I'm a graduate student studying the molecular and biochemical evolution of HIV within patients and within populations. I also study epigenetic control of ERVs.
You all have probably seen this on the SB front page, but if not, Sheril at 'The Intersection' has big news: Obama answered some of their Science Debate 2008 questions!
Im annoyed at Q6 (H5N1 flu? Ugh.), but the rest are good... and Obamas answers are great... I kinda teared up a little. Hes actually going to support science. I dont just mean with $$, I mean his answers make it clear he is listening to scientists when they talk about stem cells and gene therapy and climate change...
*triesnottogethopesup**triesnottogethopesup**triesnottogethopesup*
Comments
Glad to see some sense in the government, for once.
Posted by: Doog | August 30, 2008 6:30 PM
This is another great opportunity to tell the campaign strategy apologists who were, in a previous thread, spouting tedious nonsense about why, for political reasons, candidates shouldn't worry about science and about how we hadn't ought to expect them to to kindly drink a gallon of colon lavage solution so that they might better blow it out their asses.
That is all.
Posted by: Dustin | August 30, 2008 6:48 PM
Remember the Pixies thread? If some of you don't, here are the relevant highlights before it went off topic:
The eternally self-satisfied and generally ignominious "a lurker" wrote:
So, "a lurker", you can blow it out your ass.
The attention deficient scatterbrain John Kwok then wrote about a lurker's pompous diatribe:
While I'm sure I'll get many a chance to say this in the future, John Kwok, you can blow this one out your ass, too, right after you've dug that fence rail out from between your balls.
Then, further downthread, antipathetic "Mike" decided to type (no doubt after composing his rough draft on his wall with his own feces):
So, Mike, blow it out your ass.
Posted by: Dustin | August 30, 2008 7:09 PM
Overall, it wasn't bad. This part could have been stronger:
It's not just that embryonic cells are a "gold standard", it's that we can't make other types work without further work on the embryonic ones.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 30, 2008 7:18 PM
Dear Dustin:
Go fuck yourself.
Am disappointed that Obama did not answer more specifically on certain issues, like committing us to renewed interplanetary exploration, with certain objectives (e. g. permanent lunar occupation by 2015; manned exploration of Mars by the 2020s). This is exactly what is irritating me with his generic responses.
Which improved nuclear technologies is he referring to, especially when France has led the world in safe electrical generation from nuclear fission power plants for decades?
John
Posted by: John Kwok | August 30, 2008 7:24 PM
As a resident cynic, I must say his answers are written similar to much of the post-modern literary criticisms I have read. A good example of this is:
" First, I have proposed programs that, taken together, will increase federal investment in the clean energy research, development, and deployment to $150 billion over ten years. This research will cover:"
Ok, let's see what research he's talking about...
"Basic research to develop alternative fuels and chemicals"
Well, that could be millions of possibilities, are they carbon-based alternative fuels such as biofuels or synthetic gasoline? Are these alternative fuels/chemicals including hydrogen? What about geothermal, hydroelectric, and tidal energy? This answers NOTHING, it just says "yea, I want to develop alternatives.." without saying anything about what they are. Next:
"Equipment and designs that can greatly reduce energy use in residential and commercial buildings – both new and existing"
Really now? I don't think a more vague statement exists, are there any specific technologies you have in mind or is this just another generic "oh yea, I'm thinking of something."
"New vehicle technologies capable of significantly reducing our oil consumption"
Doesn't this go with the "alternative fuels" group?
"Advanced energy storage and transmission that would greatly help the economics of new electric-generating technologies and plug-in hybrids"
Can't the previous two go together? And how would he "enhance" this research? It's ALREADY BEING DONE. Recent advances in Li-ion batteries, hydrogen fuel cells, and so forth are making it possible within the next 5 years to have a zero emission vehicles which are viable.
"Technologies for capturing and sequestering greenhouse gases produced by coal plants"
Which one? Also, CCS technology makes the plant require 25% more energy to operate thus meaning you actually use MORE hydrocarbons! Our problem isn't just CO2, it's also COST of hydrocarbon fuels.
"A new generation of nuclear electric technologies that address cost, safety, waste disposal, and proliferation risks"
Ok, which generation nuclear reactors? II? III? Invest in IV? Seriously, if you're going to make a claim as to what will happen, at least say HOW you plan on making it happen.
Posted by: Jared | August 30, 2008 8:55 PM
Posted by: Dustin | August 30, 2008 11:21 PM
Also, Mr. Obama-doesn't-have-a-plan-for-putting-us-on-Mars, as soon as your boy, the pro-ID McCain, opens his mouth and issues even the tiniest whisper of global warming denialism or pro-life crackpottery or some nonsense about creationism, I am going to ram it so far up your ass that you'll be coughing up campaign adspeak for a month.
Posted by: Dustin | August 31, 2008 12:13 AM
Well, erv, I think there is reason for hope.
As David Brin pointed out on his blog, Obama mentioned science and technology as pressing national needs six times in his speech at the Dems convention.
In Brin's words: "Once, my friends, is perfunctory. Twice is policy. Six times is a call to action. That wasn’t for political impact -- (what fraction of the TV audience cared?) -- but an expression of perceived importance."
Posted by: efrique | August 31, 2008 4:47 AM
Overall, pretty good although it was, as Jared has pointed out, lacking detail on some critical issues.
