Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
If you don't think the Texas State Board of Education is populated by far-right nutballs, take a gander at this idiotic screed from Cynthia Noland Dunbar, one of that board's members. It begins:
Can we truly even imagine an America under an Obama Administration? I sincerely believe that an Obama Administration would ultimately mean one thing...the end of America as we know her.
Of course you do, Cynthia. Of course you do.
She not only repeats the moronic "Obama is not a real citizen" charge, she adds a whole new ridiculous justification for it:
First, I cannot understand how we can potentially elect a man who most likely has violated the Constitution in his very attempt to serve as Commander and Chief. "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;" U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section IIf Obama were a natural born citizen who never lost his citizenship through his adoption while living in Indonesia, then why does he obstinately refuse to present valid documentation? The fact that a Federal Court Judge did nothing should not surprise any of us. After all, we know all too well the attack this great Country undergoes on a daily basis from our own militant leftist Judicial Branch.
Apparently, this dolt with a law degree (from Regent University - color me surprised) thinks that you can lose your citizenship if you live in another country or are adopted by someone who is not an American citizen. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. And of course, the documentation of Obama being a natural born citizen has been provided and declared authentic by the state of Hawaii, by the federal government and by a federal court. What does it take to satisfy lunatics?
Then she goes on to claim that if Obama is elected, he'll declare martial law. Seriously.
So we can imagine the blatant disregard for our Constitution, but what other threats does an Obama administration pose? We have been clearly warned by his running mate, Joe Biden, that America will suffer some form of attack within the first 6 months of Obama's administration. However, unlike Joe, I do not believe this "attack" will be a test of Obama's mettle. Rather, I perceive it will be a planned effort by those with whom Obama truly sympathizes to take down the America that is threat to tyranny. What nobody seems to be discussing is the fact that if such an attack takes place, what about Martial Law? What happens to expand executive power when a state of civil disorder is declared?...Factually, such militaristic rule is to be established by the Legislative Branch. "The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;" U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8 However, the Constitution further states that the President, "...shall from time to time give to the Congress Information on the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;" Article II, Section 3 Should the Senate and the House be under Democratic control and Obama comes to them advising of a threat to our Nation, is there any doubt that Obama will have his way? Additionally, since we've clearly seen that Obama appears to have no respect for the Constitution itself, why should we expect that if elected, all of a sudden he will try to comply with its restraints?
Terri Leo needs to watch her back. Obviously, this woman has launched a campaign to wrest the title of Looniest Board of Education Member from her. And based on this, she's serious about it.
Politics
Comments
I tried to comfort a student at our college's election watch party last night, who was deeply upset (frighteningly so) about the outcome. He's convinced Obama plans a genocide, because the Reverend Wright has urged a genocide. How to reason with a person like this?
Posted by: James Hanley | November 5, 2008 9:39 AM
Haven't read this specific post yet, but I just checked the numbers from Texas and I wanted to post a link somewhere; 44%! Those are numbers we can work with; a good first term could see an Obama vote in four years!
Posted by: Julian | November 5, 2008 9:39 AM
"Bored" of Education, it seems like, methinks.
Posted by: Umlud | November 5, 2008 9:44 AM
Having now read your post, all I can say is that here we have a Republican projecting on to a Democratic president elect what she herself would like to do. Not all Republicans are wingnuts, but all wingnuts are paranoid megalomaniacs with a thirst for blood. It's going to be so fun watching the militia movement revive under Mr. Obama :/
Posted by: Julian | November 5, 2008 9:45 AM
...a good first term could see an Obama vote in four years!
Not a chance. Odds are that the only thing Republicans will take from this defeat is that they weren't hardline enough, meaning the red states will get redder and more polarized. McCain and Palin's pandering to the basest (thereby sidelining the moderate and intellectual) elements of conservatism only exacerbates this.
Posted by: schism | November 5, 2008 9:47 AM
It is truly painful to watch the wing-nuts and neocons try to project the abuses of their outgoing president onto our President elect. Bush has absolutely shredded the constitution and they warn of unfounded potential future abuses by Obama? Again ... unbelievable ...
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 5, 2008 9:48 AM
Well, you know, Republicans thought W was actually King of America and so they think Obama will be King, too, and that he can also rule by decree, with the mindless husks of a zombie congress to enact his every whim.
And they know that of they had the power, they'd show no mercy. So they assume King Obama, President-for-Life, won't either.
