, without judicial review, based on secret evidence obtained through torture?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2007,05:09   

Quote (skeptic @ April 20 2007,20:36)
And, for the record, the problem I have with the global warming movement is the hysteria and the utter lack of perspective.

As opposed to the, uh, "global war on terror", huh.  (snicker)  (giggle)

But by golly, you're right, "Skeptic".  After all, global warming will only displace most of the world's population, create massive refugee problems, disrupt the entire global economy, and cause several nations to literally disappear under water.  Not to mention remove the entire polar and sub-polar ecosystems.

No need to get all excited about that, huh.  We just need to keep a little, uh, perspective, right?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2007,06:14   

Quote (guthrie @ April 21 2007,05:00)
Ian, I doubt you can call yourself a liberal commie in your sig- the two positions are mutually exclusive.

Thats the point. I've taken the insults that get thrown at left wingers like myself to the extreme.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2007,06:19   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 21 2007,05:04)
Quote (skeptic @ April 20 2007,20:36)
Lenny, I always find it amusing when I listen to your rant because in my world the threat to personal freedoms and individual autonomy comes from the lunatic left.  How ironic.

Just a quick question for you, "Skeptic":

To the nearest one hundred, how many people have the, uh, "lunatic left" in the US imprisoned indefinitely without charges, without habeus corpus, without judicial review, based on secret evidence obtained through torture?

Now now Lenny, that's a LIE created by the commies who run the media (apart from good ol' Fox) in the fair country of the US of A, where everyone is happy and there's no undercurrent of xenophobia or anti-left wing sentiment AT ALL.



Too much sarcasm?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2007,07:22   

Now now lennie, I wouldnt say displace most of the worlds population.  Just enough, (Probably tens to huindreds of millions) to make life unpleasant for the rest of us.  In the next few decades its not the sea level rise we have to worry about, its the ocntinued ecosystem destruction and changes in rainfall across wide areas, and the lack of snow in some areas leading to lower river water levels.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2007,07:35   

in the UK there is talk of re-nationalising the railways because the private companies are making such a mess of it and are still getting taxpayer money for it. And quite right, it should never have been sold off in the first place. I simply cannot imagine something similar happening in the USA, market is king and all that. Has it ever?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2007,08:54   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ April 21 2007,06:19)
Now now Lenny, that's a LIE created by the commies who run the media (apart from good ol' Fox) in the fair country of the US of A, where everyone is happy and there's no undercurrent of xenophobia or anti-left wing sentiment AT ALL.



Too much sarcasm?

Well, you don't have to tell me--- I've been a commie since I was 16.  I'm a former co-chair of the General Executive Board of the IWW.    :)

You might like to check out:

http://www.geocities.com/lflank/marxindex.html

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2007,09:01   

Quote (guthrie @ April 21 2007,05:00)
Ian, I doubt you can call yourself a liberal commie in your sig- the two positions are mutually exclusive.

Actually, they aren't . . .  Certainly the Leninists, in all their various forms, have nothing to do with democracy or liberalism.  But back between the World Wars, there was a movement within Marxism called "council communism" (one of its leading spokesmen was the Dutch astronomer Anton Pannekoek, who has a crater on the moon named after him), which attempted to fight the centralized Leninist Party and all of the Party's repression, to remove the Party from power, and to decentralize economic and political power radically, down to local workers councils elected and run directly by the local populations.  

Most of the Council Communists were, of course, shot by the Leninists.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2007,09:06   

Quote (guthrie @ April 21 2007,07:22)
Now now lennie, I wouldnt say displace most of the worlds population.  Just enough, (Probably tens to huindreds of millions) to make life unpleasant for the rest of us.  In the next few decades its not the sea level rise we have to worry about, its the ocntinued ecosystem destruction and changes in rainfall across wide areas, and the lack of snow in some areas leading to lower river water levels.

Well, IIRC, most of the world's populations lives along the coastlines. . . .

And yes, the ecological changes would be devestating.  The US, for instance, would no longer have a climate suitable for growing wheat or corn, and would have to import most of its grain, like it currently imports most of its oil.

Which means we'd probably invade Canada for their wheatfields.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2007,09:18   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 21 2007,07:35)
in the UK there is talk of re-nationalising the railways because the private companies are making such a mess of it and are still getting taxpayer money for it. And quite right, it should never have been sold off in the first place. I simply cannot imagine something similar happening in the USA, market is king and all that. Has it ever?

Well, of course, the corporados are all in favor of "socialism" -- when it benefits THEM.

You never do see corporate officers arguing in favor of giving back all their government subsidies and tax breaks and "price supports" and all the other welfare-for-the-rich that they get, and arguing instead that the "free market" should be allowed to take care of it . . . . .

Heck, even now we are starting to see major corporations like Walmart and General Motors, arguing in favor of a taxpayer-funded national health care system (ya know, the very same kind that they rejected as "communist" back in the 50's and 60's).  

Why?  Simple -- they know that the pressure for universal health care coverage is now irresistable, and THEY don't want to have to pay for it.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2007,09:33   

Just for "Skeptic's" comfort, I'll post a nice rant against the Democans, too:

The problem is that the, uh, "opposition" party in the US is embracing most of the neocon agenda and accepting it as a "given". The neocons, in a nutshell, want the US to dominate the world, politically, militarily and economically. And the Democan leadership does not reject that goal — they simply disagree with the harsh unilateral neocon methods of implementing it.