I found this particularly encouraging:
Given the the Republicans' sizeable and extremely vocal pro-life and creationist constituencies, I doubt there's any way McCain could make such a commitment (or at least to do so and mean it).
Posted by: The Chimp's Raging Id | August 31, 2008 5:13 AM
Well, since I am not American my opinion doesn't matter the slightest bit anyway, but whether or not Obama and/or McCain answer these questions doesn't change much... It is 1) obvious from the beginning that Obama is less anti-science than McCain, 2) there will be around 0 science-interested people voting for McCain anyway, 3) both Obama's and McCain's promises change from black to white and back depending who they're talking to, therefore we would be well advised not to take their words too seriously.
Maybe I'm just too disillusioned about democracy, not only related to the United States.
Posted by: dvizard | August 31, 2008 10:51 AM
Re John Kwok
Mr. Kwoks' enthusiasm for manned space exploration is sadly misplaced. As physicists Bob Park and Steven Weinberg, whose knowledge and expertise is at least equal to his, have stated, the manned space program is a giant waste of money relative to its impact on scientific discovery. A far larger scientific bang for the buck is obtainable from unmanned robotic probes.
From Bob Park:
"2. LUNACY: HAS ANYONE THOUGHT THIS THROUGH?
This week, according to today's Science magazine, Senator Obama supported the Bush plan to return humans to the Moon. Replay Apollo? Not exactly; Obama wants a more international effort. You can see how well that worked with the ISS. Meanwhile in Cape Canaveral, McCain was backing the Bush plan to build a successor to the shuttle. Of course, he was in Florida, and that's what politicians all say when they're in Florida, but he did not favor returning to the Moon."
Posted by: SLC | August 31, 2008 10:52 AM
Dear Jared,
Thanks for your insightful remarks. Obama's prescriptions for energy conservation have not been as extensive as McCain's with regards to building energy efficient automobiles. As far as I am concerned, Obama's answers merely demonstrate how much of an intellectual lightweight that he is.
On a more personal note, I've worked with a Barack Obama; a charismatic Afro-American who has mismanaged an annual scholarship fundraising event here in NYC for disadvantaged students attending our undergraduate alma mater. Unfortunately he is still active in the NYC alumni club and is busy screwing things up. He tried running for office in the national alumni association, but thankfully, lost his electoral bid. Hopefully, with any luck, this will happen to Caesar Barack Obamaus, whom I regard as much a phony as the "Barack Obama" I know.
John
Posted by: John Kwok | August 31, 2008 11:46 AM
John, I usually don't respond to claims such as your's, but I figured I'll make an exception while waiting for a visit from Gustav. While McCain has a decent energy policy, that's not why I think he's a completely ineffable moron.
"Voted YES on spending international development funds on drug control"
Waste of money
"Teaching creationism should be decided by school districts"
Blatant bullshit
"We need more choice and competition in education."
How about, you know, not teachers with a background in "education" but instead in the subject they are to teach? How about better pay for those with degrees in the field they want to teach than those with general "education" degrees?
"NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives"
"YES on $75M for abstinence education"
So, $25M more and you get a program that works, he's against it...
"YES on declaring memorial prayers and religious symbols OK at schools"
Not at public schools, they aren't, any religious symbol gives rise to tensions of those not of the same religion by putting it out in the public light.
Posted by: Jared | August 31, 2008 1:32 PM
John,
As a McCain supporter, how can you possibly accuse Obama of being an intellectual lightweight? Have you overlooked the fact that he's a graduate of Harvard Law School and, whilst there, was elected president of the Harvard Law Review? What about the time he spent teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago? Does your boy have any academic achievements of note? Can he even locate Afghanistan on a map?
And then we get to the really good stuff...
Holy jebus, you didn't really write that, did you?
*headdesk*
I thought you'd really hit the jackpot when you were expressing concerns that Obama may be a totalitarian dictator in the making because he managed to put on a good show at the Democratic Convention, but now you're really outdone yourself. Congratulations.
And for fuck's sake, enough with the "Caesar Barack Obamaus" nonsense. It got old on the last thread you were peddling it on but now it's really boring.
Posted by: The Chimp's Raging Id | August 31, 2008 2:01 PM
Dear Jared,
McCain was my US Senator for approximately a decade when I resided in Arizona, and I have ample respect for his intellect and leadership abilities; traits which I have yet to see from Obama.
On “Face the Nation” this morning, both Rudy Giuliani and Joe Lieberman noted that Obama is the least experienced person running for President in a century. Independently, they noted that our nation needs - and deserves - the experienced, quite capable, leadership which McCain can offer.
Experienced capable leadership that would not:
1) Urge a military strike on an ally, Pakistan, for harboring Taliban and Al Qaeda insurgents (Incidentally an ally which posses nuclear weapons and first strike missile launching capabilities against our soldiers stationed in the Middle East, friendly Gulf States like Dubai, and probably Israel too?).
2) Advise Russia to talk to Georgia via the UN Security Council, not realizing that Russia has a seat on that council with veto power (Incidentally, for this reason, Putin apparently favors Obama as the next President of the USA. The New York Times reported two days ago that Putin would not like to see McCain as our next President. I presume that is because Putin realizes that Obama would be someone who'd be more willing to sacrifice Georgia's, Ukraine's and maybe Poland's territorial integrity to satisfy Russian imperialist interests.).