Give us a few months, though, and we'll show them just how contentious we can be.
Posted by: Longstreet63 | November 5, 2008 9:50 AM
schism: States are only red because the people in them vote a certain way; there is nothing, in their essence, that makes them vote Republican. As the party gets redder, the states will get bluer as more and more voters are driven away. What I am saying is that a liberal, black Democrat came within 10% points of tying a White Male POW in Shrub's old stomping grounds. 44% in Texas! That's how close this election was. With a good first term, Obama can expand the shift in voting patterns he has already established and, if four years from now people in this state, which voted for FDR three times, believe the economy is more stable than it is now because of him, you may even see higher youth turnout as well as solidifying Dem support among the disaffected Republicans who jumped isles on this one.
A 47-51% win for him in Texas 4 years from now is not out of the realm of possibility.
Posted by: Julian | November 5, 2008 9:56 AM
Sorry, my math was fuzzy on that one; each point Mr. Obama wins is a point his challengers doesn't have, so he was within 5% points of tying Mr. McCain. My brain enjoys using math to make me look ridiculous :/
Posted by: Julian | November 5, 2008 10:00 AM
Ed, all the Texas SBOE incumbents won as well, which means that none of the anti-science members were booted out. They won by large margins: Terri Leo (79%), David Bradley (54%), Gail Lowe (65%), and Barbara Cargill (85%).
http://team1.sos.state.tx.us/enr/results/nov04_141_state.htm
Posted by: James F | November 5, 2008 10:01 AM
If you look at the election results maps provided by the New York Times, four of the five counties that contain the larger cities in Texas (Bexar-San Antonio, Harris-Houston, Travis-Austin, Dallas-Dallas) went for Obama. Most of the border counties (largely rural and Hispanic) also went for Obama. So while there are a lot of nutballs here in Texas, there are at least a few bright spots (and I'm fortunate to live in one of them, Bexar county).
Posted by: Barn Owl | November 5, 2008 10:05 AM
I was watching FOX news after McCain's speech last night. (Call it morbid fascination.) They were talking about McCain's call to put the campaigning behind them and unite behind our new president. One of the FOX commentators said something to the effect of: That may be easy for us. Lots of things get said during an election and we deal with this stuff all the time. So we know the score. But some people are really scared of Obama. The pundits who say things like "Obama is a terrorist" know they are lying. So it's easy for them to dismiss it afterward. But there are people in Middle America, in the heartland, that really believe this stuff.
The uncomfortable expressions on the faces many of the other FOX commentators was perhaps the highlight of my evening.
Terri Leo, liar or victim of liars? I don't know. But either way her silly little game of What If can be safely ignored. A bit of mocking may also be appropriate if you are so inclined.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 5, 2008 10:05 AM
Translation: "Crap, I didn't think when Bush was giving himself all those powers that we'd have a Democrat in the office next!"
Posted by: Eric | November 5, 2008 10:08 AM
This woman owes be a new irony meter. It really would be horrible if a president sought out unconstitutional executive powers after a terrorist attack. What if he used such an attack as a rational for starting a war against a country not even related to the attack? Can you imagine how awful that would be?
Posted by: penn | November 5, 2008 10:10 AM
The average IQ in the United States is 95. Discuss.
Which means 50% of the population's IQ is not higher than 110, and in fact, 75% of the population's IQ is lower than that.
Honestly, I'm thinking someone should give tax incentives for anyone who has a double-digit IQ to not breed. That would solve the population problem.
Posted by: Katharine | November 5, 2008 10:33 AM
Where, dear, batty old harridan, was this concern when USA PATRIOT, MCA, etc was passed?
Teh stoopid. It burnz...
Posted by: Spidergrackle | November 5, 2008 10:36 AM
Well, it has been approximately 12 hours since the election was officially called for Obama and McCain's concession speech and no martial law yet ;)
Posted by: kaydon | November 5, 2008 10:49 AM
I sincerely believe that also. America will come to exhibit less bigotry, more respect for the Constitution, science, education and human rights, and will regain the respect of nations around the world.
Posted by: mathyoo | November 5, 2008 10:56 AM
This woman is a high school teacher...who homeschools.
More on this Palinesque twit:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5536357.html
And a CBN story on her heroic efforts to make Texas public schoolchildren stupider:
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/338668.aspx
I want to find out where she "teaches"...I'm guessing it's one of those Jebusian dumbass factories, but if perchance she's a public school teacher, that would be very interesting.