The Democan leadership did not oppose the Iraq war, it simply thought Bush was bungling the job, and they originally wanted to send MORE troops to, as they put it, "get the job done". The Democan leadership allowed Ned Lamont to twist in the wind, and gave virtually no support to the antiwar movement until it was FORCED to, kicking and screaming the entire time.  And indeed the Democan leadership's "support" of the antiwar movement STILL remains largely verbal, with virtually no effective practical steps taken to actually end the war and bring the troops home.  And the reason is simple --- the Democan leadership has never been against the war.  The Democan leadership not only supported the war, but utterly opposed those people in its own ranks who were against the war, until forced to modify its position by insurgent campaigns like Lamont's and by the massive groundswell of popular opposition to the war (65% or so of Americans being against the war).

The Democan leadership also doesn’t oppose the globalization (read "Americanization") of the world economy — they simply think the neocons are clumsily implementing it and provoking too much hostility and resistance, where a "kinder, gentler" approach is required.

To both Democans and Republicrats, the very idea that perhaps the US has no inherent right whatsoever to run the world as it sees fit, is met with the very same incomprehending blank stare.  They both simply treat the US's inherent right to dominate the world as a "given" that doesn't NEED to be explained or justified. We are, after all, "the world's only remaining superpower".  We won the global power struggle, fair and square.  To the victor go the spoils.  The Democans won't do anything to change that. They'll just be less openly belligerent about it.

Back in the days of slavery, there were two contending schools of thought as to how best to control the slaves. One school of thought was to work them as hard as possible, and simply beat or kill anyone who objected. That is the Republicrat view of the world. The other school of thought was to feed your slaves well, treat them well, and make them like you so they worked hard for you. That is the Democan view of the world. If you suggest to them, however, that perhaps they shouldn't be masters over their slaves, both of them would laugh at you. That is the American view of the world.

The US, whether run by Democans or Republicrats,
simply will not leave the Middle East or give up control over it until we are guaranteed control of its oil. It's the only reason we are there. We can't afford to not have it. Since the US can't compete anymore economically, the only way we can continue to dominate is through raw naked military power. And every tank that rolls, every jet that flies, every naval taskforce that sails, is utterly totally completely absolutely dependent upon one thing --- oil. Our dominant position in the world depends utterly on a steady supply of cheap oil. Neither the Democans nor the Republicrats are willing to give up our dominant position in the world -- indeed, both want to expand it. So they will do anything -- absolutely anything at all --- to maintain the flow of cheap oil. They have no choice.  Governments come and go --- but INTERESTS remain the same.

Once that global warming kicks in and the US can no longer grow its own food, you can add "wheat" to the list of things that the US must control militarily if it is to survive as "the only remaining superpower".  And that interest, too, will remain the same, whether it's Democans or Republicrats in charge.

Both Democans and Republicrats share the same goal and the same interests —- they both want the US to run things, unquestioned and unhindered.  When the US says "Shit", they want the rest of the world to automatically ask "What color?"  It is only in their preferred methods of implementing that goal that they differ. I want to see just how much of the neocon agenda the Democans actually REPEAL once they take power. Unfortunately, I don't expect them to repeal much of it at all -- the Democan leadership doesn't actually REJECT the neocon agenda, they just want to be kinder and gentler about implementing it. Carrot vs stick.

I reject that goal itself, right from the start. And, alas, neither the Democans nor the Republicrats seem to be compatible with that view.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2007,10:19   

Quote (skeptic @ April 20 2007,22:29)
 Just to be clear, though, today JFK would be a centrist republican not a lefty.

Actually, "Skeptic", just to be MORE clear, JFK was wholly in favor of the separation of church and state, and therefore would not be welcome in the Republicrat Party.

In 1995, a resolution was introduced that would add a statement to the Texas Republican Party’s state platform, “The Republican Party is not a church . . . A Republican should never be put in the position of having to defend or explain his faith in order to participate in the party process.”  That resolution was defeated.

Instead, by 2002, the Texas Republican Party Platform declared: “Our Party pledges to do everything within its power to dispel the myth of separation of church and state.”


I'm a little curious, "Skeptic" --- do you think people who favor the separation of church and state are, uh, "lunatic lefties" . . . . ?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2007,12:07   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 20 2007,17:00)
 
Quote (stevestory @ April 20 2007,16:23)
   
Quote (GCT @ April 20 2007,10:49)
I believe Mooney's book, The Republican War on Science had quite a bit to say about Mr. Ebell and his tactics.  You've read that, right Steve?

Haven't read it. I've read a lot of blog, NYT, and magazine articles covering similar ground, but not that book.

Run, don't walk, to the nearest bookstore and buy a copy.

Buy TWO copies, and give one to your local library.

It is very very very good.

I just want to interject something here - it still costs the library money to process a book that's donated - you may want to speak to the Acquisitions department first and make sure that they have not already ordered the book and are not backlogged with cataloging, etc. As with anything, the library has a public side and behind-the-scenes workers, and the reference librarian who deals with the public may not be aware of what has been purchased, what will be, what the library can take in, etc. Most libraries have policies about donations - find out what they are first, or your donated book will end up in the attached bookstore.

That said, I do want to say something about the American Left (what's left of it).

At least from my point of view it consists largely of women who agree with me on politics and can articulate why, but also agree with me on science and evolution and global warming but can't articulate why.

There's an enormous peer-pressure for women to believe in New Agey stuff that is acceptable to the left wing: chakras, feng sheui, ESP, stuff like that. I'm very cautious about dismissing things like accupuncture and pilates but it's almost unacceptable for a woman to be perceived as very left-brained, like me. There's irrational fear of genetically modified foods, etc. However, there is not the conspiratorial power here, with think-tanks and big money funders as on the right.