3) Explain that he is for clean, reliable nuclear power without specifying which technologies are available for such cleanliness and reliability (Technology which exists apparently in France, since nuclear fission power has provided safe, reliable electricity - up to 40% of the country’s needs - for decades.
As far as I am concerned, Obama is a phony. I’ve seen his kind before.
On a more personal note, I’ve worked with a Barack Obama; a charismatic Afro-American who has mismanaged an annual scholarship fundraising event here in NYC for disadvantaged students attending our undergraduate Ivy League alma mater. Unfortunately he is still active in the NYC alumni club and is busy screwing things up. He tried running for office in the national alumni association, but thankfully, lost his electoral bid. Hopefully, with any luck, this will happen to the real Obama too, whom I regard as much a phony as the “Barack Obama” I know.
Respectfully yours,
John
Posted by: John Kwok | August 31, 2008 2:07 PM
The eternally self-satisfied and generally ignominious "a lurker" wrote:
So, "a lurker", you can blow it out your ass.
How sweat and rational of you.
Answer me one thing. How has the answering of this questionnaire changed one thing that I wrote?
ScienceDebate 2008 is still not going to happen. Unless I am have been really, really confused ScienceDebate 2008 was far more than the candidates (or rather more likely their staffs) answering questionnaires. The candidates were supposed to show up, in person, to a debate about science policy.
So what have we learned? Obama is far more science friendly than George W. Bush. Well duh. Bush's contempt for views other than his own, for evidence, for intellectualism, experts, etc. would made any of his unscientific views and positions completely unsurprising even if we did not all know about them. Bush's science problems are caused by larger problems which show themselves all over the place. Treaty prevents us from doing something? It is quaint. Facts show what we say is wrong? Ignore them. Experts? Ignore them. Allies? Ignore them.
Posted by: a lurker | August 31, 2008 2:15 PM
Posted by: Dustin | August 31, 2008 2:25 PM
On a more personal note, I've worked with a Barack Obama; a charismatic Afro-American who has mismanaged an annual scholarship fundraising event here in NYC for disadvantaged students attending our undergraduate alma mater.
John, that is uncalled for.
That some charismatic blacks are crooks is not surprising -- indeed I would expect it. Just like I would expect it for charismatic (and uncharismatic) white persons. To use the fact that you known an worthy charismatic black as evidence against Obama is a non sequitur and rather offensive.
Posted by: a lurker | August 31, 2008 2:27 PM
Posted by: Dustin | August 31, 2008 2:28 PM
Dear Dustin:
Don't even think that I despise someone because of his racial, ethnic or religious background. The person I am referring to has personality traits that are all too similar to Obama's, except that Obama is a smoother operator than the one I know. But still, both are empty suits. Neither one is as distinguished as the current president of my undergraduate alma mater, who is a remarkable person, woman and Afro-American.
At the same event I organized for Dick Morris back in 2002, I also had the pleasure of meeting noted Afro-American civil rights leader Roy Innis (This was an event organized in honor of both Morris and Innis, and yes, Innis is yet another prominent Stuy alum. Other distinguished Afro-American alumni include two dropouts: jazz musician Thelonious Monk and conservative economist Thomas Sowell. So under no circumstances should you even dare suggest that I am prejudiced towards Afro-Americans. No, I am prejudiced only towards phonies like the "Barack Obama" I know as well as the bona fide real one.).
Newsweek has just published this rather insightful look into McCain's character and intellect that I find quite revealing:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/156488/page/1
Respectfully yours,
John
Posted by: John Kwok | August 31, 2008 2:43 PM
How about answering the question instead of avoiding it?
There was not and there will not be a science policy only debate. There was never any chance of one.
That one candidate answered the questionnaire and the other promising to do so does not change that one bit. That Obama and McCain have aides that can answer science related questions that the candidates (we hope) will read then sign is not exactly earth shattering.
Posted by: a lurker | August 31, 2008 2:53 PM
Let me recap for you. You said:
Then a candidate answered the Science Debates 2008 questions, forcing the other to do so as well. You were wrong. Story's over.
Posted by: Dustin | August 31, 2008 3:12 PM
Posted by: Dustin | August 31, 2008 3:15 PM
ED links are NSFW.
Posted by: Dustin | August 31, 2008 3:17 PM
Dustin:
Am underwhelmed by Caesar Barack Obamaus' replies to these questions. But it's exactly what I expect from an intellectual lightweight like himself.
John
Posted by: John Kwok | August 31, 2008 3:17 PM
Dustin:
If there was a white, Asian or Klingon who acted like Barack Obama, then I'd refer to him as a "Barack Obama". If he looks and acts like a phony, then I'll call him by the appropriate name.
John
Posted by: John Kwok | August 31, 2008 3:30 PM
Dear Dustin:
One more comment.
I am certain anyone who has met the President of Brown University (which I have done) would agree with me that she is far more credible, far more accomplished and far more distinguished than Barack Obama. Her biography is far more impressive than Obama's will ever be. If he's elected President, I'm certain that he'll be among our worst, simply because of his lack of experience for this position. A harsh assessment which both Rudy Giuliani and Joe Lieberman would agree with.
John
P. S. Don't you EVER dare try insinuating that I'm a racist.
Posted by: John Kwok | August 31, 2008 3:37 PM
Posted by: Dustin | August 31, 2008 3:41 PM
Re John Kwok
"Newsweek has just published this rather insightful look into McCain's character and intellect that I find quite revealing:"
This the same John McCain who finished in the bottom 5% of his Naval Academy class?