Oh, Texas.
ice
Posted by: ice9 | November 5, 2008 11:09 AM
She is a royal nutter.
Posted by: GH | November 5, 2008 11:19 AM
Terri Leo and Cynthia: Dumb and Dunbar.
Posted by: Barn Owl | November 5, 2008 11:20 AM
You here this type of stuff on talk radio all the time too. People make ridiculous claims like "If obama is elected, the Earth will stop rotating on its axis. We will all die!" Actually, a real example was all the talk I heard about "If the Democrats get a majority in the house and Senate, the first thing they'll do is impeach Bush for revenge! Oh noes!"
But, then I wonder what happens to all those people who really believe that stuff when the ridiculous predicted event never comes. Will these people give Obama credit for not banning talk radio (as I have also heard claimed) or when Israel is doing just fine thank you and in a very undestroyed state. Will these people ever stop and go, "Hmmm, the sky hasn't fallen yet. Maybe I was silly to worry." Or when you're that batty does everything you say only become another shot fired in the culture war, devoid of any meaning beyond an attempt to poison the well.
Posted by: MyPetSlug | November 5, 2008 11:38 AM
The sour grapes are very sour indeed for Repubs this election. The Republican party not only lost at many levels nation wide, but were totally and utterly stomped.
Faux News was entertaining as hell to watch last night, it was something between a group crying session and a circular firing squad.
Posted by: RAM | November 5, 2008 11:47 AM
Ed,
You are actually mistaken. Obama was adopted and took on Indonesian citizenship in order to enroll in their schools. This much we can all agree upon. The point that you're missing is that at the time, Indonesia was at war and did not allow DUAL CITIZENSHIP with ANY nations. THIS MEANS HIS MOTHER FORCED HIM TO GIVE UP HIS US CITIZENSHIP! This is a technicality, but the Constitution is not something to be broken.
Posted by: Jason | November 5, 2008 12:02 PM
Jason:
That's not how dual citizenship works. Just because Indonesia didn't recognize him as an American citizen, doesn't mean he stopped being one. Chinese Canadians have a similar problem: while in Canada they are considered dual citizens, in China, where dual citizenship isn't recognized, they can get into trouble.
Posted by: haelduksf | November 5, 2008 1:00 PM
...and Jason provides us with a glimpse of the next few years, CAPS and all. Hold on, kids; it's going to be a bumpy ride.
Posted by: protected static | November 5, 2008 1:01 PM
Jason,
I think you may be mistaken. It may be true that Indonesia would like someone to give up their other citizenships, but nothing forces the other countries in question to accept this. Many countries don't allow you to give up your citizenship. I don't know if the US is one of them, but I know it is very clingy to its citizens, probably because they declare tax for life, no matter where they live. Furthermore, I don't think the law would require a final call on a kid. True that these matters of international law are extremely complicated - even those of us dealing with them don't always understand the deal.
Posted by: Penny | November 5, 2008 1:03 PM
The US only recognises renunciation of citizenship if made to US officials, that is you must go to a US embassy or similar if you wish to renounce citizenship. As far as US law is concerned whatever Obama may have said to Indonesian officials is irrelevant.
Posted by: Brett Dunbar | November 5, 2008 1:22 PM
I wanted to add something on the constitutional right to run as president, more because I hope someone can clarify the issue than anything else. The rule on 'natural born citizens' does seem to lead to some surprising conclusions. For example, our daughter has a friend, born to a German woman and a French man while they were temporarily in California (until the child was 2). This child has automatic US citizenship and we believe she could run for president, provided she lived in the US for 14 years straight, later on.
On the other hand, our daughter is the child of a bona fide US man and a British woman, but born in London. We are sure she is automatically entitled to US citizenship, but we believe she is not eligible to run for president, ever, because she was not born on US soil. Surely some provisions are made for children of ambassadors and the military?? We are not really sure - not that we expect either child to want to run for president, so don't be afraid of upsetting us.
On the other hand, I would say to Jason that as far as we know, we cannot revoke our daughter's potential US citizenship on her behalf while she is a child (believe me, we might have done it, with the horrors of the Bush administration, but we believe that is not an option). On the other hand her citizenship must be claimed formally before she is 18 or she loses her rights... - but this perhaps wouldn't apply to Obama who was born in a US state? Anyway, that is why I feel that there is some leeway where children are concerned, and that their citizenship remains up in the air somewhat until they reach adulthood. Quite apart from what everyone else said about having to renounce citizenship officially to the US authorities - can you even do this on behalf of your children?