Let's face it, superstition is a big, big problem in America, and it cuts across traditional divisions. Look at Oprah, the garbage that she features, the horrible pop psychology on which I, incredibly, agree with Denyse O'Leary about. Crap, this Dr. Phil cult is practically a religion itself. Remember how popular the New Age was about 10-15 years ago? Now it's gotten channeled into reactionary Christianity. But as far as I'm concerned, all of these people are using the same techniques as the evolution-deniers and the global warming conspiracists. The 9/11 conspiracists, as I've repeatedly stressed to MN Athests (some of whom are attracted to the idea of a conspiracy), are using the same argument from incredulity that intelligent design theorists use. The science is just not there to support a conspiracy. It did not happen, and I feel like I'm the one who must put my foot down and say that if we believe in the scientific method, we believe in it even when it exonerates the worst president ever from a charge that he ordered the deaths of thousands of Americans. We must accept the science wherever it leads us, or we stand for nothing.

Sorry to rant but I do feel pressure to believe garbage from both sides, and I do think there is a lot of irrationality on the left, though like Lenny I think one side has a lot more control and power than the other. ####, "The Global Warming Swindle" showed scenes of protestors while the voice-over talked about the money to be made from this "publicity machine," and I thought sarcastically, "You mean somebody should be paying me for all my protesting?" Give me a break - it's Exxon that's making the money.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2007,12:35   

Quote (Kristine @ April 21 2007,12:07)
Let's face it, superstition is a big, big problem in America, and it cuts across traditional divisions. Look at Oprah, the garbage that she features, the horrible pop psychology on which I, incredibly, agree with Denyse O'Leary about. Crap, this Dr. Phil cult is practically a religion itself. Remember how popular the New Age was about 10-15 years ago? Now it's gotten channeled into reactionary Christianity. But as far as I'm concerned, all of these people are using the same techniques as the evolution-deniers and the global warming conspiracists. The 9/11 conspiracists, as I've repeatedly stressed to MN Athests (some of whom are attracted to the idea of a conspiracy), are using the same argument from incredulity that intelligent design theorists use. The science is just not there to support a conspiracy. It did not happen, and I feel like I'm the one who must put my foot down and say that if we believe in the scientific method, we believe in it even when it exonerates the worst president ever from a charge that he ordered the deaths of thousands of Americans. We must accept the science wherever it leads us, or we stand for nothing.

You can't imagine how many "left-wing" forums I've been kicked out of, for pointing out that all their "animal rights" and "frankenfood" and "New Age touchie-feelie" and "Native American energies" and "alternative healing" stuff is a big steaming pile of cow shit.

Even the vegans don't like it when I point out that those veggies they are munching on are alive because they were fertilized by the dead rotted corpses of an animal who died a painful frightened death.

There are indeed many on the "left" (such as it is) that I would fight awfully hard to keep as far away from real political power as possible.  They are every bit as much in need of a fourth grade science education as are the fundies and the John-Bircher-types.

As for the extremist atheists, well, I guess everyone knows the story between me and PZ.  (I suspect it's about to flair up again, since we ran into each other over at Daily Kos . . . . )

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2007,13:06   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 21 2007,11:35)
You can't imagine how many "left-wing" forums I've been kicked out of, for pointing out that all their "animal rights" and "frankenfood" and "New Age touchie-feelie" and "Native American energies" and "alternative healing" stuff is a big steaming pile of cow shit.

I'm glad I'm not the only one.

It's a relief to even talk about this. The atheist gals at work still believe in astrology. What?

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 21 2007,11:35)
They are every bit as much in need of a fourth grade science education as are the fundies and the John-Bircher-types.


THANK YOU!!!

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 21 2007,11:35)
As for the extremist atheists, well, I guess everyone knows the story between me and PZ.  (I suspect it's about to flair up again, since we ran into each other over at Daily Kos . . . . )

Oh, dear. I really like PZ, and you, and Pat Hayes, and Ed Brayton, and these battles are painful for me. Oh well, I'll let you two duke it out, while I stand on the sidelines and clasp my hands together (oh yeah, I'm not fooling anybody here).  :)

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2007,14:12   

Quote (Kristine @ April 21 2007,13:06)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 21 2007,11:35)
You can't imagine how many "left-wing" forums I've been kicked out of, for pointing out that all their "animal rights" and "frankenfood" and "New Age touchie-feelie" and "Native American energies" and "alternative healing" stuff is a big steaming pile of cow shit.

I'm glad I'm not the only one.

Not by a longshot.

Just two weeks ago, some guy who runs a "leftist science" list (called LifeSci or something like that), invited all the members of my DebunkCreation list to join.  He had no idea what he was in for.  A dozen or so of us dropped in, shredded all his "animal rights" crapola (along with some ESP-nutter's crapola), and within the week all had our posting privileges revoked.

Of such people, are Communist Party kommissars made.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2007,14:30   

Quote (Kristine @ April 21 2007,12:07)
The 9/11 conspiracists, as I've repeatedly stressed to MN Athests (some of whom are attracted to the idea of a conspiracy), are using the same argument from incredulity that intelligent design theorists use.

The 9-11 kooks remind me a lot of the kooks who argue that the US knew all along about the Pearl Harbor attack, but allowed it to happen anyway as an excuse to get into the war.