This the same John McCain who chose a VP whose church is affiliated with Joels" Army?
This the same John McCain who kissed the asses of Reverend Hagee, Reverend Falwell, and Revernd Robertson?
Mr. Kwok is not only a racist bastard but a cocksucking fucktard to boot.
Posted by: SLC | August 31, 2008 7:05 PM
I agree with SLC here... with the exception of the ad-hominem attacks on Mr. Kwok. I refuse to partake in such activities. Anyway, back to hurricane watch for me!
Posted by: Jared | August 31, 2008 7:08 PM
I can't pay anymore attention here, I'm live-blogging a hurricane
Posted by: Jared | August 31, 2008 8:35 PM
I should have gone to Oklahoma, but this is my home!
Posted by: Jared | August 31, 2008 9:02 PM
Wow - John Kwok. Yikes.
Both the question and the answer made me wanna retch.
Posted by: SC | August 31, 2008 10:32 PM
I've found that "goatfucker" makes an acceptable substitute. Observe:
Now, not only has the integrity of cocksuckers everywhere been maintained, but the mordacity of the insult has increased as well.
Posted by: Dustin | September 1, 2008 2:35 AM
Re Dustin
Point taken!
Posted by: SLC | September 1, 2008 8:11 AM
Dustin, whilst I agree with the sentiment of your statement, I too must make a pedantic point. Technically speaking, a goat is also a "goatfucker".
Having seen many a David Attenborough series (some strangely notable for obsessions with animal mating rituals), I can assure you that this particular action (between consenting goats) is far more interesting than the ramblings of one Mr. Kwok.
However, I must admit that I am currently at a loss for a suitable replacement word ;-)
Posted by: Armchair Dissident | September 1, 2008 9:12 AM
Dear schmuck Dustin:
How can I possibly be a racist when I greatly admire these great Americans:
Ruth Simmons
Maya Angelou
Colin Powell
Condoleeza Rice
Shelby Steele
Thelonius Monk
Thomas Sowell
Roy Innis
(The last three are distinguished fellow alumni of my high school. I've met Innis, helping organize an alumni event held in his - and Dick Morris' (another notable alumnus) - honor for our high school alumni association back in 2002. Dr. Simmons - whom I have met twice - is the president of my undergraduate alma mater, Brown University.).
I don't see them as great Afro-Americans, but as great Americans of Afro-American ancestry.
I believe I am entitled to call a spade a spade, and both the "Barack Obama" I know and the real one are charismatic empty suits who haven't accomplished anything substantial period. Moreover, in the case of the real Barack Obama, I still have many questions such as:
1) Why hasn't he discussed his Indonesian childhood?
2) If he finds Reverend Wright's remarks offensive, then why did he remain a loyal member of Wright's congregation for nearly two decades?
3) Why has he released only one page of his medical history, while his principal opponent, John McCain, has released hundreds?
4) Why did he run unopposed in his first electoral campaign as a potential Illinois State Senator, allowing others to challenge successfully the rights of others to run against him?
In conclusion, Caesar Barack Obamaus is a potential emperor without clothe
As for you, I wish you well in mastering seppuku. Maybe you can videotape it and send a copy to Dembski, with the hope he'll emulate your success.
John
Posted by: John Kwok | September 1, 2008 11:47 AM
Dear Mr. Kwok
In response to the preceding, I'm going to address the utter stupidity of your comments.
1) Why is his childhood relevant to the issues at hand?
2) He has addressed this, you just haven't been paying attention.
3) Medical history, in my opinion, is irrelevant to the issues at hand as well. Also, McCain has hundreds of pages more of medical history than Obama does due to him being elderly.
4) Your last statement is not coherent. He did run against someone, Alan Keyes. Jack Ryan withdrew from the race...
Posted by: Jared | September 1, 2008 12:39 PM
Just because I'm too impatient to wait for McCain to answer the science debates questions, here's some fun from Pharyngula:
Palin, on the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
EPIC FAIL
However, 'tis but a gaffe. The others are more serious:
Abstinence only programs have had the unfortunate effect of 1) increasing oral and anal sex among teenagers who think they don't count, 2) increasing teen pregnancy among teenagers who haven't heard of or who don't have access to contraceptives, 3) helping to spread STDs because, when they do go out to have sex (because you can't teach people not to do this), not using a condom because what they were taught was that condoms don't work.
Moving along:
So, if ID can't make it into the classroom then, by the unspecified intelligent agency, neither will actual science.
I wonder if Palin is at least dedicated to civil rights?
No! She isn't! Gosh, I didn't see that one coming!
So, John Kwok, what do you have to say about your pro-teen pregnancy, pro-std, pro-creationist, anti-science and historically ignorant flag waving Bible thumber of a VP nomination (who couldn't, by the way, comment previously on what it was that the vice president actually does)?
Neither of your candidates can tell their ass from a hole in the ground.
Posted by: Dustin | September 1, 2008 8:18 PM
"Neither of your candidates can tell their ass from a hole in the ground."
Indeed, some of her answers above actually floored with the ignorance and political naivety they displayed. Palin is one more thing making McCain's candidacy the most hilarious thing in politics since the Lewinsky scandal, I can only imagine what his potential presidency would be like...