Posted by: Penny | November 5, 2008 1:45 PM
Posted by: 2-D Man | November 5, 2008 1:48 PM
Katherine, I appreciate irony, even bitter irony (or what that sarcasm) as well as most. However, I believe that the IQ range is normed so that average is 100 by definition. Also, unless you know what the distribution looks like (the value of the standard deviation), it's not possible to determine how many people fall under various areas of the curve. Do you have this information?
Posted by: Immunologist | November 5, 2008 1:48 PM
This is true. It's found under the header, "America Gives a Right Flying Fuck What Indonesia Thinks of American Citizenship." Remember, your first obligation as American citizens is to Indonesia. America Second!
Posted by: pough | November 5, 2008 1:51 PM
I'm curious... is the group of people who argue that Indonesian law made Obama not a US citizen the same group that is so frightened of American judges using European or other law as precedent?
Just making sure that the wingnut immunity to irony is still in effect.
Posted by: chancelikely | November 5, 2008 1:53 PM
Immunologist, the IQ test is normed to all test-takers, not the United States.
Posted by: Katharine | November 5, 2008 2:07 PM
Glad to see so many people refuting Jason's poor understanding of U.S. law. A child cannot lose his/her citizenship--period. The U.S. does not have to recognize Indonesia's granting of citizenship--period.
Penny, your friend's child is a natural-born citizen because one of her parents is a U.S. citizen. It matters not where in--or even out of--the world she was born.
Posted by: James Hanley | November 5, 2008 2:08 PM
Not that Jason cares, but here is the straight dope about dual citizenship:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/841/how-do-i-go-about-renouncing-my-u-s-citizenship
Posted by: KeithB | November 5, 2008 2:27 PM
Holy crap, this woman is my rep in on the TX BOE. I want to vomit.
I must make it my mission in life to find a non-wingnut to run against her and send her home to not ruin education in TX anymore.
Posted by: Bouj | November 5, 2008 2:35 PM
MyPetSlug:
I suspect they'll forget they ever made such dire predictions, only to screech about the sky falling again the next time. But I'll keep an eye on people sending me right-wing propaganda and remind them of their fearmongering a few years hence when none of it comes true.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | November 5, 2008 2:48 PM
All "natural born citizen" means is that one is a citizen from birth. It has nothing to do with where you are born and two American citizens can pop a baby out anywhere in the world and it is a "natural born citizen" of the US.
Posted by: libarbarian | November 5, 2008 2:49 PM
Penny - are you aware that John McCain was born in Panama?
Posted by: Curt Cameron | November 5, 2008 2:50 PM
Penny, your born-in-London daughter would most likely be eligible for the presidency, provided she fulfilled the residency qualification. she is a "natural born citizen", because her citizenship was automatic at birth and stemmed from the circumstances of her birth (U.S. citizen parent). the only citizens not "natural born" are the ones who take it on later in life, such as naturalized immigrants (like myself, say).
this is also why talk of Obama or McCain not being eligible is so much hogwash. they were both born to their U.S. citizenship, which is what matters.
that said, the fact of having only one U.S. citizen parent while being born abroad might complicate matters, or add extra residency qualifications for keeping that citizenship. i'm not really sure how those cases are worked out.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | November 5, 2008 2:52 PM
If I remember correctly, the "not-native-born" clause was a dig at Hamilton, who was born to a hooker in Gay Paree (or some caribbean slave-swarmed shithole, I forget which.) In any event, it's a relic and serves no logical purpose not covered by the "US Citizen/14 consecutive years" conditions. I had hoped they'd bring it up when Schwarzenegger was considering a run, and quickly dispense with it in one of those brief flickers of bipartisan sense. As a democrat I wouldn't hold Arnold's austrian birth against him; in fact, naturalized citizens tend to be some of the best ones; they sure as hell know more about the nation, its history, and its principles than many American-born folks I know, including a certain recent VP candidate.