In both cases, I see a heavy element of racism and an implicit assumption of American-superiority.  In both cases, the essence of the argument seems to be that the opponents (whether the Japanese or the Islamics) are simply too stupid and backwards to ever put one over on us great white Americans, and therefore the only way it could have happened is if the US knew about it all along and "allowed" it to happen anyway.

The real explanation -- that those nonwhite foreign people that we look down upon, formulated a very good tactical plan and executed it with skill and daring(*) -- just seems "un-American" to them.

(As an aside, it seems to me that this very same notion lies behind the inability of the lunatic rightwingers to admit that the mighty US is currently getting its ass whupped in Iraq, by what the rightwingers have long viewed as nothing but a bunch of uneducated unsophisticated superstitious camel-herders.   And indeed, looking back, that also seems to be the reason why the rightwingers insist so loudly that the US wouldn't have lost to all those rice-farmers in Vietnam if our heroic military hadn't been "stabbed in the back" by the pinko liberal commies in the government back home ------ a cry that was, of course, made a few decades earlier by yet another rightwing lunatic, in Europe . . . .)



(*) -- I should not have any need to point this out, but I will anyway (are you listening, "Skeptic"?) ---- this does NOT, repeat NOT, as in N-O-T, imply in any way whatsoever that I approve of, condone, applaud, or in any other way say anything positive whatsoever, about the aims and goals of either the Japanese or the Muslims who formed those plans.

Nevertheless, whether one likes them or not, one simply has to note that, in both cases, they carried out their plans with enough skill to catch the most powerful nation in the world with its pants completely around its ankles.  And they did it with just a tiny fraction of the military, economic and social resources available to the US government.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2007,14:48   

oh, Lenny, I still find you amusing even when you have no idea what you're talking about.  I mean this in specific regard to you assumptions as to what I think so don't think that I don't value some of your opinions.  

In the case of the Japanese, it was an expertly planned and executed attack and entirely justified based upon their strategic goals.  It was actually only by dumb luck that we were able to rebound at a later point or the battle for the South Pacific would have been entirely different.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2007,14:53   

Quote (skeptic @ April 21 2007,14:48)
oh, Lenny, I still find you amusing even when you have no idea what you're talking about.  

Says you.  (shrug)

I notice though that, as in every other post you've ever made, you don't actually present any, ya know, FACTS, to back up any of your idiotic assertions (about anything).

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2007,15:07   

Quote (skeptic @ April 21 2007,14:48)
 It was actually only by dumb luck that we were able to rebound at a later point or the battle for the South Pacific would have been entirely different.

Um, no.

Thanks for demonstrating that your knowledge of history is . . . well . .  about as good as your knowledge of everything else.

The Japanese knew, right from the start, that they could not defeat the US.  They knew, even before Pearl Harbor, that they simply could not win a war against the US.  As Yamamoto said, he could run rampant for six months, then the inevitable would happen.  He was right, almost exactly to the day -- the Japanese reversal at Midway occurred on June 4, 1942, three days short of the six-month anniversary of Pearl Harbor.

The Japanese were outmatched in every way, and they knew it.  It was not "dumb luck" that beat them, nor could the war have ended "entirely differently".  Once American industrial capacity started in, there was zero chance for a Japanese victory, and they knew it.  What they hoped for was that crippling the American fleet at the outset would buy them enough time to build a strong defensive ring around their new conquests, which would then cause so many casualties that the Americans would prefer to negotiate a peace settlement, which would allow Japan to keep its most valuable conquests (and for the most part, the entire aim of the war was to allow Japan to capture the oil fields in the Dutch East Indies, and the rubber resources in southeast Asia).

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2007,21:55   

You need to go back and read about the battle of Midway.  If after that you still think the US fleet was not lucky then...well I'm not sure what I can say about that level of bias.

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2007,23:11   

Hi Skeptic,

You missed the point.  Even after the devastation at Pearl Harbor and losses from every other major engagement (Java Sea and Coral Sea) the Americans still had a significant carrier force for the Midway encounter when they should have had practically none.  If they lost Midway, we would have been ready for the next battle, and the next, and the next...  Eventually, one of these battles would have been the turning point of the war.  Japan simply could not win a war of attrition against the United States.

Think about it.  Tiny Japan, mostly agrarian, with remains of feudalism against the giant United States’ capitalism with all kinds of factories (consider the automobile factories alone), an extensive train system with large rivers and an obscenely long coastline.

It wasn’t “if” it was just a matter of “when” the United States was going to win. Yamamoto predicted six months.  He was right.  Considering the fact Pearl Harbor’s dry docks were left intact on Dec 7th, taking a whole six months was almost shameful for the United States.

Sorry if I stole your thunder Lenny, but I am an old-time war gamer.  Which reminds me, the United States has won Midway in any realistic replay I have participated in or witnessed.  I liked the movie too and we were, indeed, lucky to do as well as we did but it would have taken a lot of unluck to for us to lose.  Remember the Japanese had to protect their transports.  They were the ones attacking a fortified island that had guns and planes of its own.  Our two carrier task forces had surprise.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2007,23:13   

Quote (skeptic @ April 21 2007,21:55)
You need to go back and read about the battle of Midway.  If after that you still think the US fleet was not lucky then...well I'm not sure what I can say about that level of bias.

(sigh)  You didn't understand a single word I said, didja, "Skeptic" . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2007,23:24   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ April 21 2007,23:11)
Hi Skeptic,

You missed the point.  Even after the devastation at Pearl Harbor and losses from every other major engagement (Java Sea and Coral Sea) the Americans still had a significant carrier force for the Midway encounter when they should have had practically none.  If they lost Midway, we would have been ready for the next battle, and the next, and the next...  Eventually, one of these battles would have been the turning point of the war.  Japan simply could not win a war of attrition against the United States.