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | September 1, 2008 10:54 PM
That should be "floored me" above.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | September 1, 2008 10:58 PM
What's particularly amusing (or rather sad) about this whole argument that Obama is inexperienced is that we did actually have a president once, who was about as young, and had about as much experience as he does when going into the job. As it happens he was also well known to be a great orator, and was actually a republican, back when republicans stood for something other than stupidity. His name was Abraham Lincoln.
Posted by: Coriolis | September 2, 2008 11:20 AM
On “Face the Nation” this morning, both Rudy Giuliani and Joe Lieberman noted that Obama is the least experienced person running for President in a century. Independently, they noted that our nation needs - and deserves - the experienced, quite capable, leadership which McCain can offer.
Please tell me you're kidding that you regard Giuliani and Lieberman as an authority on ANYTHING other successful self-aggrandizement! These two slimeballs have offered America absolutely nothing in terms of leadership or integrity. And McCain has demonstrated himself to be a pandering hothead whose primary leadership skill is in getting the media to suck up to him.
3) Explain that he is for clean, reliable nuclear power without specifying which technologies are available for such cleanliness and reliability (Technology which exists apparently in France, since nuclear fission power has provided safe, reliable electricity - up to 40% of the country’s needs - for decades.
I would have liked him to be a bit more specific, as well; but he can only be talking about HTGTR's, which are NOT used in France.
Posted by: Eric Saveau | September 2, 2008 12:49 PM
Coriolis,
That's not quite an accurate historical analogy. Lincoln was well known to abolitionist circles around the country beginning in the late 1840s. He had an excellent career both as an attorney and in the Illinois state legislature. By any objective measure, one can't compare favorably Obama's record with Lincoln's.
John
Posted by: John Kwok | September 2, 2008 12:51 PM
Dear Eric:
You might as well include Geraldine Ferraro too in your list of "slimeballs" since she's a disillusioned supporter of my current US Senator (Clinton) who has "defected" to support the McCain/Palin ticket.
Most senators in the US Senate would regard Joe Lieberman as one of its premier statesmen. I think your assessment of him is quite incorrect.
John
Posted by: John Kwok | September 2, 2008 12:54 PM
You might as well include Geraldine Ferraro too in your list of "slimeballs" since she's a disillusioned supporter of my current US Senator (Clinton) who has "defected" to support the McCain/Palin ticket.
Ferraro ran up the racist flag during the campaign, so I can certainly tag her appropriately for that. Interestingly, your comment makes the assumption that supporting McCain is what makes someone a slimeball, despite the fact that my comment carried no such assumption either implicitly or explicitly. Lieberman and Giuliani were recognizable slimeballs long before supporting McCain due to being Reich-wing, anti-science, self-serving Dominionist fucks. Add Giuliani's corruption trough and you've got a winning ticket indeed.
Most senators in the US Senate would regard Joe Lieberman as one of its premier statesmen.
So? The Senate has quite a few people who are either Reich-wing, anti-science, Dominionist fucks, or who feel they need to pander to such types.
I think your assessment of him is quite incorrect.
see above. And?
Posted by: Eric Saveau | September 2, 2008 1:23 PM
Posted by: Dustin | September 2, 2008 1:29 PM
Eric:
The last time I checked, there are fewer Senators to meet your rather absurd descriptions:
"So? The Senate has quite a few people who are either Reich-wing, anti-science, Dominionist fucks, or who feel they need to pander to such types."
If Lieberman is as "bad" as you claim, then surely Al Gore made a serious lapse of judgement by picking him as his running mate back in the 2000 election.
John
Posted by: John Kwok | September 2, 2008 1:49 PM
You think Obama's career up to now, graduating from harvard with top honors, teaching law at chicago and of course his political success are not a successful career? Give me a break. Hell he got elected to higher office (senate) then Lincoln did before he ran for president. Obama is about 6-7 years younger, that's about it. I find the comment about Lincoln being well known in abolitionist circles especially funny, since of course abolitionists were the left-wing radicals of the time. If Obama was well known in similiar left-wing circles today he wouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell of being elected to anything, much less president. I mean imagine if he ever said anything nearly as atheist-sounding as Lincoln (or Jefferson) did - he'd loose right then and there. Unfortunately, we have changed as a country, and not for the better.
Posted by: Coriolis | September 2, 2008 1:50 PM
Posted by: Dustin | September 2, 2008 1:58 PM
Posted by: Dustin | September 2, 2008 2:06 PM
Dear Coriolis:
Did you know that Obama won his first election to the Illinois Senate unopposed? How? His supporters mounted legal challenges against his potential opponents and had the courts remove them from the ballot. In other words, Obama started in politics by a means that would have been celebrated by legendary New York City Tammany Hall political chief Boss Tweed. In the Illinois Senate, Obama had an undistinguished career (He also had an undistinguished career at the University of Chicago law school too.).
Again, go ahead and compare him to Lincoln. But anyone who looks objectively at their records prior to Lincoln's election as President of the United States will acknowledge that Lincoln's record is far more impressive than Obama's.
John
Posted by: John Kwok | September 2, 2008 2:09 PM
The last time I checked, there are fewer Senators to meet your rather absurd descriptions
Fewer after November 2006 than before, but not by much. And the absurdity lies in the fact that such people are in positions of authority, not in that I call them on it.