People who argue that Obama (or anyone) should be disqualified from the presidency because of events beyond their control and that took place when he was 8, or when he was born (ie the "born in Kenya, spirited to Hawaii meme) are revealing themselves for bankrupt thinkers, desperate to get what they want no matter what. THese are no doubt the same people that decry the release of felons "on a technicality" but wouldn't hesitate to smear a candidate on a technicality, whether it's a true technicality or not. When it's convenient to them, they bring it up, and scorn people who reject the idea on the grounds that those people disrespect the Constitution. Reminds me of the people who cleave to Jesus but when confronted with the inconvenient ideas Jesus said directly, they somehow default to Leviticus for long enough to justify their own little petty viciousness, then go right back to Jesus when it's safe.
ice
Posted by: ice9 | November 5, 2008 2:59 PM
OT, Speaking of Hamilton, have y'all seen the drunk history vidoes on funnyordie? (www.funnyordie.com/drunkhistory) I always tear up when I watch the Hamilton/Burr segment.
I'm trying to talk my boss into letting me redo our eight-hour training using this brilliant approach.
(I've been humming "Here Comes the Sun" all day...)
Posted by: ildi | November 5, 2008 3:31 PM
ice9,
While Hamilton was popularly known as "the bastard son of a scotch peddler," the "natural born" clause wasn't directed at him. As a matter of legal fact, no one old enough to constitutionally be president in 1789 was a natural born citizen, because they'd all been born before the U.S. became an independent country.
Thus the succeeding clause "or a Citizens of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution," which would mean Hamilton was eligible.
Posted by: James Hanley | November 5, 2008 3:31 PM
chancelikely:
Yep, just like the people who claim Obama wasn't born in the US, in flagrant contradiction of all evidence, are supporting a candidate who was actually born in Panama
Now if you'll excuse me I must clean up the jagged shards of my irony meter before the cats cut themselves on them.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | November 5, 2008 3:40 PM
ice9,
While Hamilton was popularly known as "the bastard son of a scotch peddler," the "natural born" clause wasn't directed at him. As a matter of legal fact, no one old enough to constitutionally be president in 1789 was a natural born citizen, because they'd all been born before the U.S. became an independent country.
Thus the succeeding clause "or a Citizens of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution," which would mean Hamilton was eligible.
Posted by: James Hanley | November 5, 2008 3:48 PM
Yep, just like the people who claim Obama wasn't born in the US, in flagrant contradiction of all evidence, are supporting a candidate who was actually born in Panama
Yeah, to a military officer on official duty overseas and his legal wife which means that there is absolutely no doubt that he is a "natural born citizen" as well.
We don't screw the children of those who go overseas to serve their country.
Posted by: libarbarian | November 5, 2008 3:51 PM
Given how we treat vets after we used them up, cutting benefits, not funding the benefits we promised them and so forth, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree.
Posted by: gwangung | November 5, 2008 3:54 PM
I think (based on readings done a while ago, so take with a grain of salt) that the "native-born" clause was designed to prevent installation of foreign-born puppets intent on transforming the infant Republic into a client state of one of the European powers. Given how badly the nascient American economy was busted after the Revolution and how fragile the whole enterprise was, this was probably a wise move.
Not sure it means a lot in these days, though.
Posted by: Leigh Williams | November 5, 2008 3:59 PM
libarbarian:
And I didn't claim we did. Though apparently McCain's Republican opponents made some stink about it earlier. I was just commenting on the grand cosmic irony that people who won't shut up about Obama being born in another country (when he was actually born in Hawaii, a US state) don't even notice that they're voting for someone who actually WAS born in another country. Obviously both are eligible for the Presidency, if they weren't it would've been obvious years ago to more people than a few delusional wingnuts.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | November 5, 2008 4:04 PM
Jason: The point that you're missing is that at the time, Indonesia was at war and did not allow DUAL CITIZENSHIP with ANY nations. THIS MEANS HIS MOTHER FORCED HIM TO GIVE UP HIS US CITIZENSHIP! This is a technicality, but the Constitution is not something to be broken.
Well, to legally give up one's citizenship, one must renounce it in the presence of a US embassy official. Also, the US can revoke citizenship, I believe, if a citizen becomes an officer in the military or in the government of a nation deemed hostile, which also entails some sort of legal proceedings.
Were either of these legal procedures followed? I only ask since you seem concerned about observing technicalities.
Posted by: Chiroptera | November 5, 2008 4:13 PM
phantomreader42:
Understood. I did see people, liberals, try and claim that McCain wasn't a NBC and I thought it was ridiculous.
Anyways, I hear their holding onto the Whitey Tape and are going to drop in in 2012. I believe.