Exactly.

During the entire war, Japan built 20 aircraft carriers.  The US built *137*.  The Japanese produced a total of roughly 76,000 aircraft during the entire war --- the US produced almost 325,000.

Even if the Japanese had sunk all three US carriers at Midway and not lost so much as a single airplane of their own, it would only have delayed the inevitable for a few months.  After all, Yamamoto planned to destroy the  *entire US carrier force*  at Pearl Harbor before the war even started -- and he STILL realized that he would inevitably lose anyway after six months.

Skeptic's knowledge of history is on a par with his knowledge of . . . well . . . everything else.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2007,23:29   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ April 21 2007,23:11)
Sorry if I stole your thunder Lenny, but I am an old-time war gamer.  

I too am a longtime wargamer, since the days of Avalon Hill and their little cardboard cutouts.   ;)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2007,00:04   

Hi Lenny,
If you didn't catch my earlier hints, I am 50ish (ok, ok, I am over 50).

Have you ever had the "pleasure" of playing GDW's Drang Nach Osten and Unentschieden?

Talk about tiny cardboard pieces.  I describe it as WWII, Eastern Front with the original cast.  I forget the pilot's name, but they had a special, individual counter for him because, historically, he was such a good ace.

So, to rub it in for Skeptic, the Japanese generally lost Midway one of two ways, either the player was too aggressive and got his (no women played, we all smelled too bad) transports sunk or lost in detail by getting the lead carrier group crippled so badly it forced a retreat (as happened in the real battle).

I suppose it's possible for someone could play the Americans so poorly the Japanese would win.  There have been multiple times at conventions where the side that can't possibly lose, does.  I never played Midway at a convention and at home we were too evenly matched.

It's been fun reminiscing, thanks. :D

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2007,00:19   

Hahahahahahahahaha

Skeptic is stupid and a do do head.

Man..... if that's the best of the breathtakingly inane cheer leading crowd supporting the Neocons then Skeptic can just declare defeat in Iraq now.

How does that feel Skeptic?

Let me guess.....Deja Vietnam?

What did they call 'Surges' in those days? Oh oh, pick me, pick me ......'Escalation' miss! Thats right class.

Those who ignore history are doomed to.....how does that go again Skeptic?

Hint..... you actually have to study history first.

The Shrub would have had trouble fitting that up his nose ...right?


BTW where is all the evidence that Iraq was full of Al Queda terrorists before 2003 that Mr. Cheney claimed last week was a 'justification' for the invasion?

Now I see who Cheney was talking to, someone so stupid there was around a 30% chance he might be believed.

Skeptic just for the exercise go and have a look at the 'justification' Hitler gave for invading Poland in 1939
You might find it enlightening.

PS For an additional gold star compare and contrast Hitlers "Liebenstraum"* with GWB's pals desire for cheap foreign oil.

*edit: "=living room" + correct spelling mistake

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2007,00:40   

Lenny, do you even know what an aircraft carrier is?  I think I see 33 here but maybe that adds up to 137 for you.

wwII aircraft carriers

I'm sure you have a reason why you're right because you know everything about everything.  What is that reason, please?  Just so I don't lose faith in your knowledge.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2007,02:33   

Quote (skeptic @ April 22 2007,08:40)
Lenny, do you even know what an aircraft carrier is?  I think I see 33 here but maybe that adds up to 137 for you.

wwII aircraft carriers

I'm sure you have a reason why you're right because you know everything about everything.  What is that reason, please?  Just so I don't lose faith in your knowledge.

.....ncht.

" D'oh ......do you no how to spell airport carreer?"

Bwhahahahahahahahahhaha


Skeptic the 13 year old biochemist or whateva shows Dave Tard to be a genius by comparison.

A googlologist of outstanding peer.


Quote
In all, 130 escort carriers were launched or converted during the war. Of these, six were British conversions of merchant ships: HMS Audacity, HMS Nairana, HMS Campania, HMS Activity, HMS Pretoria Castle and HMS Vindex. The remaining escort carriers were US-built. Like the British, the first US escort carriers were converted merchant vessels (or in the Sangamon class, converted military oilers). Later carriers were built using the hulls of Liberty Ships not yet finished but already in various stages of construction. The last 69 escort carriers of the Casablanca and Commencement Bay classes were purpose-designed and purpose-built carriers drawing on the experience gained with the previous classes.

Escort aircraft carrier

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2007,07:51   

Quote (skeptic @ April 22 2007,00:40)
Lenny, do you even know what an aircraft carrier is?

"Skeptic", do you even know what a "jeep carrier" is?  HINT:  It has nothing to do with Willeys.

(sigh)  No WONDER nobody takes you seriously, "Skeptic".

Is it some sort of requirement that ALL fundies have an irresistable urge to demonstrate their ignorance publicly?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2007,07:55   

(snicker)

This is what happens when someone actually knows what they're talking about and has , maybe, served in the Navy as opposed to relying on Wikipedia and little cardboard cutouts.  Oh well, I'm not really surprised.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2007,08:06   

Let's play a little game. It's called "would the Germans have overrun the UK had it not been for the US?"

Simply answer the question to see if you win a special prize!