If Lieberman is as "bad" as you claim, then surely Al Gore made a serious lapse of judgement by picking him as his running mate back in the 2000 election.
Yes, he did. And I was heard at that time to go on at length over all the things that were wrong with Gore's campaign, starting with Lieberman. And?
Posted by: Eric Saveau | September 2, 2008 2:30 PM
Eric:
Like McCain, Kennedy, and a few other senators, Lieberman is among the US Senate's most thoughtful members, especially with regards to foreign affairs. He has had a long distinguished history in public service, which included importance service as the CT attorney general.
I was being sarcastic in my previous reply to you about your inane assertion that Lieberman is a "bad" politician.
John
Posted by: John Kwok | September 2, 2008 2:36 PM
Hey Kwok, you like books, right? Well, Palin doesn't.
Posted by: Dustin | September 2, 2008 2:38 PM
Like McCain, Kennedy, and a few other senators, Lieberman is among the US Senate's most thoughtful members, especially with regards to foreign affairs.
Like McCain - though to a much greater degree - Lieberman is chummy with the "End Times" crowd and considered a great friend and "good Jew" to the Xian Reich, and bases much of his foreign policy on their knee-jerk desires. Nothing thoughtful about that.
I was being sarcastic in my previous reply to you about your inane assertion that Lieberman is a "bad" politician.
See above. And?
Posted by: Eric Saveau | September 2, 2008 2:42 PM
My dear Schmuck Dustin:
If Palin acted in such a manner as governor of Alaska, then I'd really be concerned. But no, instead, her performance is more akin to what I'd expect from someone who has similar libertarian attitudes as yours truly. For example, you should read this:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/the_libertarian_case_for_palin.html
Wish you much success in mastering seppuku soon. Don't forget to send a videotape of it to my "pal" Dembski since I want him to follow your example ASAP.
John
Posted by: John Kwok | September 2, 2008 2:53 PM
OOOooo a link to a libertarian think tank! I am blow away by the awesome credibility of your news sources.
Anyway, I guess since she only wanted to ban books while she was but a lowly mayor, there's nothing to worry about. And, as every good libertarian knows, there's nothing more libertarian than keeping marriage safe from the queers.
Although, she does have some similarities to you. While fighting her Holy Crusade against the dire homosexual agenda, she kept insisting that she couldn't be anti-gay rights or bigoted because, darn it, she knew some honest-to-God gay people and kinda liked them. That's a Kwokism if ever there was one.
You're a moron.
Posted by: Dustin | September 2, 2008 3:06 PM
So many questions....
Posted by: Dustin | September 2, 2008 3:31 PM
Dear Dustin:
The state trouper in question is apparently guilty of spousal abuse against his former wife, who is Governor Palin's sister.
As for your other questions pertaining to seppuku, I'll only note that you don't need a sword to do it. Just do it.
John
Posted by: John Kwok | September 2, 2008 3:56 PM
Now *that* is funny. So first you're complaining that Obama wasn't as good of an attorney as Lincoln, now you're saying he only won because of legal tricks? As for his supposed undistinguished career, I don't find it as such from reading the comments of the various people he worked with at the time. He didn't commit himself strongly into any particular ideology, but he did listen, learn and discuss alot (or so they say). Of course, they aren't mirror images of each other - hard to imagine any 2 people could be, much less two who lived 150 years apart. But the many similarities are quite striking, in all the important issues in regards to their potential - native intellect, excellent oratory, relative youth, unorthodox thinking, and of course both without much "experience".
But keep barking, it's amusing.
Oh wait, that's probably insulting to dogs, which is a bad idea on this particular blog :).
Posted by: Coriolis | September 2, 2008 4:07 PM
Dear Coriolis,
I said his supporters had his opponents bounced from the ballot. What followed was in essence a Soviet Russian-style form of election in which only one candidate, Barack Obama, was listed. Regrettably this was electoral abuse of the kind practiced in the past for generations by the Chicago Democratic machine and New York City's Tammany Hall. So much for being a good democrat, right?
Obama may have been a good listener, but he did not show much initiative, in stark contrast to Lincoln, who spoke and wrote much about abolition in the years before 1860. Lincoln was also a successful courtroom attorney and state legislator.
I stand by my earlier observation that Obama is a cypher. We don't know anything about his early Indonesian childhood. We don't know anything about his health history, other than a one page summary. If he truly found Reverend Jeremiah Wright's sermons so offensive, then why was he a member of Wright's congregation for almost two decades? Don't be so dismissive of these questions, since they - and others pertaining to his associations with the likes of Rezko and Ayers - raise serious issues regarding the quality of his judgement.
John
Posted by: John Kwok | September 2, 2008 4:16 PM
$20 Says Palin don't make it thru the week.
http://www.andrys.com/palin-kilkenny.html
Posted by: Mercurious | September 2, 2008 5:51 PM
Posted by: Dustin | September 2, 2008 6:49 PM
I was under the impression that it required a tanto, but maybe history isn't your thing.
A wakizashi, actually, and the katana is used by the subject's designated second for the beheading.
If any other implement is used, it is not seppuku.
The katana is the weapon of my training.
Posted by: Eric Saveau | September 2, 2008 7:37 PM
Both blade types were used. Besides, wakizashi was originally applied to any secondary blade carried by a samurai, regardless of length. To add further confusion, blade lengths were never fully standardized, and opinions differed, so you end up with a lot of overlap among the categories, and then you have to add in all the various synonyms used which themselves could apply to one or more of the basic "dagger" "short sword" "long sword" categories, depending on speaker/writer/context.