Posted by: libarbarian | November 5, 2008 4:49 PM
Katharine wrote:
What IQ test are you talking about? There is more than one. The most widely used in the US, the WAIS III, uses a U.S. Census-representative sample of 2450 adults ages 16-89. In the past, clinicians outside the US relied on American standardization samples, but in recent years norms have been developed for Canada, and perhaps other countries (I don't know about the others). If you buy yourself a WAIS-III, out of the box, the conversion tables you use will be based on the American standardization sample -- and the mean is indeed 100, SD about 15.
Immunologist,
It happens that Katharine is right about a Full Scale IQ of 110 (assuming mean 100 not 95, SD 15). It is approximately the 75th percentile.
Posted by: Dr X | November 5, 2008 5:55 PM
Katharine,
I've used Wechslers for years, although I also trained with the Standford-Binet (4th edition). So, just checking into the SB 5th edition, I see that standardization is still based on a US Census representative sample. And mean IQ is 100.
Posted by: Dr X | November 5, 2008 6:19 PM
On November 5, 2008 at 11:38 AM, MyPetSlug posted:
But, then I wonder what happens to all those people who really believe that stuff when the ridiculous predicted event never comes. Will these people give Obama credit for not banning talk radio (as I have also heard claimed) or when Israel is doing just fine thank you and in a very undestroyed state. Will these people ever stop and go, "Hmmm, the sky hasn't fallen yet. Maybe I was silly to worry." Or when you're that batty does everything you say only become another shot fired in the culture war, devoid of any meaning beyond an attempt to poison the well.
I think a lot of people just have really really bad pattern recognition and pattern matching skills. Why do people keep buy lottery tickets? Why do religious people keep re-interpreting "end-time prophecies"? Why weren't conservatives at all concerned about government overreach when the Patriot Act or the MCA were signed? These are questions that will be with us for a long time.
Posted by: Blue Nine | November 5, 2008 6:42 PM
I believe John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, not in Panama. That's why he lost the election.
ice
Posted by: ice9 | November 5, 2008 8:44 PM
The citizenship of children born to a US citizen and a foreign citizen, at least in the early 1960s, depended on both the marital status of the parents and the sex of the US citizen. Today it may also depend on which foreign country is involved. For unmarried couples, an American who fathered a child with a foreign-citizen woman outside the US could not claim his child as a citizen--I knew such a father personally--but an American woman would bear an American citizen child, regardless of the father's citizenship or place of the child's birth. Hence, Obama's US citizenship wouldn't even be harmed by birth in Kenya.
Congress passed the Amerasian Homecoming Act in 1987 that allowed children of GIs and Vietnamese to be brought to the US, but only about 2% of the identified fathers ever recognized them. AFAIK the remainder of the children had their citizenship converted through legal adoptions after their arrival here.
Posted by: JakeR | November 5, 2008 10:00 PM
Am I the only one who first read her name as "Cynthia Nutbar"?
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | November 5, 2008 11:00 PM
Jason here and that Texas nutball are just parroting the same garbage the World Net Daily and James Dobson have handed out about Obama since before the election. Only paranoid conspiracy theorists could take seriously the idea that Obama was not born in the USA. Sane people would realize that the Democratic Party would not risk losing the White House on such a basic qualification for their candidate. The feds and the State of Hawai'i have proof Obama was born on US soil. What more do you need? Eyewitnesses? Barcodes? An RFID tag in his ear?
Of course, if you believe that Obama's election is all just part of an elaborate plot to bring down "America as we know it," as some WND nutters propose, then the documentary evidence is all just fabrication.
Let's just say their grasp of reality is a little tenuous, at best. Shame that this Texas nutjob is on the Board of Ed there. It explains a lot.
Posted by: wheatdogg | November 6, 2008 12:34 AM
One of my co-workers is currently in Austin testifying in an attempt to stop these idiots from turning Science Class into Religion Class. There are people here fighting them.
Posted by: kherbert | November 6, 2008 6:23 AM
One has to get a kick out of the whackjobs who claim that Senator Obama was not born in Hawaii. I have been having an argument with a shithead calling himself John Kwok on the Pandasthumb site who parrots this nonsense. What these whackjobs keep ignoring is the fact that there was a birth announcement in a Honolulu newspaper concerning the senators' birth the previous day. This fact is studiously ignored by the nutcases. I have challenged Mr. Kwok on three occasions on a thread over there to respond to this fact and he has steadfastly declined to do so.
Posted by: SLC | November 6, 2008 8:55 AM
John Kwok is an interesting character in the creation v. evolution debate.