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Bing



Posts: 144
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2007,08:10   

Quote (skeptic @ April 22 2007,07:55)
This is what happens when someone actually knows what they're talking about and has , maybe, served in the Navy as opposed to relying on Wikipedia and little cardboard cutouts.

Flipping sliders in the enlisted's mess does not count.  Say again, "Do you want fries with that Petty Officer?"  Takes you back, doesn't it?

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2007,08:24   

Quote (skeptic @ April 22 2007,07:55)
(snicker)

This is what happens when someone actually knows what they're talking about and has , maybe, served in the Navy as opposed to relying on Wikipedia and little cardboard cutouts.  Oh well, I'm not really surprised.

OK, admiral.

(snicker)  (giggle)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2007,08:30   

BTW, Skeptic, I long ago noticed that the most bellicose rightwingers (particularly those who make a point of bragging about their military service) are invariably those who never heard a shot fired in anger. (Like, ya know, DaveTard.)(*)

Is that true in your case, too?



(*)  As an aside, I would point to all the Bush Administration members who served in the military and never heard a shot fired in anger --- but alas, most of them managed to avoid military service to begin with.  "Chickenhawks", I believe is the proper term.  (snicker)  (giggle)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2007,08:36   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ April 22 2007,08:06)
Let's play a little game. It's called "would the Germans have overrun the UK had it not been for the US?"

Number of Americans involved in stopping the sea lion:  zero.  

;)

Alas, most Americans think we won the war single-handedly.  They haven't a clue that fewer than half of the troops who went ashore on D-Day were Americans, or that more than two-thirds of German casualties and losses were inflicted by the Russians, or that most of the bomb tonnage dropped on Germany during the war was dropped from Lancasters, not from B-17's.

Indeed, to this day, many of the "Amerika Ober Alles" flagwavers get all pissed off when I point out those simple facts.

"Skeptic", that's your cue . . . . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2007,08:41   

Sadly Lenny, your guess was, I believe, wrong. A few Americans who didn't like the stace of the US at the time joined volunteer fighter corps, and flew in a number of mission defending British soil, along with Poles, Norwegians, French and many other nations who had been overrun.

But in essentials, you were right, so you're prize is...getting to make fun of Skeptic some more.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2007,08:45   

Quote (skeptic @ April 22 2007,15:55)
(snicker)

This is what happens when someone actually knows what they're talking about and has , maybe, served in the Navy as opposed to relying on Wikipedia and little cardboard cutouts.  Oh well, I'm not really surprised.

So you learnt your history in the Navy?

No wonder you're such a font of knowledge.

Where did they fit that in? Between buggery and bugleing?

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2007,08:47   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ April 22 2007,08:41)
Sadly Lenny, your guess was, I believe, wrong. A few Americans who didn't like the stace of the US at the time joined volunteer fighter corps, and flew in a number of mission defending British soil, along with Poles, Norwegians, French and many other nations who had been overrun.

Ah, yes.   There were indeed several Americans flying during the Battle of Britain.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2007,08:52   

Quote (k.e @ April 22 2007,08:45)
So you learnt your history in the Navy?

Didn't the Village People do a song about being in the Navy . . .?   Homos.     --DT

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2007,10:45   

the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, or so I've heard...

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2007,10:49   

Quote (skeptic @ April 22 2007,10:45)
the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, or so I've heard...

"Never piss against the wind."

(shrug)


Now, answer my question, "Skeptic":  nearly every bellicose rightwinger I've ever met, particularly those who brag about their military service, has never heard a shot fired in anger.

Do you fit that pattern, as well . . . . ?

So far, I am taking your refusal to answer as a "yes" . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2007,13:52   

I'm a bronze star winner.  Do you believe that?  Does it make any difference?  Is there a correct answer?  I don't think there is but if you want to take my refusal to answer to mean anything how about that I have more important things to do than answer inane questions.  Anything more than that is pure assumption on your part to conveniently match your preconceived notions.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2007,14:35   

Quote (skeptic @ April 22 2007,13:52)
 Anything more than that is pure assumption on your part to conveniently match your preconceived notions.

Coming from YOU, that is pretty #### funny.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2007,13:19   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 22 2007,08:47)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ April 22 2007,08:41)
Sadly Lenny, your guess was, I believe, wrong. A few Americans who didn't like the stace of the US at the time joined volunteer fighter corps, and flew in a number of mission defending British soil, along with Poles, Norwegians, French and many other nations who had been overrun.

Ah, yes.   There were indeed several Americans flying during the Battle of Britain.

More than several.

And before WWII, let us never forget the many brave Americans and others who fought fascism long before their governments got off the fence.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
ofro



Posts: 19
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2007,17:46   

[quote=skeptic,April 22 2007,13:52][/quote]
Quote (skeptic @ April 22 2007,13:52)
I'm a bronze star winner. Do you believe that?

There appear to be different kinds of Bronze Star recipients.  Would you care to be more specific about your achievements?

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2007,20:56   

The point was would Lenny believe it and would it make any difference coming from me.  I'm not really a bronze Star recipient.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2007,21:06   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 22 2007,10:49)
Now, answer my question, "Skeptic":  nearly every bellicose rightwinger I've ever met, particularly those who brag about their military service, has never heard a shot fired in anger.

Do you fit that pattern, as well . . . . ?

So far, I am taking your refusal to answer as a "yes" . . . .

And, surprise surprise, I appear to be entirely correct . . .

I am shocked.

Shocked, I say.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2007,22:02   

Quote (ofro @ April 23 2007,17:46)
There appear to be different kinds of Bronze Star recipients.  Would you care to be more specific about your achievements?