Basically, for purposes of ritual suicide, use the shortest available blade that can still penetrate the abdominal wall, and you should be OK, etiquette-wise. Of course, any shame incurred by using the improper blade will be immediately compensated for by the actual disemboweling, so really, no worries. As long as you end up dead, with prominently displayed entrails, everything's cool. If you feel up to it, a short poem expressing your shame and/or something about cherry-blossoms and the change of seasons is always appreciated.
For the truly hardcore and/or deeply shamed individual, it is possible to forgo the second and just agonizingly bleed to death without benefit of merciful decapitation. Word of warning: this may be interpreted as inappropriately prideful and just generally in bad taste. Demanding such from a vassal is also somewhat frowned upon, though of course said vassal must obey. To disobey would incur more shame, but then you're dead and can't do anything about it, at which point some relative has to step in and die too as a result of your cowardly wussiness. But that's neither here nor there.
Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | September 2, 2008 8:58 PM
This all sounds like a lot of trouble. I'm just going to get super pissed and swallow a frisbee instead.
Posted by: Dustin | September 2, 2008 9:56 PM
Since we have such experts here, can someone explain to me the difference between harakiri and seppuku? Or is it just different words for the same thing.
Posted by: Coriolis | September 3, 2008 10:15 AM
"hara-kirii" is a more colloquial term; "seppuku" is more formal. It's sort of like the difference between "firearm" and "gun", or "fired" and "terminated" only with lots of ritualistic feudal angst attached.
Posted by: Eric Saveau | September 3, 2008 11:47 AM
I just e-mailed this to Senator McCain:
Dear Senator McCain:
As a former resident of the great state of Arizona, I am delighted with your candidacy for President of the United States, recognizing that you, Senator John McCain, are the sole person who puts “Country First” among our current presidential candidates. Having been one of your constituents for a decade, I also know you possess both the great character and wisdom to become one of our great Presidents. In recognition of these admirable traits of yours, I am writing to warn you of the dangers posed by renewed advocacy of Intelligent Design and other kinds of creationism, since they represent threats to both the intellectual and economic well-being of our great nation, threatening American preeminence in science and technology, and the chance that the 21st Century will become yet another “American Century”. I am urging you to put “Country First” by rejecting demands to have creationism – especially Intelligent Design creationism – taught in American science classrooms alongside modern evolutionary theory.
It is no accident that creationism, including Intelligent Design, is repudiated by the mainstream scientific community. It is a collection of outdated ideas that were rejected soundly by science more than a century and a half ago. Creationism’s current proponents have asserted that they are persecuted by mainstream science for their beliefs, but theirs are claims that are not borne out by the real, honest truth. None have sought to present their work in the valid market of ideas known as peer-reviewed science. No papers of theirs in support of creationism have been presented in scientific meetings, and none have been submitted for publication in notable scientific journals like Nature, Science, Evolution, Ecology, Paleobiology, and Cladistics, among others, demonstrating how and why creationism is a valid scientific alternative to modern evolutionary theory. In private e-mail correspondence with two leading advocates of Intelligent Design creationism, mathematician and philosopher William Dembski and biochemist Michael Dembski, I have challenged them to explain how Intelligent Design is a better scientific alternative to modern evolutionary theory in explaining the history and structure of Planet Earth’s biodiversity. Neither one has given me an answer. Why? Because they know that Intelligent Design isn’t scientific, and therefore, that it is incapable of being such an alternative.
Back in 1973, the great evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky – one of the architects of modern evolutionary theory – observed, “Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” His accurate comment is confirmed daily by thousands of scientists across the globe, and especially, by many great scientists who are biology professors at Arizona State University and the University of Arizona; the latter my graduate school alma mater. For example, at the University of Arizona, Regents Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Nancy Moran uses techniques from molecular biology and classical entomology to understand the evolution of symbiotic microorganisms in insects; many of those insects that she studies – such as aphids – are economically important agricultural pests. Her colleague Dr. William Schaeffer is noted for his mathematical models of the origin and spread of epidemics, relying on key principles in evolutionary biology for better understanding of public health issues. Their colleague Dr. Michael L. Rosenzweig – my graduate school mentor – is one of the most important evolutionary ecologists of our time, whose research interests have ranged from paleobiology to community ecology, and now, most recently, conservation biology. Their excellent research would be impossible if Intelligent Design or some other kind of creationism was indeed a “scientific theory”; only modern evolutionary theory has enabled them to pose the interesting questions that have led to their successful work. If we are to conquer the 21st Century challenges posed by the spread of virulent disease like HIV/AIDS, the invasions of alien species of animals and plants in North American ecosystems, and the economic damage caused by agricultural pests like aphids, then we can do so only via the science of evolutionary biology, not by invoking creationism’s scientifically discredited ideas dating from the 18th Century and before.