I occasionally peruse Amazon reader reviews of books published by ID propopents to see if they are getting their proper smack down. Kwok is probably the most prolific critic of those books, in fact I don't believe there is another person challenging Kwok relative to the sheer volume of critiques he publishes.
The quality of his critiques vary considerably. For Dembski's books I doubt he reads the books at all, merely skimming them and warning readers off given Dembski's intellectual dishonesty. In other reviews he will provide a point-by-point rebutal as good as nearly anyone who understands the TOE and the creationist arguments against it.
He does have a disturbing tendency to make a claim of superior authority for himself given some special public high school in NYC he graduated from that appears focused on gifted students (I forget the name). He does the same for his undergrad school as well (again, forgot the name). This is often one of his arguments in these fiskings which I infer: "I am from this high school which 'so & so A' and 'so & so B' attended, therefore my opinion counts more than someone who did not."
I tried to retrieve a link as an example but Amazon deleted his comments on 7/31 and 8/1 of this year in the examples I permalinked. Not sure why, they were good arguments overall, just contained some quirky elements to his arguments. I wonder if Dembski complained to Amazon.
I'd say Kwok's a little overly obsessive, which I suppose all movements attract and which is nearly always a relative perspective anyway. I am surprised he's going after Obama's birth; he's never struck me as the tinfoil hat type.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 6, 2008 9:35 AM
"But, then I wonder what happens to all those people who really believe that stuff when the ridiculous predicted event never comes. Will these people give Obama credit for not banning talk radio (as I have also heard claimed) or when Israel is doing just fine thank you and in a very undestroyed state. Will these people ever stop and go, "Hmmm, the sky hasn't fallen yet. Maybe I was silly to worry." Or when you're that batty does everything you say only become another shot fired in the culture war, devoid of any meaning beyond an attempt to poison the well."
Let's put it this way, how many of these people still believe Bill Clinton is a rapist and a murderer?
How many of them renounced the idea that Waco was a deliberate unprovoked massacre of innocent civilians?
Posted by: Ian Gould | November 6, 2008 10:01 AM
Re Michael Heath
Mr. Kwok purports to be a graduate of Peter Stuyvesant High School in New York City, which is, indeed, a well regarded secondary school, one of the best in the country. On the other hand, it lacks the prestige of the Bronx School of Science, which counts 7 Nobel Prize winners in physics amongst its graduates. Mr. Kwok also purports to be a graduate of an Ivy League school, although I don't know which one.
Just in case anyone is interested, I am posting a link to the thread over at pandasthumb in which Mr. Kwok appears totally unhinged in his anti-Obama comments. They read like something one might find over at worldnutdaily. He has apparently totally bought into the Obama wasn't born in Hawaii koolaid, among other fantasies.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/10/nature-endorses.html
Posted by: SLC | November 6, 2008 10:16 AM
I do recall reading a comment thread on PT a while back (I can't recall the subject) in which Mr. Kwok almost made a sport out of argumentum ad namedrop-um. He may be on the right side of the evoultion-creationism manufactroversy but, from what I've seen, he's no critical thinker.
Posted by: Adrian W. | November 6, 2008 10:45 AM
SLC - thanks for the link.
Kwok is in la la land given his ludicrous descriptions of Palin and Morris. I also see he can't stop referring to his high school, never seen anything like that, it's so obsessive it make it into most of his comment posts.
I will be avoiding him from now on.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 6, 2008 11:44 AM
MyPetSlug: Cognitive dissonance theory predicts that when all those disasters don't happen, the people who predicted them will try to take credit for having prevented them. That's exactly what the doomsday cult that Festinger first studied did; when the world didn't end the day they said it would, they announced that their prayers had been answered.
Posted by: ebohlman | November 6, 2008 11:04 PM
ebohlman - Yes, but what if the outcome is negative rather than neutral? What then?
They can hardly say "Well the candidate we really disliked got in rather than the candidate we mildly disliked because we wanted it that way." Can they?
What does 'Cognitive Theory' say about that? -Curiously DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 7, 2008 1:19 AM
For the November 19 SBOE meeting on the science standards, there are now audio files of the whole thing (in seven parts, coordinated with the TFN blog pages) posted at
http://curricublog.org/2008/11/26/texas-sboe-evolution-2008nov19/
with linked wiki pages for building up an annotated review of the proceedings, indexed by speaker.
Posted by: Tony Whitson | November 29, 2008 1:37 AM