I know personally a guy from the Pennsylvania National Guard who, during the first Gulf War, fell off a tank that he was washing and broke two fingers, and was awarded the Purple Heart for being wounded in a combat zone by enemy action.

But in a way, I can see why the military is so anxious to hand out medals like candy, particularly to career officers.  For most of these guys, pissant little wars like this are the only ones they will ever see -- and even in these pissant little wars, the vast majority of military personnel never even see an enemy, much less hear a shot fired in anger.  Even worse, less than one-fifth of the military's people are actually combat troops who see action on the frontlines --- most of the armed forces are basically doing civilian jobs like filing, clerking, accounting, computer and equipment repairs, construction, etc etc etc.  For them, being in Iraq is no different than being in Nevada.  Alas, though, since these guys never see any action, they are denied (probably unfairly in their minds) the opportunity for those shiny little baubles that can help so much in promotions and career advancement.

Hence, everybody and his brother now gets a medal.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2007,22:06   

Quote (skeptic @ April 23 2007,20:56)
 I'm not really a bronze Star recipient.

Just "street theater", huh "Skeptic" . . . . .


Weren't in the Navy either, were you?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2007,22:11   

No, Lenny, as usual you are wrong.  The point was to show that it doesn't matter what I say or who I am, you have your own mind made up.  I have no intention of wasting my time in fruitless attempts to enlighten, I'm sure you feel the same.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2007,22:25   

Quote (skeptic @ April 23 2007,22:11)
No, Lenny, as usual you are wrong.  

I see.  So you were just doing a Paley on us, then?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2007,00:48   

you're being purposefully dense at this point, aren't you?

  
Darth Robo



Posts: 148
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2007,06:17   

skeptic, don't ever change.  It's fun watching you being slaughtered.  :p

--------------
"Commentary: How would you like to be the wholly-owned servant to an organic meatbag? It's demeaning! If, uh, you weren't one yourself, I mean..."

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2007,07:21   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 21 2007,05:04)
Quote (skeptic @ April 20 2007,20:36)
Lenny, I always find it amusing when I listen to your rant because in my world the threat to personal freedoms and individual autonomy comes from the lunatic left.  How ironic.

Just a quick question for you, "Skeptic":

To the nearest one hundred, how many people have the, uh, "lunatic left" in the US imprisoned indefinitely without charges, without habeus corpus, without judicial review, based on secret evidence obtained through torture?

Hey Admiral, in all your arm-waving about your phony Bronze Star, you never got around to answering this simple question for me.

What seems to be the problem?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2007,11:53   

Skeptic,

Try to remember:

a) Simply because people disagree with you it doesn't follow that their difference is founded on an equally unsupported dogma to the one you subscribe to. The opposite of dogma is NOT another dogma. Presenting any of these clashes (as is your current want) as a clash of mutually exclusive dogmas is false and if continually done after it has been shown to you several times as false, dishonest at worst and stupid at best.

b) Assuming (falsely) that you are a poor persecuted victim is truly pathetic. If you are so persecuted, why post here? You receive the annoyed comments you do because in all but a few cases you have proven to be oblivious to reason and simple logic. I'm sorry if that upsets you or if you don't like it, but tough, it's an easily demonstrable fact. However, it is within YOUR power to rectify. Notice that many people here disagree about many things both passionately and dispassionately, and yet don't seem to get nasty about it. How does this happen? Perhaps you should read the warning signs from other people and evaluate your OWN conduct before crying foul. I can assure you I have done this, and everyone else here has too. We call it humility and intellectual honesty, try them, I have faith that you are more than capable of them, so prove me right.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2007,12:18   

Quote (Louis @ April 24 2007,11:53)
a) Simply because people disagree with you it doesn't follow that their difference is founded on an equally unsupported dogma to the one you subscribe to. The opposite of dogma is NOT another dogma. Presenting any of these clashes (as is your current want) as a clash of mutually exclusive dogmas is false and if continually done after it has been shown to you several times as false, dishonest at worst and stupid at best.

That's the way they always play it, Louis.  Two sides to the argument, both equally valid, therefore "teach the controversy" to provide "balance".  Never mind that one side has a ton of empirical evidence and the other has a questionable interpretation of an old book.  As long as your audience lacks the skills, time and/or motivation to assess the evidence, they get away with it.

As to whether FTK really believes that both positions are equally well-supported: I'm keeping an open mind.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2007,21:00   

Quote
And, surprise surprise, I appear to be entirely correct . . .

I am shocked.

Shocked, I say.  


Well, next time make sure you're properly grounded before turning on the current. ;)

Henry

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2007,04:26   

John W,

Yup it's a pernicious little bit of quite deliberate dishonesty on the part of the DI et al. The "Teach the Controversy" drivel falsely equates the two "sides" of the pseudo-controversy that is the evolutionary biology/creationism "debate" (I like to keep it right out front that, as I am sure you and everyone else knows, there is no scientific controversy or debate, the issues raised by the DI et al and the ideas they contain were refuted and cosigned to the intellectual trash can well over a century ago).