From a religious perspective, as a Deist, I can sympathize with your – and Governor Palin’s - difficulties in accepting modern evolutionary theory. However, great religions like Roman Catholic Christianity see no conflict between modern evolutionary theory and a belief in God. There are many religiously devout scientists, such as eminent ecologist Dr. Michael L. Rosenzweig, Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, noted cell biologist Dr. Kenneth R. Miller, Professor of Biology, Brown University, and distinguished molecular biologist Dr. Francis Collins, the former director of the Human Genome Project, who see no contradiction whatsoever between their own personal devoutly held religious beliefs and their commitment to excellence in scientific research (A distinction that eludes still those like Dr. Behe and Dr. Dembski.). We should render to science, that which is science, and to religion, that which is religion, without confusing these two distinct, but important, parts of our thought. This doesn’t mean that you should sacrifice your own personal, deeply held, religious beliefs for the sake of science. Distinguished vertebrate paleobiologist Michael Novacek, Vice President and Provost, American Museum of Natural History, has stated that it is not his museum’s mission to change people’s religious views, but rather, to educate them on valid mainstream science, of which modern evolutionary theory is a most essential part.
We are engaged in a titanic struggle for America’s soul, according to Brown cell biologist Kenneth R. Miller’s new book, ‘Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul’. Sadly, I must concur with my friend Ken’s dire warning that we are in danger of losing our preeminence in science and technology – and thus our excellent economy – if creationist advocates succeed in inserting outmoded, religiously-derived ideas like Intelligent Design and other forms of creationism into American science classrooms. Our children must be taught valid mainstream science so we can meet successfully the scientific and technological challenges of the 21st Century, so we can ensure that we are “Country First” with regards to American preeminence in science and technology. I strongly encourage you and your staff to talk to distinguished evolutionary biologists like those I have cited, and to read and to reflect upon Ken Miller’s terse book and Republican Federal Judge Jones’ historic landmark ruling at the end of the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial, in which Jones recognized that Intelligent Design is not science, but instead, a religiously derived idea promoted by those seeking to insert their religious beliefs and values into science classrooms. Again, in closing, please recognize that we must keep “Country First” by rejecting any and all attempts to inject religion into science classrooms, of which the most blatant examples are the many, still ongoing, attempts to teach Intelligent Design and other kinds of creationism.
Sincerely yours,
John Kwok
Posted by: John Kwok | September 3, 2008 12:14 PM
McCain isn't going to read that, fool. And it was about as convincing as anything Nisbet pulls out of his ass.
Posted by: Dustin | September 3, 2008 1:07 PM
AP (Anchorage, AK) - Presumptive VP candidate Sarah Palin announced today that her long history of support for creationism was, "foolishly misguided". After receiving a letter from Some Guy on The Internet, Palin has evidently reconsidered her position. "What really sold me on the idea," Palin said, "was Mr. Kwok's list of science journal titles and a reference to his good friend Kenneth Miller. Anyone who has sleepovers with an actual author and even knows a regent from his university must know what he's talking about!"
When asked to comment on this change of opinion, McCain's campaign assured us that they did, in fact, vet Governor Palin. Palin, however, went on to add, "His repeated use of the word 'distinguished' made me really horny. I want to fuck his brains out!" McCain's campaign offices did not return calls asking for clarification on this statement.
Posted by: Dustin | September 3, 2008 1:17 PM
Shouldn't that have been "Michael Behe" in paragraph two?
Posted by: Ranson | September 3, 2008 1:53 PM
You know, I always found Kwok to be a name-dropping sycophant. He likes to insinuate that he is a "player" in the creotard wars, yet no one ever seems to have heard of him. It's nice to find that my instincts were correct. Kwok's a McCain supporter? You know, the guy with a creationist running mate? What fucking retard.
Posted by: H.H. | September 3, 2008 2:20 PM
'Tis the pity that the level of intellectual discourse is far lower here than at PT. Wait, it just occurred to me. Dustin, H. H. and a few others of their scumbag ilk were thrown out of PT.
John
P. S. Have posted my e-mail missive over at a couple of other places online, including PT, and thankfully most of those reacted with the intelligence I've come to expect from them.
P. P. S. Abbie, it might be time to crack the whip on some of these chimps.
Posted by: John Kwok | September 3, 2008 2:33 PM
Speaking of PT, here's what one poster had to say about my lengthy missive to McCain:
"Great letter, but I recall McCain admitting that he personally accepts evolution, and have not seen anything indicating that Palin has any personal 'difficulties' with it. All I know so far is that they think it’s fair to 'teach the controversy'......
"My letter will not be as detailed as yours. Since you covered most of the points I’ll focus on the phony 'critical analysis' that the activists insist is not the same as ID or creationism. But from which (paraphrasing Judge Jones) any reasonable observer will infer as a defense of creationism."
I challenge Dustin and others who choose to act like him to try to sit down and write a coherent, persuasive - and polite - e-mail to Senator McCain that is similar to mine. However, I fully expect that Dustin is incapable of it, since he is just as intellectualy-challenged as the DI IDiot Borg drones posting over at Dembski's Uncommon Descent.
John
Posted by: John Kwok | September 3, 2008 2:53 PM
Posted by: H.H. | September 3, 2008 3:10 PM
Yes, I noticed that some of us chimps still aren't get banned, although John promised to get his good friend Abbie to throw us out. What's the holdup, John?
Posted by: windy | September 3, 2008 3:23 PM
"aren't get banned"
sorry, us chimps don't type so good. Maybe some of my infinite number of chimp buddies will get it right, unless John gets us all banned.
Posted by: windy | September 3, 2008 3:30 PM
Posted by: H.H. | September 3, 2008 3:34 PM