Sadly, it isn't just christian reconstructionists, right wing nutters, capital C conservatives and neo-con/neo facist ideologues who use this sort of "teach the controversy" falsity, it's a really standard practice for dishonest kooks all across the political and ideological spectrum. Look at the extreme end of post modernist relativism and social studies  (hardly a bastion of right wing or conservative thought!) or the twitterings of new agers and homeopaths, the anti-science claims of extremist animal rights loons, lunatic fringe Gaians (as opposed to those who stay closer to Lovelock's actually very sane and reliable works) and so on and so forth. "Teach the Controversy" is a legacy and facet of our current over exposure to lazy journalism and political demagoguery, the two opposed talking heads approach being a cheap and easy way to convince the gullible many that some in-depth investigation and discussion of the issues has been performed. Who'd have thought that right wing conservative anti-reason and left wing socialist anti-reason were so compatible? I believe Lenny Flank makes a few similar points!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2007,07:09   

Quote (Louis @ April 25 2007,04:26)
Who'd have thought that right wing conservative anti-reason and left wing socialist anti-reason were so compatible? I believe Lenny Flank makes a few similar points!

Indeed.  As I noted earlier, I've been kicked out of quite a few "left-wing" forums for pointing out that all of their New Age post-modernist animal-rights crystal-energy stuff is crapola.

It is no accident, I think,  that many of the prominent neo-conservatives were once Trotskyists.  Not much has changed for them -- they used to be authoritarian ideologues who hated liberals, and they *still* are.  


However, my conception of political "left" and "right" is a bit different than most.  For me, people on the "left" are those who want to decentralize political power as widely as possible, while those on the "right" want to *centralize* it as much as possible.  In my view, therefore, the neocons, the theocons, and the Stalinists/Leninists/Maoists are all on the RIGHT wing, while the anarchists and libertarians and syndicalists are all on the LEFT wing.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2007,07:19   

What about the democratic socialists Lenny?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2007,11:21   

Quote (Louis @ April 25 2007,04:26)
John W,

Yup it's a pernicious little bit of quite deliberate dishonesty on the part of the DI et al. The "Teach the Controversy" drivel falsely equates the two "sides" of the pseudo-controversy that is the evolutionary biology/creationism "debate" (I like to keep it right out front that, as I am sure you and everyone else knows, there is no scientific controversy or debate, the issues raised by the DI et al and the ideas they contain were refuted and cosigned to the intellectual trash can well over a century ago).

Sadly, it isn't just christian reconstructionists, right wing nutters, capital C conservatives and neo-con/neo facist ideologues who use this sort of "teach the controversy" falsity, it's a really standard practice for dishonest kooks all across the political and ideological spectrum. Look at the extreme end of post modernist relativism and social studies  (hardly a bastion of right wing or conservative thought!) or the twitterings of new agers and homeopaths, the anti-science claims of extremist animal rights loons, lunatic fringe Gaians (as opposed to those who stay closer to Lovelock's actually very sane and reliable works) and so on and so forth. "Teach the Controversy" is a legacy and facet of our current over exposure to lazy journalism and political demagoguery, the two opposed talking heads approach being a cheap and easy way to convince the gullible many that some in-depth investigation and discussion of the issues has been performed. Who'd have thought that right wing conservative anti-reason and left wing socialist anti-reason were so compatible? I believe Lenny Flank makes a few similar points!

Louis

Absolutely right, Louis.  The DI have been very clever in exploiting the "liberal" (in the US sense) attitude of "let's give both sides a hearing and see if we can reach a compromise".  Combine that with an abysmal lack of understanding - among both the public and the media - of how science is done, and you can fool an awful lot of people who ought to know better.

If you say 2+2=4 and I say 2+2=5, the correct answer isn't 4.5.  There are many out there who don't seem to understand this.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2007,18:25   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ April 25 2007,07:19)
What about the democratic socialists Lenny?

Well, now, of course that has always been the question that has wracked the Left -- do we work within the existing system and change it to suit our needs, or do we throw it all out and start over . . . . .?  ;)

Me, I'm not hopeful that existing social/political/economic structures can be "tinkered with" to make any real changes.  And in any case, they're simply not suited for what we want to do -- they were after all built to SUPPORT the existing social order, not to change it.  So I think the whole thing needs to be rebuilt, from the bottom up.

Not that I'm *opposed* to the idea of working from within ---- after all, corporate capitalism has innumerable bases of support, and they ALL need to be undermined and attacked.  It's just not the direction that I myself want to put my efforts in -- I can be more effective elsewhere.

But hey, we're all on the same side, after all.  Solidarity forever, and all that.     :)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2007,18:30   

Quote (JohnW @ April 25 2007,11:21)
If you say 2+2=4 and I say 2+2=5, the correct answer isn't 4.5.  There are many out there who don't seem to understand this.

Yep.  I believe it was Bill Maher who so eloquently said, "You don't have to teach both sides of a controversy if one side is full of shit."

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2007,18:32   

Somewhat off subject, but I wanted to add a quick movie review.  I saw Children of Men last night and I thought it was fantastic.  It was somewhat disturbing and alittle gratuitous in the specific shots but very compelling and enjoyable.  That being said I'm not sure I could recommend this movie to you, Lenny.  If you haven't already seen it I would advise caution as it may depress or even horrify you, as for everyone else, enjoy.  My two cents...

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2007,19:35   

Children of Men was okay. Not bad, but tolerable.  And Michael Caine was priceless.

Now, you wanna watch a better-than-decent movie, check out Black Book, Verhoeven's latest.  

And you wanna watch a movie that's actually good, catch the second half, the Tarantino half, of Grindhouse.

Not only is it hilarious, with awesome non-CGI special effects, but it's actually empowering, according to the members of that other gender who oughta know...

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2007,03:05   

Hey Steve,  In an effort to return the thread topic back to its original subject you may get something from this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/one_planet.shtml
Paul

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
  84 replies since April 17 2007,15:05 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]